|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
61.92.153.149
In Reply to: RE: I have just read this and posted by Tony Lauck on March 17, 2014 at 08:31:36
Tony,
I think for marketing their use of Zero is entirely appropriate and consistent with current practice.
The use of "Zero" for something meaning "very low" is common (e.g. Coke Zero Soda, ArticZero Icecream, "Zero Emission" anything etc.).
So the only pants on fire belong to someone who goes out of his way to stir up trouble and negativity over what amounts to common practice.
BTW, if you read the paper closely, it only claims "zero source jitter", not "absolute zero".
Alas, I am not "into" bitcoin yet, but let me see what can be done.
"They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;
They pursued it with forks and hope;
They threatened its life with a railway-share;
They charmed it with smiles and soap"
Ciao T
Sometimes I'd like to be the water
sometimes shallow, sometimes wild.
Born high in the mountains,
even the seas would be mine.
(Translated from the song "Aus der ferne" by City)
Follow Ups:
For me, zero means zero. My training is in mathematics and that starts out with the integers. :-) I would take a capitalized phrase as a trademark, as in "Coke Zero Soda." For this reason, I did not take exception to the phrase "Zero Jitter Mode". Here the term can easily be taken to be a name that reflects a design goal and it would be foolish for a purchaser to take this as a assertion that this goal was met. (But IANAL and nor familiar with the draconian U.K. advertising rules.)
The phrase that I take exception to is in fmak's original quote: "With this new and completely jitterless clock" Specifically, I take exception with the use of the word "completely" as this is physically not possible. "Totally eliminating jitter from the source" may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there is enough ambiguity in the phrase "from the source" to pass on this. Your white paper used the phrase, "zero source jitter" and this is also okay for the same reason.
I did a four year stint in the 1970's as the product manager for a line of computer data communications devices and got to write product requirements, user manuals, marketing brochures and white papers. I took great care in my selection of wording, so that my pants would never get more than slightly warm. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Integers only exist in your imagination. There always are measurement errors...+ something else (?).
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.
"God made the integers; all else is the work of man."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Coca-Cola Zero's nutritional information reads: 0 Calories, 0g Fat, 0g Total Carbs, 0g Protein , 70mg Sodium.
And a good helping of brain rotting chemicals.
I'd like to see a diseased brain on the side of the can - like the folks on cigarette cartons.
And a big ole hippo on regular soda cans and candy bars. "This is you if you eat/drink this stuff"
McDonald's big M should stand for MOOOOOOOOOO!
And a good helping of brain rotting chemicals.
And exactly which would those be? The list of ingredients is not hidden.
Aspartame gets a lot of bad press - possibly deserved possibly unfairly vilified. The trouble is separating fact from fiction - not automatically trusting whatever the government (and especially any company) tells you but also not landing in the world of conspiracy theory.
Real Science says it's safe http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/04/12/artificial_sweetener_aspartame_isnt_bad_for_you_106508.html
Although it is important to note that a given substance may be safe in itself may not be when mixed with something else - Gun is safe - gun in crazy person's hand is not.
I think it's fair to say that if company A puts out a product like cigarettes - the goal of this product is to get people addicted to the product and keep buying it. If people get sick and get cancer then that's the taxpayer or government or individual who have to pick up the medical costs. Ciggy companies bury lawsuits in the legal system.
The company makes money. I think whether conservative or Liberal people can generally agree that big business is about making themselves bigger (financially) and we see history littered with companies who choose profits over people. Car companies for example that knew they could spend $2 a car to fix a fatal flaw but chose instead to pay out lawsuits because it was cheaper to the bottom line. Profit over people every time - and those cars passed whatever crummy government inspections that existed or still exist.
With lobbying and the financial clout of business they can direct all sorts of policy and bypass safety standards - and in countries that hate paying tax they usually skimp on government checks and rely on companies to self regulate - which is laughable because they will choose profits over safety.
This doesn't necessarily mean ingredients are toxic but putting profit above personal safety is not exactly something new. And swamping the safety concerns in a sea of vague attacks on science is nothing new.
Pay off a few scientists to come out against an issue can cloud the issue for most people enough for them to "doubt" the established scientific community. In other words if you buy off 2% of scientists to say the rest of the science community is wrong and you find a couple of grains of truth then it's enough to question the "Theory" and create doubt. Similar to the Theory of Evolution which is proven to the same degree that gravity is proven but not absolute. It opens the door to have completely baseless views like I.D. be viewed as a 50-50 proposition.
Take these examples on Diet Soda:
"11-year-long Harvard Medical School study of more than 3,000 women, researchers found that diet cola is associated with a two-fold increased risk for kidney decline. Kidney function started declining when women drank more than two sodas a day. Even more interesting: Since kidney decline was not associated with sugar-sweetened sodas, researchers suspect that the diet sweeteners are responsible."
"2008 University of Minnesota study of almost 10,000 adults, even just one diet soda a day is linked to a 34% higher risk of metabolic syndrome, the group of symptoms including belly fat and high cholesterol that puts you at risk for heart disease."
"A University of Texas Health Science Center study found that the more diet sodas a person drank, the greater their risk of becoming overweight. Downing just two or more cans a day increased waistlines by 500%. Why? Artificial sweeteners can disrupt the body's natural ability to regulate calorie intake based on the sweetness of foods, suggested an animal study from Purdue University. That means people who consume diet foods might be more likely to overeat, because your body is being tricked into thinking it's eating sugar, and you crave more."
"In a study of 59,334 pregnant women in Denmark, 1 serving per day of diet drinks was associated with a 38% increased risk of preterm delivery. 4 servings per day increased the risk by 78%"
"Cocktails made with diet soda get you drunker, faster, according to a study out of the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia. That's because sugar-free mixers allow liquor to enter your bloodstream much quicker than those with sugar, leaving you with a bigger buzz."
"Diet sodas contain something many regular sodas don't: mold inhibitors. They go by the names sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate, and they're in nearly all diet sodas. But many regular sodas, such as Coke and Pepsi, don't contain this preservative.
That's bad news for diet drinkers. "These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it--they knock it out altogether," Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology at the University of Sheffield in the U.K., told a British newspaper in 1999. The preservative has also been linked to hives, asthma, and other allergic conditions, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Since then, some companies have phased out sodium benzoate. Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi have replaced it with another preservative, potassium benzoate. Both sodium and potassium benzoate were classified by the Food Commission in the UK as mild irritants to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes."
"With a pH of 3.2, diet soda is very acidic. (As a point of reference, the pH of battery acid is 1. Water is 7.) The acid is what readily dissolves enamel, and just because a soda is diet doesn't make it acid-light. Adults who drink three or more sodas a day have worse dental health, says a University of Michigan analysis of dental checkup data. Soda drinkers had far greater decay, more missing teeth, and more fillings."
"Drinking diet soda can also lead to bone loss. This is because the phosphoric acid in the soda causes calcium in your bloodstream to be excreted more quickly than normal through urine. Your bones then give up some of their calcium in order to keep the bloodstream calcium level constant."
So are the above proven? No because in each case there could be other factors influencing the findings. Is there enough here to say "gee maybe I should consider drinking water or lemon tea or something just in case the above are actually true.
Similar is global warming. There is some disagreement - and there are profit motives on both sides - oil wants to protect selling oil and digging for it. They want to say Global warming is BS - the other side has all these profit ventures selling alternative energy so they could, I suppose, be inventing a fictitious problem to sell their goods.
So like an audio reviewer - I'd like to find individual trustworthy scientists and in numbers and then I can be better able to support one side or the other.
If I arrive at an "I don't know" or the "Science may be right or wrong" then I look at the logical outcomes of supporting either stance. Something like this science teacher did with Climate Change"
I lived in China - it is advisable to use alternate energy just for living in a clean air environment even if the anti-science crowd thinks pollution doesn't kill people or affect climate change - it should be changed just for how it looks.
"Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food. "
The FDA on aspartame
The link is a 2007 FDA knock down of a poorly done study relating aspartame to cancer in rats.
2011-2013 (There are other ingredients in there not just aspartame) - This is about diet pop not aspartame itself.
Two-fold increased risk for kidney decline (Harvard) - I mean if Harvard med is wrong then the best University in your country may as well just close for being incompetent boobs.
Then again Harvard is overrated as I studied under a Harvard professor and I asked him "I guess this A- would be a C at Harvard" and he replied "No at Harvard it would be an A+" I had that confirmed years later with a Harvard Grad who got a B on an assignment and she said "so in other words I failed." The reasons are interesting but off topic.
University of Minnesota study -- just one diet soda a day is linked to a 34% higher risk of metabolic syndrome.
"Artificial sweeteners can disrupt the body's natural ability to regulate calorie intake based on the sweetness of foods, suggested an animal study from (Purdue University)"
It's great if Diet Soda doesn't cause cancer - but cancer isn't the only thing that can kill you.
I'm not taken to worrying about having "all my precious bodily fluids sapped and impurified". :)
There are other ingredients in there not just aspartame
I'll ask the question again:
And exactly which would those {*brain rotting chemicals*} be?
Edits: 03/20/14
Is there a reason you rely 100% on what the FDA says in 2007 but not what Harvard says in 2011?
Do you think the US Food and Drug Administration chartered to "Protecting and Promoting Your Health" doesn't continually review credible claims as they come along?
Sorry, I just don't share your paranoia. :)
Start with this article.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Some of the claims in that link seem very far fetched, however. I won't touch the stuff. I decided on the available evidence that Aspartame is something that is very likely unhealthy and that I should not consume it.
Dave
I don't hear the Black Helicopters circling.
That is because they are the secret invisible silent helicopters.
Just kidding! I couldn't help myself!
Dave
The black helicopters are attacking!!! My security software lists the linked page as an "attack page". :-(
Stay healthy. You are on the right track. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."
This is all BS. The use of statistics where results are done at the typical 5% level is subject to all kinds of selection problems. There is an obvious economic motive to do this selection. Real science, e.g. physics, uses statistics properly (e.g. 5 and 6 sigma) and even then runs into the occasional problem of screw ups (e.g. CERN "faster than light" neutrinos, but these results didn't survive peer review).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sorry, but I'm not finding the source of your assumptions.
If you followed the link, it relates to their review of the European study. FDA's own studies date back twenty years and are quite numerous.
I haven't read, nor am I going to read, government statistical studies. The phrase "government statistics" is itself an oxymoron where regulatory agencies are involved. Any intelligent person understands that regulatory agencies are captured by the industries they are regulating.
As I said, I tried aspartame. It didn't work and it made me ill. That's good enough for me.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I haven't read, nor am I going to read, government statistical studies.
I guess there's nothing to discuss. :)
"Coca-Cola Zero's nutritional information reads: 0 Calories, 0g Fat, 0g Total Carbs, 0g Protein, 70mg Sodium."
This is compelled speech. One has to read the FDA regulations to interpret these numbers. No doubt there will be a standard somewhere for measurement accuracy.
In the food business, companies take these regulations quite seriously. A friend used to be the plant manager of a potato chip company before he retired. They had a machine that measured the quantity of potato chips going into each package. This machine was cleverly designed to ensure that package contents were never below the labeled amount. By using highly accurate scales they were able to set a low threshold of extra weight. The machine used a clever mechanism that allowed for the excess weight to be far less than the weight of a single chip. My friend said that the machine had cost $250K and paid for itself in material savings in months.
Not so much in high end audio...
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony,
Reading it now, I need to have a word with our marketing people, I think someone got carried away a trifle. Anyway, revising this gives us a chance to claim"Femto-Clock" status instead, which is ever somuch more fashionable these days.
I do proof read things, but some stuff gets through. Remember, the marketing people are paid to hype things...
Ciao T
Sometimes I'd like to be the water
sometimes shallow, sometimes wild.
Born high in the mountains,
even the seas would be mine.
(Translated from the song "Aus der ferne" by City)
first you try to gloss over things; then you eat humble pie.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: