"But for whistling (as per the original application) or various other sounds, those same three bands will be pretty crap."
I'm not suggesting otherwise. I think you're missing my point, which was that THIS was about voice recognition, not whistling, and he is using a high-tech solution for that where a lower-tech, simpler solution might actually be better.
Nor am I saying we shouldn't do it this way. I'm only saying there are alternatives that might work as well for THIS application, which are also simpler and cheaper.
"Instead of risking starting a flame war by suggesting that Chairman Mao's policies might have had something to do with innovation, especially in the technical arena, I'll just let the honest reader ponder that possibility quietly."
Well, I wasn't trying to suggest anything that specific. Only that it is well-known that even limited protection for what is mistakenly called "intellectual property" was completely non-existent in China for a long time, by design. I think it is pretty obvious that their loosening of the screws in that area is one of the things that has led to their economic improvement.
In the 1970s, a book was published entitled "How To Build Your Own Computer-Controlled Robot". In fact this was one of the books that first got me interested in computing.
The author of the book, a high-school student, built (with the help of his engineer father, I don't want to downplay that) a small robot that had obstacle sensors, light sensors, and some basic mapping capability so it could find its own charging station (not so different from a Roomba today).
But my main point is: it also had effective voice recognition, for simple commands. And the implementation was pretty simple: the audio input was amplified, then sent through 3 notch filters to separate high, medium and low audio frequencies. Each of the 3 frequencies was digitally sampled at about 40kHz. Repeated samples were averaged and saved in a table in memory.
The CPU (and remember, this was a 1970s-era CPU, if I recall an 8080a or a Z-80 or similar) constantly sampled incoming sounds, and when one sufficiently matched one of the stored templates it meant "command received".
It was a simple scheme, and it worked fine. I don't want to detract from this inventor, but in essence he is doing a similar thing. Except instead of using notch filters, he's using FFTs to do the frequency analysis and build (and then compare to) the templates. The ideas aren't all that different.
But personally, I think I'd prefer the old method, as it demonstrably worked at least as well as this, used only a few $ in hardware in addition to the CPU, and was pretty definitely less compute-intensive to achieve.
Keep in mind: that was 40 years ago. Maybe this newer approach has more potential; I don't know. But it certainly doesn't look much different at this time.
It's done all the time. It's called "blocking external domains". And there have been tools available to do that for years.
You can get tools that do that for JavaScript, tools that do that for images or other extra-domain requests. It's isn't rocket science. It's an everyday occurrence.
"What I'm pointing out here is that the constitutional requirement only prevents CA from collecting taxes and fees in other currencies."
No, it doesn't. It prohibits California from recognizing ANYTHING other than gold or silver as legal payment for ANY debt within the state. It isn't just about taxes and fees. It says "make anything but gold or silver a tender in payment of debts". It doesn't just say State debts, or debts to the State.
But I will point out that even if that were true, California is STILL violating the Constitution by accepting U.S. dollars.
Someone else pointed out that dollars are Federal, not State, but that doesn't matter. The Constitution still prohibits a State from accepting them.
As for foreign payments: legally they are supposed to go through a bank or exchange and converted to U.S money before they can be used for payments anyway. So that's not really relevant.
"If you believe this, remember that if you're ever tried in a court where the flag has gold fringe you can shout FREEMAN ON THE LAND and they have to let you go."
Don't be an ass. I never said anything like that, and I am not one of those people.
But I AM rather curious: what is it about someone who quotes the Constitution that makes you automatically assume they are crazy?
I think that says a lot more about you than it does about them.
UIh, being a denier and hiding your head up your ass pretty well qualifies as "avoiding an issue".
No, even if he were a denier and had his head up his ass, that still doesn't qualify as "avoiding an issue". They are two completely different things.
But I am curious about the former. Never mind the "head up his ass" part. Clearly that is your opinion and I am not going to argue with you about it. But in what way was he a "denier"? Of what?
"... it feels like the legitimate intent of those laws is still doing more harm than good."
Feeling that way does not necessarily make it so.
Compare countries that have limited protection for patents (like the U.S.) to countries that historically have not (e.g., China). Which did more innovating during that period? The conclusion that patents are beneficial to society is inescapable.
(Before someone argues, please note: even now, most of the "innovation" coming out of China is still designed in the United States and Europe.)
Having said that: of course there have been situations in which patents have been abused. But that is due more to poor quality (and insufficient quantity) of regulation, than anything wrong with the concept of patents.
For example: we know that software patents have done a lot of harm. But we have a long legal history ( > 100 years ) of not allowing patents on things like software. It is a rather recent change, and I think it is pretty clear that it is a bad one.
But that still doesn't mean that patents in general are a bad thing. What it means, mainly, is just that we have to get politicians out of corporate pockets. That is the real problem here.
"If coining money is not allowed to the state, is it allowed to an individual? The Liberty Dollar shows that it is not. It may be not fair, but it is legal because courts say so. "
Interesting comment but not really relevant to what I said. A State is Constitutionally prohibited from recognizing Bitcoin as legal tender. It's that simple. Weasel-wording doesn't change that.
"No, the Constitution prohibits California from making bitcoin "a tender in payment of debts".
It doesn't prohibit California for considering it "money" in the context of any rule where being "money" doesn't make it legal tender."
You are trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist. Money is tender. Tender is money. There is no difference.
If you REALLY want to split hairs and get technical, tender is money that is used to PAY for something. But in practice there is no difference because money that can't be used to pay for anything really isn't money.
And I'll repeat my reply to the others who responded: Constitutionally, it doesn't matter what the Federal government says, if nobody within the States can legally use anything but gold or silver as legal tender.
These things were put in the Constitution for good reasons. If one were to accept your argument, the only conclusion would have to be that the founders just threw that in there for laughs. Somehow, I don't think so.
The provision says nothing about "recognizing" or "money", it says something about "making" and "tender in payment of debts".
You need to look up what this means. It says that a State cannot accept, or make acceptable, ANYTHING for payment of a debt within that State but gold or silver.
That means nothing but gold or silver can legally be used to pay taxes, or pay a bill, or buy anything (since purchasing something is paying a "debt" for product received).
It doesn't matter what the Federal government says, if the States are constrained in this way.
"It seems to me that clause applies to individual states. It doesn't say anything about what can be done at federal level."
It doesn't matter. If a State can't accept it or make it acceptable as money, then Constitutionally, it doesn't matter what the Federal government does. If you read that carefully, legally a State cannot accept a U.S. dollar for the purpose of paying taxes, or legalize the paying of ANY debt within the state, government or private, with U.S. dollars.
Hey, I didn't write the thing. Just read it, and read about its history.
"Nice of them to mention that SETI has also "embraced" this. It's only the largest and one of the oldest public projects to utilize distributed computing, having lead the way in the development and popularization of the technology."
Also, SETI@home and Folding@home, etc., use the BOINC infrastructure, not IBM's. You can be fairly certain that BOINC projects will not be used for corporate profit unless it's a corporation that is sponsoring the project.
Not necessarily so, using IBM's infrastructure. When have they ever done anything that wasn't for corporate profit. Hell, they even shipped Hollerith-type machines to the Nazis during WWII to help keep track of the prisoners in the concentration camps.
(And before you argue: YES, they did. It is solidly documented and there are records indicating that Thomas J. Watson personally knew about it.)
"From what I've seen the 3rd party candidates manage to look good on paper by avoiding real issues that they'll have to deal with once they get into office."
Really?
When did Ron Paul, for example, "avoid" an issue? On the contrary, he was very outspoken about any issue anyone cared to raise with him. He wasn't allowed to speak in many settings, like some of the "debates"... but that's not even close to the same as "avoiding".
When has Ron Paul been shown to ever lie? He always voted exactly the way he told his constituents he would. He has a perfect voting record in that respect.
Paul was against Guantanamo. Etc.
And he wasn't the only one, just the most popular. You have had the answers to your complaints right in front of you, yet you refused to see they were there. That's not the politicians' fault, it's yours.
"The user controls this by using browser preferences and browser extensions."
Where those browser preferences exist, you mean. And it should be preferences. Extensions should not be necessary for this basic of control.
Further, those preferences should be easily accessible to the user. Microsoft's maze of settings with wording that is incomprehensible to most users doesn't cut it.
"Each origin has its own account, and origins can't access resources associated with a different origin unless the owner of the different origin has opted into sharing the resource (CORS). "
Big f*ing deal. This should be directly controllable by the end user, not just by the "origins". After all, it's the user's computer.
"Ideally, browser publishers treat violations of origin separation as seriously as OS publishers treat violations of user separation. "
THE HELL WITH "IDEALLY". You know that won't happen in many cases.
"I'm voting 3rd party from now. Least of all evils isn't enough."
Not to nitpick, but I think you mean "lesser of 2 evils ("Big 2 parties").
Your third-party candidate would be the "least" evil.
But having said that, we have had some GOOD 3rd-party candidates. Far better than the BS the 2 big parties have thrown at us. And I include Obama as some of that "BS".
Having said that: the same clause in the Constitution prohibits States from recognizing the current U.S. dollar (fiat money) as "money", too. That hasn't stopped them.
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."
In order for California to consider it as money, it would have to declare Bitcoin to be "money", but the Constitutional explicitly prohibits it from doing that.
"f his previous employer really thought he was good, he wouldn't be looking for a new job. I give a glowing reference to any ex-employee who asks for one. Why should I care if you hire a turd? When I am hiring, I have found references to be so unreliable, that I don't even both to ask for them."
Absolute garbage.
First, I often work on a contract basis ("freelance", if you prefer). Projects only last so long, then they are over. So yes, I am looking for work, and have had a lot of short-term "employers". I also have some glowing, HONEST reviews.
" I give a glowing reference to any ex-employee who asks for one. Why should I care if you hire a turd?"
Because this is grossly hypocritical behavior. No doubt you would be pissed off to no end if someone else did the same to you, and you hired someone with great reviews who turned out to be a lemon. You appear to be one of those who pollute the entire job market with their bullshit, then wonder why they can't find good workers.
"For my last opening I got 200 resumes. I interviewed five of them. If your resume doesn't stand out, there will be no interview."
"Attorneys need to do probono work to keep their license, why is it too much for you to carve out a few hours to put up a portfolio of your work on GitHub?"
Simple. I owe GitHub NOTHING. For now, I choose to do my "pro bono" work elsewhere, when and on what I choose.
The real question is: why should I bow to conformity and post my work on the fad site of the day?
Insisting that I do that "pro bono" work in a certain way and post it in a particular way on a particular website is just plain bullshit.
I have made contributions. I just haven't done them through GitHub. If I ever decide to post something there, fine. But there is NOTHING motivating me to go out of my way to do it. And anybody who thinks I should just because others do has a screw loose somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
"But for whistling (as per the original application) or various other sounds, those same three bands will be pretty crap."
I'm not suggesting otherwise. I think you're missing my point, which was that THIS was about voice recognition, not whistling, and he is using a high-tech solution for that where a lower-tech, simpler solution might actually be better.
Nor am I saying we shouldn't do it this way. I'm only saying there are alternatives that might work as well for THIS application, which are also simpler and cheaper.
"Instead of risking starting a flame war by suggesting that Chairman Mao's policies might have had something to do with innovation, especially in the technical arena, I'll just let the honest reader ponder that possibility quietly."
Well, I wasn't trying to suggest anything that specific. Only that it is well-known that even limited protection for what is mistakenly called "intellectual property" was completely non-existent in China for a long time, by design. I think it is pretty obvious that their loosening of the screws in that area is one of the things that has led to their economic improvement.
In the 1970s, a book was published entitled "How To Build Your Own Computer-Controlled Robot". In fact this was one of the books that first got me interested in computing.
The author of the book, a high-school student, built (with the help of his engineer father, I don't want to downplay that) a small robot that had obstacle sensors, light sensors, and some basic mapping capability so it could find its own charging station (not so different from a Roomba today).
But my main point is: it also had effective voice recognition, for simple commands. And the implementation was pretty simple: the audio input was amplified, then sent through 3 notch filters to separate high, medium and low audio frequencies. Each of the 3 frequencies was digitally sampled at about 40kHz. Repeated samples were averaged and saved in a table in memory.
The CPU (and remember, this was a 1970s-era CPU, if I recall an 8080a or a Z-80 or similar) constantly sampled incoming sounds, and when one sufficiently matched one of the stored templates it meant "command received".
It was a simple scheme, and it worked fine. I don't want to detract from this inventor, but in essence he is doing a similar thing. Except instead of using notch filters, he's using FFTs to do the frequency analysis and build (and then compare to) the templates. The ideas aren't all that different.
But personally, I think I'd prefer the old method, as it demonstrably worked at least as well as this, used only a few $ in hardware in addition to the CPU, and was pretty definitely less compute-intensive to achieve.
Keep in mind: that was 40 years ago. Maybe this newer approach has more potential; I don't know. But it certainly doesn't look much different at this time.
Yes, but that already occurs with poorly-designed sites. Why should it NOT happen with future poorly-designed sites?
It's done all the time. It's called "blocking external domains". And there have been tools available to do that for years.
You can get tools that do that for JavaScript, tools that do that for images or other extra-domain requests. It's isn't rocket science. It's an everyday occurrence.
"What I'm pointing out here is that the constitutional requirement only prevents CA from collecting taxes and fees in other currencies."
No, it doesn't. It prohibits California from recognizing ANYTHING other than gold or silver as legal payment for ANY debt within the state. It isn't just about taxes and fees. It says "make anything but gold or silver a tender in payment of debts". It doesn't just say State debts, or debts to the State.
But I will point out that even if that were true, California is STILL violating the Constitution by accepting U.S. dollars.
Someone else pointed out that dollars are Federal, not State, but that doesn't matter. The Constitution still prohibits a State from accepting them.
As for foreign payments: legally they are supposed to go through a bank or exchange and converted to U.S money before they can be used for payments anyway. So that's not really relevant.
"If you believe this, remember that if you're ever tried in a court where the flag has gold fringe you can shout FREEMAN ON THE LAND and they have to let you go."
Don't be an ass. I never said anything like that, and I am not one of those people.
But I AM rather curious: what is it about someone who quotes the Constitution that makes you automatically assume they are crazy?
I think that says a lot more about you than it does about them.
UIh, being a denier and hiding your head up your ass pretty well qualifies as "avoiding an issue".
No, even if he were a denier and had his head up his ass, that still doesn't qualify as "avoiding an issue". They are two completely different things.
But I am curious about the former. Never mind the "head up his ass" part. Clearly that is your opinion and I am not going to argue with you about it. But in what way was he a "denier"? Of what?
"... it feels like the legitimate intent of those laws is still doing more harm than good."
Feeling that way does not necessarily make it so.
Compare countries that have limited protection for patents (like the U.S.) to countries that historically have not (e.g., China). Which did more innovating during that period? The conclusion that patents are beneficial to society is inescapable.
(Before someone argues, please note: even now, most of the "innovation" coming out of China is still designed in the United States and Europe.)
Having said that: of course there have been situations in which patents have been abused. But that is due more to poor quality (and insufficient quantity) of regulation, than anything wrong with the concept of patents.
For example: we know that software patents have done a lot of harm. But we have a long legal history ( > 100 years ) of not allowing patents on things like software. It is a rather recent change, and I think it is pretty clear that it is a bad one.
But that still doesn't mean that patents in general are a bad thing. What it means, mainly, is just that we have to get politicians out of corporate pockets. That is the real problem here.
That was just a comment about GP's own wording. Don't try to take it out of context.
"If coining money is not allowed to the state, is it allowed to an individual? The Liberty Dollar shows that it is not. It may be not fair, but it is legal because courts say so. "
Interesting comment but not really relevant to what I said. A State is Constitutionally prohibited from recognizing Bitcoin as legal tender. It's that simple. Weasel-wording doesn't change that.
"No, the Constitution prohibits California from making bitcoin "a tender in payment of debts".
It doesn't prohibit California for considering it "money" in the context of any rule where being "money" doesn't make it legal tender."
You are trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist. Money is tender. Tender is money. There is no difference.
If you REALLY want to split hairs and get technical, tender is money that is used to PAY for something. But in practice there is no difference because money that can't be used to pay for anything really isn't money.
And I'll repeat my reply to the others who responded: Constitutionally, it doesn't matter what the Federal government says, if nobody within the States can legally use anything but gold or silver as legal tender.
These things were put in the Constitution for good reasons. If one were to accept your argument, the only conclusion would have to be that the founders just threw that in there for laughs. Somehow, I don't think so.
The provision says nothing about "recognizing" or "money", it says something about "making" and "tender in payment of debts".
You need to look up what this means. It says that a State cannot accept, or make acceptable, ANYTHING for payment of a debt within that State but gold or silver.
That means nothing but gold or silver can legally be used to pay taxes, or pay a bill, or buy anything (since purchasing something is paying a "debt" for product received).
It doesn't matter what the Federal government says, if the States are constrained in this way.
"It seems to me that clause applies to individual states. It doesn't say anything about what can be done at federal level."
It doesn't matter. If a State can't accept it or make it acceptable as money, then Constitutionally, it doesn't matter what the Federal government does. If you read that carefully, legally a State cannot accept a U.S. dollar for the purpose of paying taxes, or legalize the paying of ANY debt within the state, government or private, with U.S. dollars.
Hey, I didn't write the thing. Just read it, and read about its history.
"Nice of them to mention that SETI has also "embraced" this. It's only the largest and one of the oldest public projects to utilize distributed computing, having lead the way in the development and popularization of the technology."
Also, SETI@home and Folding@home, etc., use the BOINC infrastructure, not IBM's. You can be fairly certain that BOINC projects will not be used for corporate profit unless it's a corporation that is sponsoring the project.
Not necessarily so, using IBM's infrastructure. When have they ever done anything that wasn't for corporate profit. Hell, they even shipped Hollerith-type machines to the Nazis during WWII to help keep track of the prisoners in the concentration camps.
(And before you argue: YES, they did. It is solidly documented and there are records indicating that Thomas J. Watson personally knew about it.)
"From what I've seen the 3rd party candidates manage to look good on paper by avoiding real issues that they'll have to deal with once they get into office."
Really?
When did Ron Paul, for example, "avoid" an issue? On the contrary, he was very outspoken about any issue anyone cared to raise with him. He wasn't allowed to speak in many settings, like some of the "debates"... but that's not even close to the same as "avoiding".
When has Ron Paul been shown to ever lie? He always voted exactly the way he told his constituents he would. He has a perfect voting record in that respect.
Paul was against Guantanamo. Etc.
And he wasn't the only one, just the most popular. You have had the answers to your complaints right in front of you, yet you refused to see they were there. That's not the politicians' fault, it's yours.
"The user controls this by using browser preferences and browser extensions."
Where those browser preferences exist, you mean. And it should be preferences. Extensions should not be necessary for this basic of control.
Further, those preferences should be easily accessible to the user. Microsoft's maze of settings with wording that is incomprehensible to most users doesn't cut it.
"Each origin has its own account, and origins can't access resources associated with a different origin unless the owner of the different origin has opted into sharing the resource (CORS). "
Big f*ing deal. This should be directly controllable by the end user, not just by the "origins". After all, it's the user's computer.
"Ideally, browser publishers treat violations of origin separation as seriously as OS publishers treat violations of user separation. "
THE HELL WITH "IDEALLY". You know that won't happen in many cases.
"It's a zero sum game. Obama gives the cold-shoulder to civil rights by blowing hot air."
Though "hot air" is what he says he's trying to fight. :o)
"I'm voting 3rd party from now. Least of all evils isn't enough."
Not to nitpick, but I think you mean "lesser of 2 evils ("Big 2 parties").
Your third-party candidate would be the "least" evil.
But having said that, we have had some GOOD 3rd-party candidates. Far better than the BS the 2 big parties have thrown at us. And I include Obama as some of that "BS".
Having said that: the same clause in the Constitution prohibits States from recognizing the current U.S. dollar (fiat money) as "money", too. That hasn't stopped them.
When is this un-Constitutionality going to stop?
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."
In order for California to consider it as money, it would have to declare Bitcoin to be "money", but the Constitutional explicitly prohibits it from doing that.
"They couldn't have chosen a more ironic name for it if they tried to. Or could they, /. ?"
My thoughts exactly. "A place for your stuff" == "A great place to go mining."
I don't think it's necessary to point out who those miners might be.
"f his previous employer really thought he was good, he wouldn't be looking for a new job. I give a glowing reference to any ex-employee who asks for one. Why should I care if you hire a turd? When I am hiring, I have found references to be so unreliable, that I don't even both to ask for them."
Absolute garbage.
First, I often work on a contract basis ("freelance", if you prefer). Projects only last so long, then they are over. So yes, I am looking for work, and have had a lot of short-term "employers". I also have some glowing, HONEST reviews.
" I give a glowing reference to any ex-employee who asks for one. Why should I care if you hire a turd?"
Because this is grossly hypocritical behavior. No doubt you would be pissed off to no end if someone else did the same to you, and you hired someone with great reviews who turned out to be a lemon. You appear to be one of those who pollute the entire job market with their bullshit, then wonder why they can't find good workers.
"For my last opening I got 200 resumes. I interviewed five of them. If your resume doesn't stand out, there will be no interview."
See, there you go. Contradicting yourself.
"Attorneys need to do probono work to keep their license, why is it too much for you to carve out a few hours to put up a portfolio of your work on GitHub?"
Simple. I owe GitHub NOTHING. For now, I choose to do my "pro bono" work elsewhere, when and on what I choose.
The real question is: why should I bow to conformity and post my work on the fad site of the day?
Insisting that I do that "pro bono" work in a certain way and post it in a particular way on a particular website is just plain bullshit.
I have made contributions. I just haven't done them through GitHub. If I ever decide to post something there, fine. But there is NOTHING motivating me to go out of my way to do it. And anybody who thinks I should just because others do has a screw loose somewhere.