You could do this using FRS walkie talkies, as long as they have microphone and earphone connections. Or analog telephones. It's been tested multiple times on ham FM walkie talkies. Anything that carries voice should work. The bandwidth is only 1.25 kHz and I think the low end starts at about 700 Hz.
MOS is only for people who want to pay a lot of money. Of the automated processes, the one available to us isn't validated for less than 4K bps codecs.
It would be a great improvement to MOS if there was an open version of POQLA. But the actual customer base for the codec have never even heard of MOS and thus we aren't volunteering to write that. The folks who want to put it in expensive government support systems yet aren't willing to help with testing don't get our sympathy.
We avoid some techniques that would make the noise performance worse. The HF version of the codec doesn't vector quantitize, and doesn't do any delta coding between frames. The current FEC is Golay and we are investigating low-density parity codes.
There is a lot yet unheard about the Ratheon codec, regarding its actual noise performance and how well the listener can distinguish different speakers.
You have the wrong amendments. The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply here because the surveyed targets are not yet being held to answer for any crime and are not being deprived of "liberty" in the sense that the amendment means (i.e. put in jail). The Sixth similarly doesn't apply because there is no prosecution here yet.
The Fourth is more relevant because it governs searches, which is what FISA is all about. The Fourth requires warrants for searches and requires that they be (a) supported by probably cause and (b) judicially sanctioned. There naturally is no adversarial process because the very nature of investigating a crime prevents notifying the accused to prevent destruction of evidence, and the typical remedy is the exclusion of ill-gotten evidence from trial.
While my knee-jerk response is to dislike the FISA court's arguments here, they make sense. FISA doesn't need an advocate for the surveyed, because that advocate cannot effectively do their job without tipping off the suspect. All they can do, essentially, is complain and put up red tape roadblocks.
What FISA needs instead is a court of review and some means for defendants who are prosecuted with evidence found by searches that had the FISA court's sanction to object to and review their decisions to exclude any unconstitutionally obtained evidence from trial. Just like we do for improper warrants in normal criminal trials. Currently, most attempts at that are effectively barred by the state secrets doctrine which is the real Constitutional abomination here. The blanket denial of access to supposed state secrets to parties suing the government or appealing a conviction frequently blocks standing, which prevents a case from going forward on its actual merits.
That is what needs to change. The state secrets doctrine must be revoked or reformed to allow a truly adversarial process. The most logical way of doing this is to grant attorneys for the defense limited clearance to cover all evidence at issue in the trial and to balance it with heavy sanctions for leaking this evidence outside of the court -- including if necessary to his own client. This exception would naturally also extend to any plaintiffs attorneys involved in ethics complaints against a defense attorney who had access to state secrets but is accused of malpractice. Basically, "need to know" is extended to attorneys in a dispute over the issue. We would probably still need to limit access to attorneys with a security clearance instead of just anybody, and we would probably need to bar self-representation when the person in question doesn't have a security clearance.
Up until the past 50 or so years, people who learned about Standard Deviation would do so in environments with far less stimulation and distraction.
They also did so in an environment where they had to do all the math by hand (or with a slide rule).
The math is not difficult. But it is repetetive in the extreme. So unless you were a savant you learned to pay very close attention to the numbers and what they represented. For those of you who didn't take statistics, here's a link to show you how standard deviation is calculated. With only 6 items:
Imagine doing that, by hand, with a hundred items. And that is just finding the standard deviation.
Now you can get the "answer" with nothing more than copy-paste. And if that "answer" doesn't suit you then you tweak the input and get another "answer" a second later.
The problem is that people think they understand statistics when all they know is how to enter numbers into a program to generate "statistics".
They mistake the tools-used-to-make-the-model for reality. Whether intentionally or not.
Heroes fix problems that everyone can see.
Ninjas fix things before anyone can see a problem.
I prefer the ninja approach myself (as you seem to) but it does require either an informed manager or a lot of PR work on your part.
And since we know that informed managers are few and far between
The truth is he might have not felt qualified, but he was admitted to the CS program at MIT, one of the few elite CS departments that really means you are at least +1SD above average IQ, and quite likely +2SD or +3SD.
Possibly. But the point is that because he looked the part he was able to more effectively utilize his intelligence than someone who did not look the part.
If his appearence had been different then there would be obstacles to overcome that he did not have to face.
Hardness is definitely one of the multiplicative factors in the tax.
Not really. If that were the case, then the tax would differ between two jobs of differing hardness but equal pay. But it doesn't. Likewise, if we double or halve the amount of work done at a job, and thus the hardness of the job, but don't change the amount of pay, the taxes remain constant while the hardness varies.
What you're really identifying is that if someone's work hours are doubled or halved, this typically comes hand in hand with a doubling or halving of their pay, which is the actual factor that affects their taxes.
The IRS doesn't care if you pour asphalt or sit at your desk.
"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)