but then they transmit the inaudible signal over the call
Possible, but less likely. The performance characteristics of most modern speakesr on most home quality devices would probably not give you much of a ceiling to transmit. IIIRC, most headphones for examples have frequency response in the 100Hz-30kHz range.
It strikes me that that one way to get around this is to be a bit more careful about signal processing on training - low pass filters filtering might help, or doing some dynamic range compression might help, though resolving higher harmonics in normal voices might be an issue.
This is effectively peer-reviewed science & mathematics doing its job.
Academic publishes potential proof of extremely well-known and difficult problem in mathematics.
Other academics examine proof to see if it contains errors (even though many would hope it doesn't and this famous problem can be solved).
It looks like it does.
Submitter goes away and tries to fix errors.
Repeat until successful/dead (delete as applicable).
Yup, you wanna run Boot Camps?
Then expect to end up with grunts.
Don't expect them to be able to cope with much outside of the narrow parameters they have been given during their "training". And this is also the the big difference between "training" - teaching someone how to perfom a set of well-defined and understood tasks, but not much else, end "education" - giving people the intellectual tools to be able to do things (maybe including the training bits), and some more besides. The problem is, education takes time, and the requirement for the mind of the educated to be shifted from their original position.
But I have noticed an asymmetry.
There is an undercurrent of, if not "anti-science", then "science ambivalence". Amongst people I know who are numerate, and scientifically literate, their interest in science is accompanied by a love of different kinds of art. Many play musical instruments, for example. Their enthusiasm and hunger for culture is not dimmed by their love of science.
Amongst the artists I know, there is more reticence about science. Even fear. Perhaps this is because of experiences early in life, and the way the world is presented to us at school and as children. Perhaps the natural curiosity the might have had has been extinguished by bad maths and science teaching. When it comes to beauty and science, I'm with Richard Feyman. knowing about the photochemistry of a flower, and the biology of a flower, and the physics of photosynthesis doesn't take away from the flower's beauty. It only adds; it only makes the flower even more wondrous.
Historically, the master's degree was the licence to practice. The Doctorate was the licence to teach. Most of the degree structures we have came from the British system, and these were attached to the practice of Divinity and a life in the church. The degree was merely the first step and a general education, and even that, traditionally was limited to logic, rhetoric & literature (how to structure an argument, present an argument, and sprinkle it with juicy quotes from history). Now, of course, the PhD has a sightly different function, because of the push to specialism. It simply proves you can do research, that you have the resolve and the tools to do the work in your field and be worthy of being though a peer in it.. As time has gone on, even degrees became more specialised, until we have today's landscape.
Actually, the world needs polymaths more than ever it did right now. Why? Because of the dizzying pace of change, we are entering a cultural Babel, with increasing numbers of mutually incomprehensible disciplines and specialism. Increasingly, no one really speaks the others' language. Even half a century ago, CP Snow knew this when he talked about the idea of the Two Cultures, and the fact that science and art were moving further apart. The snobbery and disdain he encountered from people like FR Leavis for daring to say this was appalling, but he was right. There remains a divide, tragically.
Polymaths are the bridges between disciplines, like Rosetta Stones. Their knowledge of two (or more) different things gives them an insight that others do not have. They can understand connectedness and transferability more than others. They see parallels where others may not, and may be able to better explain to others what those parallels and connections are. They help, in some small way, to keep those things from fragmenting entirely. Ironically, given their huge value, we still obsess on the cult of specialism, and don't really appreciate the true polymath when we have them, Specialism has its place, to be sure, but without the polymaths this knowledge is doomed to be partial, because its applicability outside of those specialisms can never be truly appreciated or exploited.
The WONKAVATOR
PLEASE.
"Mobile" is pretty much the descriptor of choice already
The wallet, the camera, the other stuff? all nice, but the key feature is that it's portable. Mobile is the key property we're looking at. You could go German and call it ein Handy, but that's more than a bit camp. I quite like the Japanese keitai (handheld)
Relying on a single source is generally a very bad idea. Consider aggregating several. For instance, here in the UK, I skim:
All are decent for international news (esp al J and BBC World Service) I avoid the Mall, Express and the so-called "red tops" for anumber of reasons, but mostly because they are basically shite, and hugely annoying to read.
I have stopped watching TV news altogether (even in the UK there are complaints about TV news bias, even though impartiality is supposed to be regulated by the agency OfCom).. I'll hear some radio news occasionally but I don't search for it. I don't do talk radio, for much the same reason If I want to look at US news, I skim
I will from time to time scan twitter for trends, then go look at them on the news sources I use to get some kind of cross-section of opinion. Relying on a single point of truth in news reporting is, in the modern era, a mistake, I think it wiser to spread your attention.
"But in a democracy it's irrelevant what a minority thinks. A majority of British voters voted for Brexit; it's that simple."
Yup, true. No diagreeing from me. Those of us who didn't couldn't win the argument. So we're stuck with the resulting clusterfuck, unless we get out (under consideration). That said, one of the amazing things about democracy is just how fickle the people can be. The mobilis vulgaris can change their collective mind about things very quickly. I think the next two years may concentrate some minds quite intensely as they realise what they were promised simply isn't going to happen without them personally suffering quite a lot of pain as a result. A deeply cynical part of me is half convinced that this is actually May's tactic - to make the Brexit process so utterly awful it forces public opinion to flip
"You're the ones who voted for Brexit. It's not just the US that's nuts."
Yes, Spot on. I agree with you. But it doesn't stop us laughing at the tangerine ballsack.
Realy? For around 70 years, Europe would beg to disagree, with largely social democratic governments and social policy: socialised education, healthcare, economic development. The EU is an essentially social democratic institution. And quite a lot of the British electorate think that what's going on here is almost as batshit as what's going on in the States. Incidentally, there's a reason Breaking Bad is set in America. Here, he'd just get the treatment, without the threat of destitution
"Obama as an extreme populist" - boy, this tells you exactly how much the political life of the US has been polluted in the last thirty years. Mainstream US politics and media have totally lost their minds. And the world is looking at the US like it's off its tits on PCP. Which of course it is. You do realise we are not looking it you in admiration or respect. We're actually either laughing at you, or crying at how tragic it all is.
Bingo! And that's the killer.
To use those features, users would have to be inside the fb ecosystem, but Facebook's problem is that it is now the indoor plumbing of social media. A necessary evil, weird if you don't use it at least some of the time, but hardly fun for most, and certainly not for the people they are targetting. Snapchat's user base probably won't bite.
Snapchat's demographics, and some of its use cases (let's be honest, sexting and porn are part of this), just don't overlap with Facebook. And the introduction of products like Spectacles points this up even more.It's also (from a personal point of view) interesting that I do use snapchat a little, but I have absolutely no inclination to use those features on any of the fb services - that's not what I'm there for. I could be an edge case, but I suspect that I'm not unusual enough for it to cause major problems for snap.
There are still plenty of these types of shows, and many of them still survive (mostly) on the BBC, even in spite of the fairly savage cuts of the past few years. It's especially the case in local radio, with the like sof BBC Introducing, which gives new bands a chance to get their stuff played.And this filters up to the national stations like Radio 1 and 6musc. Up in the north of England, people like Nick Roberts in Newcastle and Bob Fischer on Tees do a stirling job. And they manage to get a lot of new and or unusual stuff stuff even into daytime where they can. There are certainly similar things going on on the BBC's Manchester and Liverpool stations too.
However, because of the current climate, even this kind of stuff is under threat. Fischer was doing a weeknight show until a couple of years ago, but now hes been put into a single Saturday evening slot. Two hours instead of 10 a week, replaced with an identikit show that aggregates regional content badly across the network. That's a bad national levle decision that has emasculated local content a fair bit.
Then there are the national stations. Radio 1 & 1xtra have specialist programming, especially evening on R1; there's also 6music for a more "mature" audience. The lack of advertising is actually a positive advantage.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
