[1]The closest thing you have to latency in these circuits is slew-rate, which is measured in volts per _nano_seconds. There are also the phase shift/distortions that the GP mentions, but the truth is these are practically impossible for humans to perceive in any real sense. 'specially for audio frequencies and circuits that aren't garbage.
Oh. Such as either voting for what the people of the state believe or truly need, instead of bending over backwards for the major campaign contributors, screwing the people of the state over?
So I guess we have to reduce our options to corn meal, soy paste, and glucose-fructose.
North Americans are in trouble.........
Which are all pretty much moot points if you don't have an inclination to understand the underlying tech. How does one maintain that which they don't understand?
I don't build my own cars. I don't have the tech, time, and general wherewithal to do so, especially to modern North American standards.
What I _DO_ do however, is learn how to use the features of the car and know how to drive it defensively, as opposed to thinking I should be able to snooze at the wheel.
That's the point the GP was making, making the whooshing sound as it passed you by.
Telephone cables work well for telephones/RS-422/etc... For any other uses they are generally garbage.
Just say no to 'recycled' phone lines.
As for finding a clear frequency, yeah, I never thought of that one
Any internet connected machine will control the audio programming, and any old FM-radio will do the trick of receiving the signal. Simple. Effective. _AND_ Wife-Friendly(TM) (at least, according to my wife
Because of FM-modulation, this technique is not hi-fi. But a decent transmitter does an admirable job in retaining audio quality.
Really. That's the whole fucking point! We value all the wrong things...
In fact, it was only a few days ago that Dilbert's company suggested the same thing.
See? Same old same old.....
Sure, gravity works. But that's not the purpose of the lab. Rather, it's the analytical method that is being explored, as well as the strong links between the pure math and the physical world. And sure, those first year labs are rather dull. (My first uni chem lab was making a solution from Kool-aid. No joke.)
But even by 2nd/3rd year chem/physics courses, you were doing some neat stuff. Like using real radioisotopes and Geiger counters to measure the half-life (and hence determine the isotope itself) of an unknown element.
Think Timmy's chem set will include some radioactive Cesium?
But again, this is speaking from a "hard physical sciences" point of view. CS "labs" are really more "assigned time in your schedule to do assignments". Same for Math. Indeed, YMMV
While I agree with your point (I stayed at university long enough to get a PhD, so I'm naturally biased towards believing that it is beneficial), a university is not the only way of getting that kind of education. My stepfather is a good counterexample. He never went to university, but instead spent several years backpacking around the world (picking fruit and doing similar jobs to earn enough to make the next leg of the journey). He met all sorts of interesting people doing that, and read whatever was available wherever he was staying, so got a very broad education along the way.
Which kind of proves the original point: your father never attended a "real" uni per se, but he sure as hell didn't say home "discovering" the world at his couch via an internet connection. Indeed, his "university" was quite possibly one of the best for those who are best suited for it.
And while you weren't the one to mention it, but seeing as I'm posting here, being a student of the physical sciences myself (physics/chem) has shown me what REAL labs are like: the equipment required, the safety concerns that must be met, and the general stock of gear and chemicals.... "shipping a chemistry set"? That made me laugh....
Now you can 'delete' that history with a push of a button.
Mind you, both formats have their benefits, and the practicality of digital is hard to beat. But I propose this philosophical question:
If a picture is worth deleting, was it not worth the effort to snap in the first place? As a bit of an amateur photog myself (using both formats), if I make the effort to frame a shot then I will want a permanent copy of it.
Now, perhaps because digital is so convenient folks have taken to hitting the shutter release before thinking 'enough light? in focus? proper framing?' But that's another topic...
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
