"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Even today he denied the mention of angle yet posted a post with a cosine
identity in it. Whether he doesn't know math(s) to even that level or it
was a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts, I leave for others to
decide. Hint: In the UK, even a KS3 pupil (about 13) knows that sines,
cosines, etc. refer to angles.

The only sine Beanie knows anything about is the "double dickhead" sign to
be waved to other road users.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk

"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message ...

Even today he denied the mention of angle yet posted a post with a
cosine identity in it. Whether he doesn't know math(s) to even that
level or it was a blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts, I leave
for others to decide. Hint: In the UK, even a KS3 pupil (about 13)
knows that sines, cosines, etc. refer to angles.

The only sine Beanie knows anything about is the "double dickhead" sign
to be waved to other road users.

Whatever happened to that Notice of Intended Prosecution he was issued for
that incident? Most unlike Gareth to clam up had he got one over on the
plods.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 25/02/2015 13:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/25/2015 1:41 AM, rickman wrote:

That is a value judgement which most would disagree with not to mention
that your example is not valid. MP3 does not *remove* anything from the
signal. It is a form of compression that simply can't reproduce the
signal exactly. The use of the term "poor" is your value judgement.
Most people would say an MP3 audio sounds very much like the original.


That is a value judgement that all experts agree with - and an area I
have been intimately involved with for the last 13 years. You also
don't understand how mp3 works.

All experts agree that when comparing mp3 to the original, there is a
significant difference.

I think that there is a semantics issue here.

MP3 is lossy, it cannot be used to reproduce the original but it does
not 'remove' signal, they get lost.

IIRC some sound encoding deliberately removes some frequencies if the
are low amplitude and are close to a higher amplitude frequency.

Loses is passive, the data just gets lost. Remove implies some active
removal of data.

Andy

On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy

On 25/02/2015 19:08, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

But ... if EVERYONE else was wrong that included the author of the booK
he was quoting from.
Time for a drinK

Thanks very much. Kind of you to offer. Mine's a nice bitter, maybe a
Harviestoun Bitter and Twisted if they have it.

Andy

En el artículo , FranK Turner-Smith
G3VKI escribió:

The only sine Beanie knows anything about is the "double dickhead" sign to
be waved to other road users.

LOL!

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::

On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:49:37 +0000, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:


The only sine Beanie knows anything about is the "double dickhead" sign
to be waved to other road users.

A double dickhead? Zaphod Beanie-box?

On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:23:14 +0000, gareth wrote:

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

Sadly, Michael, your efforts were wasted on Gareth. He wouldn't have
understood a single word you said.

You continue to post messages which are nothing but abuse.

You continue to post messages which are nothing but accusations of abuse.

"robert bristow-johnson" wrote in message
...

..another of his rather silly and childish outbursts ...

Robert, you still exhibit the infantile fixation that you exhibited 10 years
ago.

Shame on you.

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...

Whatever happened to that Notice of Intended Prosecution he was issued for
that incident? Most unlike Gareth to clam up had he got one over on the
plods.

It remains that 100% of your postings consist of rather silly and infantile
personal remarks.

As amateur radio is a technical pursuit, and you yourself elected to
cross post to comp.dsp which is even more technical, why not make
your first technical post ever, since you first arrived to pollute Usenet
just over 2 years ago with your tirades of abuse?

I think that you lack any technical acumen and your bluster
is your attempt to cover up.