Maybe Microsoft's usability design benefits from the fact that they have a bunch of pointy haired guys around, while the open-source projects exclusively consist of collections of Dilberts?
Scary, but it would justify the pointy-haired bosses existence. At absolute minimum all open-source projects should have (pet) lamas assigned to them, and a continuously rotating basis (to prevent tainting them with knowledge) and their whining should be taken as the word of authority...
Yes, although a large projection TV would be fine (with line doubling, aka deinterlacing). Preferably with D-Sub or DVI input. This would go a long way towards quality. You don't need to go for high-end, as you need a lower resolution (like 800x600) to achive large type.
DLP and LCD projector and back-projection TVs also have the advantage that he will not be showered in radiation...
While I agree with your point about the PC being more flexible (and almost same price $300-$400), I have to nit-pick about the noise issues. All of the Shuttle line is kinda loud. I mean compared to overclocked mega-fan main rigs, it is quiter, but I would not want to put them into my living room, or audio listening room.
However spening a little more (it does add up) you can get fanless Mini-ITX solutions (like Hush see logicsupply.com $700-$900). Combined with an acoustic management enabled FDB harddisk like Seagate barracuda, the noise output will be kept at minimum, ie. your CRT TV on mute or the flourescent lights will be louder.
This is as insightful as it gets. Wireless is overrated, not counting that 2-5% of the time when nothing else would do it. Just invest that $50 into a reel of Cat5 and run it...
cost: number of digits * number of states for a digit
base is b number is n cost is c
c = (1+log_b(n))*b
where log_b is logarithm base b
If (d c) / (d b) = 0 and n approches infinity b approches Pi.
In other terms: to store big numbers you better off using Pi based numeric system. 3 is the closest integer, hence the tertiary storage promises to be more effective.
Last time we did the calculation during one of my math class the ideal base was Pi.
So a tetriary computer would be theoretically more efficent than a binary. There was even some Russian guy who was trying to build them, however at that time (50s) the hardware to realize it was much less efficent than the binary hardware... I suspect that would be tha case for light-base CPUs as well...
Re:Why wouldn't math be known across the universe?
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but we have a mathematical tool that is ultimately based (started off on) our physical observations (ie. 1 sheep, 2 sheep, etc). If you start off your observations in a quantum-environment, the resulting mathematical model will likely to describe the quatum-world is a simple elegant straight-forward way. However to describe an integer is likely to be just as complicated in that system as the describing quantum-model for us (given if the relationship is transitive, which it may or may not be)
Re:Why wouldn't math be known across the universe?
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 1
No, but quantum behavior does. It is there, but not there, and ove there too... Also the problem is the info comes in quantas. If a truly alien race first dicovered this, and constructed their physics -> math based on this, then the concepts of integers for them is extremely alien.
Yes, you are right. I should have emphasized that a little more. I keep my beans in the freezer (not particularly for the cold, but the newer types of freezer dehumidify automatically, to prevent icing). I grind it while the water is boiling, so ground is super fresh.
I prefer Illy (Italian), or Pilon (Cuban), or the Ethiopian from *$s.
Or atl east just run wired net. $50 for 1000ft. You can invest $200, and draw in the lines (where the phones come in the apts) and get a 24 port hub for ~$150. That is it. Spend the rest on yourself (ie. lots of vodka)
a. microwave for water is ideal, kettle works as well. b. Percolators are crap. c. Cafetieres do nto fill your cup with grounds and not more fragile than your average espresso cup. I use Bodum exclusively. d. Filter cones are made of paper, which passes through a lot of different processes, and chamicals...
Agreed. There is no better way of making coffee, than french press. I make espresso-strength coffee with it, and it also have the sought-after "crema" on top.
Here is what I do:
1. Put about 2 tablespoon of medium-fine grind in the press. (adjust to liking) 2. Boil water (roiling hot), one or two espresso cups. 3. Pour a little of the water on the grind, mix it. It should just make the grind wet, without drowning it, mix it with non-metallic spoon. 4. Wait 2-4 seconds. 5. Pour in rest of the water, mix it again (crema forms at this point) 6. Insert plunger and cap, but do not press it yet (to keep it from cooling off). 7. Let it steep 30-60 secs. (Adjust to liking) 8. Add desired amount of suger to the bottom of the pre-heated cups. (You can boil the water in them) 9. Either swish the whole she-bang around or mix it with the spoon to move the grind from the top (to make it easier to press down) 10. Press it down, slowly. Just use the weight of your hand (if you press it without abandon, you end up scalding your hand, or coffee on your counter/ceiling, or both) 11. Pour it carefully, so the crema ends up in the cup, not on the wall of the press. 12. Stir to dissolve sugar.
My Kenyan friend gave me some Tanzanian instant coffee. That measures up to the the Illy espresso quality. It is not that Nescafe freezee dried cr@p, but a very finely ground coffee (like 5-10 times finer than the fine espresso grind). When you put it to boiling water it just dissolves. Man, that was good. (BTW, it cannot be obtained in the US)
Correct. My video card has dual DVI out, with two DVI to D-sub converters, which are just simple wirings between the two connectors, since the DVI outs have both digital and analog present.
Space Program needs PhDs not MS. Or NASA trends to hire you first if you got a PhD. So keep on studing if that is where you want to work.
BTW, citizenship is also mandatory, you need sec.clearence to work on most of the projects at NASA or space contractors, such as Boeing, Lockheed, etc.
Now, I've never used these or even heard of these, but I can easily believe that they are more then a gimmick at our current levels of understanding of sound spatialization. Nor would I expect two-speaker setups (headphones or otherwise) to match these any time in the forseeable future.
I agree.
So to summarize all this:
1. If the recording is mode with the fake-head, it is best to use 2.0 headphones / in-ear-canal or otherwise. 2. Rest of stereo audio sources are best with a 2.0 headphones 3. Computer generated sounds (especially FPS) best with 5.1 headphones (no or less calc involved) 4. DVD-Audio, SACD 5.1 sources are best with 5.1 headphones, IF are not remastered from a stereo source, but rather are recorded with 5 mono microphones.
Does anyone can improve / extend on above, please post.
Beyond that, unless you have a really big head, the difference in arrival time to each ear is less than a microsecond. That is surely too small for your brain to comprehend.
No it is not. Strange but true. You can always tell the direction (not just left-right but any degree in 3 dimension) where sounds come from (true only for tone above 100Hz or so). Therefore your ears/brain can somehow decipher the minite differences in sounds arriving to your ears.
However, back to the topic. You have 2 ears, therefore 2 speakers are enough to create a complete 3D soundscape. The 5.1 headphones are pure gimmick. You are better off spending some money on a decent pair of 2 speaker headphones, like AKG/Grado and my personal favorite, Sennheiser. If you like music, you are much better off spending $500 on a pair of headphones, than spending the same on 5.1 speakers.
There are some (classical) recordings out there that are done using a fake head, with mic in place of the eardrums. When using in-ear-canal headphones (think Shure / ER) you are placed in the sound environment exactly like where that head was. I belive it is called aural recording, but please post reply if you have correct info.
BTW, comp buffs, EAX by Creative is a model, which creates the 3D sound enviroment. It is a model on how our ears work and you can think of it as a 3D modeling, where you specify the 3D coordinates and the enclosing space (and types of walls), and the system outputs a L/R (or 5.1) signal which tries (with various degree of success) to place it in the right spot.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a wierd thought:
Maybe Microsoft's usability design benefits from the fact that they have a bunch of pointy haired guys around, while the open-source projects exclusively consist of collections of Dilberts?
Scary, but it would justify the pointy-haired bosses existence. At absolute minimum all open-source projects should have (pet) lamas assigned to them, and a continuously rotating basis (to prevent tainting them with knowledge) and their whining should be taken as the word of authority...
Yes, although a large projection TV would be fine (with line doubling, aka deinterlacing). Preferably with D-Sub or DVI input. This would go a long way towards quality. You don't need to go for high-end, as you need a lower resolution (like 800x600) to achive large type.
DLP and LCD projector and back-projection TVs also have the advantage that he will not be showered in radiation...
While I agree with your point about the PC being more flexible (and almost same price $300-$400), I have to nit-pick about the noise issues. All of the Shuttle line is kinda loud. I mean compared to overclocked mega-fan main rigs, it is quiter, but I would not want to put them into my living room, or audio listening room.
However spening a little more (it does add up) you can get fanless Mini-ITX solutions (like Hush see logicsupply.com $700-$900). Combined with an acoustic management enabled FDB harddisk like Seagate barracuda, the noise output will be kept at minimum, ie. your CRT TV on mute or the flourescent lights will be louder.
This is as insightful as it gets. Wireless is overrated, not counting that 2-5% of the time when nothing else would do it. Just invest that $50 into a reel of Cat5 and run it...
slim server = open-source server (what you are talking about)
slimp3 = ethernet client device
squeezebox = ethernet or ethernet+wireless client device
Would you explain it to Travolta? Last I remember he never been ex-military.
My guess is also that he is the one selling this?
OK here is the formula:
cost: number of digits * number of states for a digit
base is b
number is n
cost is c
c = (1+log_b(n))*b
where log_b is logarithm base b
If (d c) / (d b) = 0 and n approches infinity b approches Pi.
In other terms: to store big numbers you better off using Pi based numeric system. 3 is the closest integer, hence the tertiary storage promises to be more effective.
Where did you get 120 base for ideal (optimal)?
Last time we did the calculation during one of my math class the ideal base was Pi.
So a tetriary computer would be theoretically more efficent than a binary. There was even some Russian guy who was trying to build them, however at that time (50s) the hardware to realize it was much less efficent than the binary hardware... I suspect that would be tha case for light-base CPUs as well...
Yes, but we have a mathematical tool that is ultimately based (started off on) our physical observations (ie. 1 sheep, 2 sheep, etc). If you start off your observations in a quantum-environment, the resulting mathematical model will likely to describe the quatum-world is a simple elegant straight-forward way. However to describe an integer is likely to be just as complicated in that system as the describing quantum-model for us (given if the relationship is transitive, which it may or may not be)
No, but quantum behavior does. It is there, but not there, and ove there too... Also the problem is the info comes in quantas. If a truly alien race first dicovered this, and constructed their physics -> math based on this, then the concepts of integers for them is extremely alien.
Yes, you are right. I should have emphasized that a little more. I keep my beans in the freezer (not particularly for the cold, but the newer types of freezer dehumidify automatically, to prevent icing). I grind it while the water is boiling, so ground is super fresh.
I prefer Illy (Italian), or Pilon (Cuban), or the Ethiopian from *$s.
Or atl east just run wired net. $50 for 1000ft. You can invest $200, and draw in the lines (where the phones come in the apts) and get a 24 port hub for ~$150. That is it. Spend the rest on yourself (ie. lots of vodka)
a. microwave for water is ideal, kettle works as well.
b. Percolators are crap.
c. Cafetieres do nto fill your cup with grounds and not more fragile than your average espresso cup. I use Bodum exclusively.
d. Filter cones are made of paper, which passes through a lot of different processes, and chamicals...
Agreed. There is no better way of making coffee, than french press. I make espresso-strength coffee with it, and it also have the sought-after "crema" on top.
Here is what I do:
1. Put about 2 tablespoon of medium-fine grind in the press. (adjust to liking)
2. Boil water (roiling hot), one or two espresso cups.
3. Pour a little of the water on the grind, mix it. It should just make the grind wet, without drowning it, mix it with non-metallic spoon.
4. Wait 2-4 seconds.
5. Pour in rest of the water, mix it again (crema forms at this point)
6. Insert plunger and cap, but do not press it yet (to keep it from cooling off).
7. Let it steep 30-60 secs. (Adjust to liking)
8. Add desired amount of suger to the bottom of the pre-heated cups. (You can boil the water in them)
9. Either swish the whole she-bang around or mix it with the spoon to move the grind from the top (to make it easier to press down)
10. Press it down, slowly. Just use the weight of your hand (if you press it without abandon, you end up scalding your hand, or coffee on your counter/ceiling, or both)
11. Pour it carefully, so the crema ends up in the cup, not on the wall of the press.
12. Stir to dissolve sugar.
My Kenyan friend gave me some Tanzanian instant coffee. That measures up to the the Illy espresso quality. It is not that Nescafe freezee dried cr@p, but a very finely ground coffee (like 5-10 times finer than the fine espresso grind). When you put it to boiling water it just dissolves. Man, that was good. (BTW, it cannot be obtained in the US)
Congrats. Well put. Illy is very good. Also good is the Doutoru (spelling?) in Japan. Their espresso rocks and they sell high quality beans too.
Hmm, cigarettes are selling pretty well in the medical doctor circles ...
Would you venture to affix a year to this prediction? Which year do you think Microsoft will open the Linux Business Unit?
I'd say, 2006.
Post reply with your prediction!
Yes, you are right. I really miss hyperlinks and the back button on a paper edition...
Yeah, inkjet companies would like that electronic publishing.
Currently there is really not a good replacement for paper, unfortunately. LCD screen do not even come close, for now, at least...
I agree. It is too early to tell if DVI is gonna make it.
Plus the reason for lack of DVI inputs on most models is simple (and quite strange that a Hungarian born has to tell this to the yankees).
They sell what you buy!
If all of us started to buy panels that have DVI connectors, the manufacturers would start curning out panels with DVI...
Correct. My video card has dual DVI out, with two DVI to D-sub converters, which are just simple wirings between the two connectors, since the DVI outs have both digital and analog present.
Space Program needs PhDs not MS. Or NASA trends to hire you first if you got a PhD. So keep on studing if that is where you want to work.
BTW, citizenship is also mandatory, you need sec.clearence to work on most of the projects at NASA or space contractors, such as Boeing, Lockheed, etc.
Now, I've never used these or even heard of these, but I can easily believe that they are more then a gimmick at our current levels of understanding of sound spatialization. Nor would I expect two-speaker setups (headphones or otherwise) to match these any time in the forseeable future.
I agree.
So to summarize all this:
1. If the recording is mode with the fake-head, it is best to use 2.0 headphones / in-ear-canal or otherwise.
2. Rest of stereo audio sources are best with a 2.0 headphones
3. Computer generated sounds (especially FPS) best with 5.1 headphones (no or less calc involved)
4. DVD-Audio, SACD 5.1 sources are best with 5.1 headphones, IF are not remastered from a stereo source, but rather are recorded with 5 mono microphones.
Does anyone can improve / extend on above, please post.
Beyond that, unless you have a really big head, the difference in arrival time to each ear is less than a microsecond. That is surely too small for your brain to comprehend.
No it is not. Strange but true. You can always tell the direction (not just left-right but any degree in 3 dimension) where sounds come from (true only for tone above 100Hz or so). Therefore your ears/brain can somehow decipher the minite differences in sounds arriving to your ears.
However, back to the topic. You have 2 ears, therefore 2 speakers are enough to create a complete 3D soundscape. The 5.1 headphones are pure gimmick. You are better off spending some money on a decent pair of 2 speaker headphones, like AKG/Grado and my personal favorite, Sennheiser. If you like music, you are much better off spending $500 on a pair of headphones, than spending the same on 5.1 speakers.
There are some (classical) recordings out there that are done using a fake head, with mic in place of the eardrums. When using in-ear-canal headphones (think Shure / ER) you are placed in the sound environment exactly like where that head was. I belive it is called aural recording, but please post reply if you have correct info.
BTW, comp buffs, EAX by Creative is a model, which creates the 3D sound enviroment. It is a model on how our ears work and you can think of it as a 3D modeling, where you specify the 3D coordinates and the enclosing space (and types of walls), and the system outputs a L/R (or 5.1) signal which tries (with various degree of success) to place it in the right spot.