At 11:01 -0800 10-01-2010, Lux, Jim (337C) wrote:
On 1/10/10 9:24 AM, "J.D. Bakker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...] readable by a causal bystander.
...is one of the most apropos typoes I've ever seen.
Indeed... But it could be right, eh? After all, something in the past led
them to look at the clock and attempt to read it?
"I just looked at the clock, and now I know what time it is" [1]
> [whose customers are often pushing for acausal filters]
Acausal? Or non-causal? Or "reverse causal" (anticausal)
Acausal, usually. It often boils down to some variant of:
"Can you fix this sampled low-pass filter so that its impulse
response peaks at t=0?"
JD "I'll fix yer filter right proper, sah" B.
[1] Yes, I know there are several things that are wrong with such a
statement, to a pedant of a time-nuttish persuasion. Still, Aristotle
would broadly approve.
--
In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- RFC 1925, "Fundamental Truths of Networking"
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
