"from Israel's POV: destroy their nuke capability and risk a conventional war with that country"
Do you mean commit a war crime to not risk but taunt Iran into a war?
"or let it continue unabated and get wiped out by the same country"
Why would Iran commit suicide
"incidentally the same country which has officially and loudly vowed to destroy you multiple times"
Saying over and over does not make it true
Iran is fighting IS along side the US and its allies in Iraq
Those references don't qualify as meaning "Iran said" last week or when ever, and yes, translation is the game.
Following your logic "the US" said the same kind of things a lot more times.
" few would consider the top third to be "rich" "
What about the bottom third
No, ISIS is foremost the result of one blunder after another of non-middle eastern powers and their allies'.
Your superficial analysis of the middle east is not very useful.
Call it religious or state retribution, or call it punishment, doing what you forbid is still neurotic.
You can make up reasons that might seem convincing on the surface to a lot of people, but overall you're still encouraging more psychotic behaviors to be carried out.
In other words, when it comes time to decide how to approach a social problem, especially if you're in power, you need to take into account the fact that people will tend to emulate your remedies --and-- emulate your use of faulty logic to justify them.
The subtext is "we need government regulation because free capitalism doesn't work"
Yeah, we have to define 'free market capitalism' and show if it could work without regulation.
Don't restrict the idea of an 'imposer' to only colonization by a homogenous large group in the country that is imposed upon. For example, puppet governments, financial and diplomatic support of dictatorships, mercenaries, wars by proxy, military incursions, wars without ground troupes, all the ways to bias elections, secret service's actions, economic or geopolitical interests, etc.
Now I'm curious about the converters themselves, especially digital to analogue.
"but at the point you place the microphone, you will only get one complex signal"
Thanks -- the movement of the microphone membrane, the speaker cone, or the record stylus -- it's 'one' complex wave.
I'm still wondering about something like this: "Nyquist frequency - The highest frequency *continuous signal* that can be represented by a discreet signal (for a given sampling frequency)"
And what band-limited means in practice.
To simplify, take my original three sinwaves, as the signal progresses there are at least 3 peaks every 19,800th of a second, if I'm sampling at around 40,000 time a second how can I 'catch' all peaks with a sample.
I can see that sampling over time can be taken into account but it seems like a bit much to expect something like say 20 violons each playing a more or less 9.8khz signal at the same time to be faitfully reproduced by sampling at 20khz.
Or am I still missing something.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'summed',
Not sure this is a good example but suppose for input you have a sinewave at 19,800 hz, one at 19,900 hz, and one at 20,000 hz and the second and third wave follow the first by 1/20,000 of a second and 1/19,000 seconds respectively, what would the output look like if you sampled at 41khz?
The video is accurate if one sine or square wave is sampled and reproduced, but what would happen with 3 sinewaves of similar frequency, or with more complex inputs closer to what 'music' looks like.