Ham

the way I'm reading Shannon.. people generally make colored noise, and the color of the noise depends on how many other humans are talking at the same time..

Shannon and three kilohertz.. this is kind of cool. When the alcohol wears off, I will look a little more closely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem shannon was researching what kind of bandwidth was needed to accurately communicate data in a dirty channel.. that is, trying to communicate when everybody else could not STFU. In other words, a noisy channel.. the amount of talking increases bandwidth, to begin with.. add to that the interference due to a lot of other of us talking at the same time.. if the noise is cyclic, it is easy to punch out.. if it is random, the rules change.. the more voices you add to the channel, the more they tends to follow some chotic order.. less open spaces to express themselves.. makes sense to me.

I could panic as well.. you may or may not want to know the details. My form of "panic" would involve not unemployment, but under, under, under employment. Something along the lines of involuntary servitude.. if that's what *they* think I am only worthy of.. my qualifications DEMAND.. at least four times the wages.. along with medical benefits, retirement benefits.. but I find myself not being able to pay for what I invested for the "privilege" to work. Employed? Yes. But I may end up living in a cardboard box during the last few years of my labor.. Panic? no.. it will do no good. But I still often wake up suddenly in the night.. things could be worse. I just can't figure out how at this point.. If I had any children under my care at the moment, now yes. This would be the time to panic..

perhaps.. but unlike vic, newton was brilliant, if but for a brief moment.. he stood on the shoulder of giants.. and saw a little further. He didn't plagiarize and claim that the Shoulders of the World were his vewy own.. sowy Raf. I'm on the second tall beer. Just back from the store.. Hawkings is cool.. on about page three he is willing to make fun of the human perception of the universe.. asks the question, why our model is fundamentally better than the one (or ones) before.. we just have a better magnifying lens today.. off topic, I know.. but I don't think there is even a topic anywhere else in GS that this fits.. but isn't the twi interpretation of tongues a mere MODEL of something, that sometime, somewhere, in a galaxy, far far away, may have made sense to somebody, once, long ago..

I dunno.. maybe I'll get started on Newton tonight.. did you know his successor did not have good words for him? Hawkings said that newton "was not a pleasant man".. and it was an under-statement..

Raf, I hope your life is not flashing before your eyes.. your thread rapidly disintegrating.. I'll BRB. Need to take a trip to the store. It is only two blocks away.

only if I walk to the store, purchase another said beer, or two, and consume them. I am only at the cusp.

"can" is subjective.. but in the organization, yes, they tried.. yep. true. Yes.. affirmative. It was actually tried..

Maybe the thought is.. the more intelligence conveyed, the more bandwidth required. That was what Shannon contributed to the radio and electronics art.. I'm a weird mixture of "stuff".. math was my weak point.. I did my best to try to fix that, this time around.. generally I'm an experimenter. a novice. I had a ham radio license long before I had a college degree.. I think wierwille required very, very little bandwidth.

even Morse Code.. it is on and off keying. as you increase the speed of turning a continuous wave, or single frequency on and off.. an interesting thing happens.. it demands more room, in terms of frequency..

Time-division multiplexing works better with digital stuff than voice and analog.. but it still eats up bandwidth, the same as it's analog counterpart..

Bell liked the idea of frequency division muliplexing. In other words, ways to use one cable by selectively converting phone conversations into frequency separated, non-interfering channels on the same cable. Then you have one cable performing (theoretically) the same job that a hundred cables did before.. It costs a lot to run a single wire from one end of town to the other..

The short story is that Shannon tried to figure out the minimum amount of bandwidth to convey information.. I think two and a half kilohertz is about the minimum for spoken information.. Single Sideband transmissions take about 3 kilohertz per channel. More than enough for a human to recognize the intent and content of another's speech.. I might not be exact on the numbers here. Bell labs made extensive use of this kind of research. This WAS about money.. they wanted to figure out how many phone conversations they could intelligently crowd on a congested cable.

Raf, I hope this whole thing wasn't over a wager.. You're still my friend.. but. I've revealed secrets of my soul here, along the way.. but no problem. it's nothing I haven't talked about publicly, here or somewhere else.. Like the professor who asked me "what got you on this.." my first response was.. "I'm not sure if you really want to know.." "Naw.. go ahead.." well, you asked.. I will still send you the resulting paper, if you would like to see it.

Perhaps. But I'm still thinking.. in a known language, fluently spoken by a native so to speak.. we would expect to find the occurrences of sounds to follow some kind of pattern.. as far as statistics are concerned. statistically speaking.. for example, the number of times a person spoke a word that sounds like "dog" vs. the times one speaks a sound of different character.. I am by far no specialist here. But it just seems.. how many words do we speak in the english language? after a few years, would they follow some kind of normal distribution? if tongues were a language, would we or would we not expect the same kind of pattern.. in terms of the number of words spoken, and their statistical number of occurrences? wow.. three posts in between. Lively thread, Raf.. my current post was in regards to this statement.

No, I never did. Though you could probably do all kinds of neat things with computers, Fourier analysis, etc.. Probability distributions with the different kinds of sounds.. maybe somebody has, but I have not heard of it. It is an interesting idea though. They have software where computers can do voice recognition.. there has to be some statistical analysis that might apply, at least as to the reasonableness whether it is some kind of "language" to begin with..

maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. one man's "junk" is another man's treasure..

maybe people need another frame of reference.. I've seen/ had some pretty wild things happen.. and I've gone through several models before I came to a rational, half-way believable explanation of what happened.. at least as to my own personal satisfaction.. in at least one or two cases, the jury is still out. "something" happened. And its just your word, against mine.. but at the end of the day, I have to live with myself. If you think with s.i.t., "something really happened".. I wouldn't settle for a half-baked, abusive alcoholic and nicotine addicted abusers explanation.. just a couple of thoughts. Carry on. I won't interrupt again.. unless you wish.

just a question.. say that what we know as sit is NOT sit as supposedly known in the early church. Would that make it meaningless? OBVIOUSLY the practice is not speaking in a known language. At least as far as in recent times being genuinely documented.. and the interpretation messages.. not in any way can they be shown to even reflect what someone spoke in a tongue.. if even anything was spoken to begin with.. but does that make the practice actually meaningless? Maybe that's what troubles some here. Meaningless, yes. As far as in way terms, definitions and conditions.. maybe other terms need to be considered..

I wish we lived in the same Zip Code, friend..

after two, three, four, or some such beers, I generally have far too much to say. Thankfully, the reader can tell. Generally, I don't slur and miss-spell my words. there HAVE been a few times here.. OldSkool usually picks up on it first.. "the Squirrel is Drunk, tonight.."

It's fun to be able to do that in dreams..

today was maybe only the second or third one I've ever had.. I've had math classes emerge from chaos, to perfection, so to speak.. did you know that there are two decimal representations for the number one.. there is: 1.00000000000000000000000 (keep adding zeros as long as you wish..) then there is 0.9999999999999 (keep adding nines..) Could you actually prove that both are the same? So we are in math 097. after a very, very short version of math 096.. at first, I objected to going through math 097 material so fast. but now.. everybody who had a millionth of an inclination is in math 097. So they already know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide real numbers.. maybe we can really learn something here, other than the mindless repetition of a few rules.. and they loved it.. these students actually have more than half a chance to understand advanced calculus..

I faced my aloneness and wrongness alone once.. it's nice to be able to do that in terms of a community.. :) when my "wrongness" looked me square in the eye.. I still had the logic of mathematics to keep (at least the logical or practical side of) me going.. true story. well.. true. at least as far as one could take it as true..

I really liked Bullinger's Companion Bible. The one I had has long since disintegrated, and is currently resting in peace at the local land fill. I didn't "lose" anything. So many notes, I refused to add more.. no dechomais and lambanos, no way interpretations or anything.. not a drop of ink except for enough to inscribe my name. I thought the structures were kind of cool. Bullinger died before the work was complete. Guess who finished it.. it was not Welch. Bullinger's survivor rejected Welch, claiming that he'd fundamentally change what Bullinger had in mind..