It was 1974, long before the Nat Semi paper, and we had not read the Motchenbacher & Fitchen book yet. 🙂
Thermal noise in field effect transistors, A. van der Ziel, Proc. IRE, vol. 50, pp. 1808–1812 (1962).
It might be for some people and or under some circumstances. The most important thing is probably not an admission, but some willingness to adjust one's position as one learns more.
Unfortunately, lay people prefer and have greater trust in experts who are absolutely certain in their beliefs (hence, the experts one sees on Fox News). Experts who express a lot of conditionals and or talk in probabilities are boring and don't seem to be sure of anything.
"...Is it really that difficult to admit having made an error? "
If your worldview is shaped by dogma, metaphysics and 'belief systems', its absolutely impossible.
The only thing you can do it keep digging . . .
🙂
If your worldview is shaped by dogma, metaphysics and 'belief systems', its absolutely impossible.
The only thing you can do it keep digging . . .
🙂
I have more time to banter here because my immediate work has a number of hurry up and wait steps, but also means I'm putting in some serious hours.
I reserve the right to misremember things 🙂, so it'll be best for me to reread and give a better response then.
Soundandmotion-- they were mostly jaes papers, but again, I need to track down what I did in fact read. The thread moves quick so it's easy to miss posts, so apologies if I did that to you.
What relevance has evidence of brain activity caused by ultrasonic sound shown in fMRI scans to do with how we perceive stereo audio reproduction in our rooms?
Control of soundstage positioning (perception)with ultrasonics is something being worked on.
And probably no relevance here but something to do with focusing/pinpointing distribution.
Last edited:
JAES or AES conference papers/presentations? JAES is peer-reviewed, but their conference papers are only sometimes. I'd guess you know what impact factors are, right? JAES is very low.
If you get a chance, that would be great. No rush. The thread *does* zoom by... no worries.
That is the question! I don't think they have been tied together in a study, but I don't know. It is easy to speculate relevance, but I won't now.
Your question is great; I don't get why their work is challenged so much when all skeptics have to do is ask that.
Unborn babies in the womb listen to the world around them with ultrasound. The process of birth deafens them. Sound travels through air water and skin. What is an ear but an organised piece of skin. We listen through our skin as well as our ears. Skin will hear ultrasound while the adult ear will not.
Just thoughts. Tos
Maybe the folks that can’t hear the subtleties (95%’ers) were victims of ultrasonic imaging abuse......deafening the poor little fetus ears! 😀
I am serious and will say so when I am not.
I am saying that an alumina coated tungsten wire in an oxide coated nickel sleeve is effectively a BQP in it's own right, is worth auditioning and might be a way of 'tubeifying' the sound of solid state gear.
Dan.
Yes. Well, there certainly is a degradation of degrees and other public exams in the UK. As a general rule, anything involving written exams (so in our case everything up to MSc/MA) will be much lower standard than a few decades ago while research qualifications (PhD, MPhil) are less degraded. Anyone who has been teaching for many years will be aware of this, although not all will be willing to say so in public; younger teachers may be unaware as they grew up in the degraded system.Zung said:
Yes, I am quite sure. So is the eye, and all the bodily orifices - from the perspective of cellular division from a common skin, that is what happens. It explains why at a certain level of foetal development most creatures resemble fish or are fishlike. Even fish that are blind have the evolutionary capability to become sighted.
More thoughts from ToS
- Status
- Not open for further replies.