I thought it was generally accepted that it's impossible for a human to sing in perfect pitch.
Not impossible, just very, very difficult.
Personally I find it fairly interesting to see how people use technology to make better sounding music.
I can't say that I like a single vocalist that uses Autotune on a frequent basis...and it's not even necessarily because they use Autotune. It's because their music can't stand for itself.
Anyhow it's probably not very important if all the sound can be replicated in full quality live since a live audience performance is all about the environment and the show and people care a lot less about how the actual music sounds.
That really depends, again, on what type of music we're talking about here. I've been to shows where I've walked out because the sound was terrible (never for my favorite bands, but that's kind of why they're my favorites: they almost always sound good) and other shows where the bands were heckled by the crowd to the point that they cut their set short. And recently, too.
What you're describing sounds very similar to the pop scene, where loyalty to artists lasts as long as they remain the hippest kids on the block and not whether or not they produce good music.
No, your first part is right. Obama is clearly waiting to get his team in place before he makes a run at this string of policy. I really don't understand the outcry over all of this (limited almost exclusively to/., I noticed).
For instance, a physician or RN reaches for a vial of medication to be injected, is distracted and picks up a different vial. They then withdraw the correct volume of the wrong medication and, whammo, malpractice.
And in cases like that I have absolutely no objection to the lawsuit which will follow.
Difficult? Maybe, but for freelancers who collect a check every time they "fix" an infected computer (read: fiddle around for a while and ultimately end up reinstalling Windows), these crapware authors are the reason they can stay in business.
Then again, we have a slew of helpful people willing to answer just about any question, no matter how trivial it may seem, over at places like LinuxQuestions.org or the Ubuntu Forums. What I'm really looking forward to is the "Year of the Helpful Experts", where new users can get all the help they need with using Linux without being insulted.
That was my first thought when I read this. From the article, though:
The sensors, which can detect chemotherapy drugs as well as toxins and free radicals, are carbon nanotubes that scientists have wrapped in DNA so they can be safely injected into living tissue, according to a release from the university.
I guess the wrapping process eliminates the danger? At least the nanotubes don't end up free-floating.
Not exactly. The bends come from fast decompression leading to gas bubbles within the body while the cerebral edema is an excess accumulation of water in the brain which comes from a leakage of fluid from capillaries (among other causes).
It works for Apple, and may work for the people adamant about a completely FOSS setup (probably already does), but I'm positive that this isn't the direction Linux should be going.
Honestly, we do need these guys clamoring for absolutely open drivers and putting some pressure on manufacturers if we do intend to move in that direction ('cause we're not going to get there any other way). So to all of them: rock on.
All the symptoms are available through textbox with auto-complete. We restricted the symptoms shown in the visual section because "some" folks where just coping and using it elsewhere. It was the only solution we could come up with to stop mass copying of the difficult to find data that we have put together.
Ah, ok. That makes sense.
Might I suggest that this is stated somehow at the time, like a "why?" button next to the logon link? It could pop out a box explaining something about how the database is exhaustively researched...the phrasing would need work, but for the tech-minded the reason for locking down the data would be immediately evident and for everyone else, well, they either won't care or they will be impressed and more inclined to use the service.
An additional suggestion: clicking on the links with script disabled causes 404 errors...probably won't affect many people, but it would be nicer if it failed gracefully.
feedback: I already hate the fact that I have to log in to select more than one symptom.
Didn't seem to be a problem for me, although I did notice that less common symptoms did require a logon. Not sure why, though.
I did notice that this was considerably better than WebMD at identifying that the symptoms for my recent stomach flu were not, in fact, indicative of cancer, but I still wish someone could make a program that described symptoms as a patient would describe them without printing out a list of preposterous diagnoses in the process.
One based on observation (and before the scientific method took hold; really no better than faith by today's standards) and one based on fiction (ok: "historical eye-witness accounts"). And the reason why so many were adamant about flat earth, heavens revolving around earth, etc. was because they were heavily influenced by religion...and, often, to publicly go against the religion of the people meant death, or at least imprisonment.
All that would be necessary is to establish that we do or do not have an aspect of ourselves that lies outside 4 dimensional space. That is what the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims are talking about when they get all philosophical.
Maybe that's what some of the mystics are saying now, but for the longest time the belief was that the soul was something tangible and in this dimension. So was their idea of heaven and/or "hell", depending on the branch of belief...either was just too far away to be seen or invisible.
Slashdot Mirror
No! For security reasons, and some significant processing issues as well, the only supported Browser is Internet Explorer Release 6 or later.
So I'm to assume they don't know the difference between client-side and server-side scripting?
You mean like the one people have set up in the past (like the one Pain of Salvation set up for their album BE)?
However, you're also a fucking moron.
No, no, no: you're doing it wrong.
The correct response is "Also, fuck you".
I thought it was generally accepted that it's impossible for a human to sing in perfect pitch.
Not impossible, just very, very difficult.
Personally I find it fairly interesting to see how people use technology to make better sounding music.
I can't say that I like a single vocalist that uses Autotune on a frequent basis...and it's not even necessarily because they use Autotune. It's because their music can't stand for itself.
Anyhow it's probably not very important if all the sound can be replicated in full quality live since a live audience performance is all about the environment and the show and people care a lot less about how the actual music sounds.
That really depends, again, on what type of music we're talking about here. I've been to shows where I've walked out because the sound was terrible (never for my favorite bands, but that's kind of why they're my favorites: they almost always sound good) and other shows where the bands were heckled by the crowd to the point that they cut their set short. And recently, too.
What you're describing sounds very similar to the pop scene, where loyalty to artists lasts as long as they remain the hippest kids on the block and not whether or not they produce good music.
No, your first part is right. Obama is clearly waiting to get his team in place before he makes a run at this string of policy. I really don't understand the outcry over all of this (limited almost exclusively to /., I noticed).
You mean the suspend for Linux that Actually Worked that I just woke my computer out of ten minutes ago?
And that's with Ubuntu 8.04.
For instance, a physician or RN reaches for a vial of medication to be injected, is distracted and picks up a different vial. They then withdraw the correct volume of the wrong medication and, whammo, malpractice.
And in cases like that I have absolutely no objection to the lawsuit which will follow.
Duplicating your consciousness does not magically transfer it.
That is highly debatable...it really depends on how you define "consciousness".
Difficult? Maybe, but for freelancers who collect a check every time they "fix" an infected computer (read: fiddle around for a while and ultimately end up reinstalling Windows), these crapware authors are the reason they can stay in business.
Then again, we have a slew of helpful people willing to answer just about any question, no matter how trivial it may seem, over at places like LinuxQuestions.org or the Ubuntu Forums. What I'm really looking forward to is the "Year of the Helpful Experts", where new users can get all the help they need with using Linux without being insulted.
That was my first thought when I read this. From the article, though:
The sensors, which can detect chemotherapy drugs as well as toxins and free radicals, are carbon nanotubes that scientists have wrapped in DNA so they can be safely injected into living tissue, according to a release from the university.
I guess the wrapping process eliminates the danger? At least the nanotubes don't end up free-floating.
Not exactly. The bends come from fast decompression leading to gas bubbles within the body while the cerebral edema is an excess accumulation of water in the brain which comes from a leakage of fluid from capillaries (among other causes).
...is it smooth? I thought that was part of the criteria for passing the test, not just the 100/100 thing.
Still, congratulations to the Opera team. Now for Acid4, whenever that comes out.
Sure it does! Just don't allow "chrome:".
"Hardware Control"
It works for Apple, and may work for the people adamant about a completely FOSS setup (probably already does), but I'm positive that this isn't the direction Linux should be going.
Honestly, we do need these guys clamoring for absolutely open drivers and putting some pressure on manufacturers if we do intend to move in that direction ('cause we're not going to get there any other way). So to all of them: rock on.
All the symptoms are available through textbox with auto-complete. We restricted the symptoms shown in the visual section because "some" folks where just coping and using it elsewhere. It was the only solution we could come up with to stop mass copying of the difficult to find data that we have put together.
Ah, ok. That makes sense.
Might I suggest that this is stated somehow at the time, like a "why?" button next to the logon link? It could pop out a box explaining something about how the database is exhaustively researched...the phrasing would need work, but for the tech-minded the reason for locking down the data would be immediately evident and for everyone else, well, they either won't care or they will be impressed and more inclined to use the service.
An additional suggestion: clicking on the links with script disabled causes 404 errors...probably won't affect many people, but it would be nicer if it failed gracefully.
In short, this astronomer needs his logic license revoked.
feedback: I already hate the fact that I have to log in to select more than one symptom.
Didn't seem to be a problem for me, although I did notice that less common symptoms did require a logon. Not sure why, though.
I did notice that this was considerably better than WebMD at identifying that the symptoms for my recent stomach flu were not, in fact, indicative of cancer, but I still wish someone could make a program that described symptoms as a patient would describe them without printing out a list of preposterous diagnoses in the process.
No, I mean that that is the link. From the initial summary:
Click the link below to read part of their letter.
Sure enough, clicking on the link gives you part of the letter.
"Read More"?
Right on. Thank you for concisely stating what I failed to say correctly.
One based on observation (and before the scientific method took hold; really no better than faith by today's standards) and one based on fiction (ok: "historical eye-witness accounts"). And the reason why so many were adamant about flat earth, heavens revolving around earth, etc. was because they were heavily influenced by religion...and, often, to publicly go against the religion of the people meant death, or at least imprisonment.
All that would be necessary is to establish that we do or do not have an aspect of ourselves that lies outside 4 dimensional space. That is what the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims are talking about when they get all philosophical.
Maybe that's what some of the mystics are saying now, but for the longest time the belief was that the soul was something tangible and in this dimension. So was their idea of heaven and/or "hell", depending on the branch of belief...either was just too far away to be seen or invisible.
Streaming Video
Gnash supports the viewing of streaming video from popular video sharing sites like Lulu.tv or YouTube.com.
But it is a feature: they just never said how much streaming video.
Naw. Burden of proof is on the person making the initial claim.