I like way I saw this story with a big advert under the story for Visual Studio.Net.
Hmm. 1. Get adverts from Microsoft, 2. Run lots of Microsoft stories, 3. Get more adverts from Microsoft 4. Profit 5. Switch Slashdot to IIS 6. Lose profit.
When SCO released a Linux distro under the GPL they released the IP that IBM suposedly infringed under the GPL. So current Linux distros are safe, but IBM may have infringed SCO's IP at some point in the past.
He only uses one mic for vocals. His guitar amp is a Line 6 with amp/speaker simulators, and does sound as good as a studio amp/mic setup, with a bit of tweaking, and the drum kit is also digital, which doesn't sound absolutely perfect, but is pretty good in the middle of a mix. Add a Fishman piezo acoustic pickup, and preamp, and you're pretty much there.
The main point of ProTools is the I/O boards you get with it (8 analogue I/Os, and a few digital I/Os on the home version) that do the ADC outside of the computer case, which helps with noise and fidelity, and recording things like drums which need a whole lot of mics. Free software is all very good, but you can't quite get the sound quality from cheap soundcards that you can from expensive ADCs.
Re:ProTools is a large reason modern music sucks
on
Cheap Audio Production
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'm sure similar things happened when Les Paul invented multitracking.
I think that it now needs different qualities in a producer to get good results with Pro Tools than it did to record with old style big desks etc., although the techniques haven't changed that much. Pro Tools essentially simulates using a very big and expensive studio in software, so you can do everything that very expensive studios have been doing for years. It does automate some of these things though, so that there is a temptation to over use some things.
Just using Pro Tools doesn't mean that recordings suffer from the afflictions that you've listed (listen to Martin Grech's "Open Heart Zoo" for a recording which certainly isn't over-compressed, and was recorded on Pro Tools, with just two instrumentalists).
Pro Tools is allowing my brother to record almost an entire album, where he plays almost all of the instruments (not the drums, but only because he has a drummer available, he can play drums), for the cost of a computer and the software/hardware, in his bedroom, and get a better sound than most people managed in the 1980's (from a technical point of view, I'm not diss'ing the 80's sound).
And parlimentary democracy was instituted in the 13th Century with the signing of the Magna Carta. By the 17th Century we'd had a civil war during which the King was removed from power and only parliment ruled the country. So Britain was a democracy at least a century before the American Revolution
> The RIAA is an industry association. It does not control its members, its members control it
And therefore, its members control what it says, and what its priorities are. Its members are saying that piracy is the problem, so the RIAA says priacy is the problem, and by complaining about the RIAA you are complaining about all the members of the RIAA.
Einstein got two Nobel prizes though, which come with a check for 1 million US (nowadays, I don't know how much back then). His fame attracted students to him, which under Germany's university system means more cash. Einstein wasn't particularly interested in developing his theories into useful products, but as I stated before, he did work on a refrigerator pump, reportedly motivated by a news article about the asphyxiation of a family when their fridge pump failed, leaking toxic gases into their flat.
I think that to count all the results from any scientific progress over all results for all time.
On the nuclear front, I agree that the current state of the nuclear fission industry is not entirely healthy, but since the current alternative is a 10% rise in CO2 emissions, I'm not convinced its wholly bad (radiation effects from power plant accidents are a lot more local than global warming effects). Nuclear weapons are abhorrant, but so are chemical, biological and even the most powerful conventional weapons (I believe FAE bombs can inflict damage over a similar area to the Nagasaki bomb, just without the delayed effects).
However, nuclear fusion power could be a major boost to the human race, with relatively little downside compared to all current power generation methods, and fission power appears to have been a necessary step towards its development.
But as the article points out, in many ways robots are better than any living creature. A rat can't get (or wouldn't go) through areas with temperatures higher than about 70 C, or without sufficient oxygen, and they can't sit deactivated for long periods of time.
Which would be the number of rescue workers who didn't die in shifting rubble etc. checking on indications of possible survivors, plus the number of any survivors rescued who would other wise have died. How many rescue workers died after the robots arrived on the scene? How many would have been in danger looking for survivors if the robots had not been there?
Rats, that have to be looked after (lab cruelty is a no-no if you don't want to recieve letter bombs), transported, modified and fitted with little backpacks to carry the communications gear.
I think the only difference between the rats and the robots here is the motive system and the motion control system. Everything else has to be developed and built anyway, so the costs aren't going to be that different (medical sensors are more expensive than motors I guess).
The best cooperation here would be to study the brain functions of rats in a maze, and use that to build navigation models for robots.
He does make a rather good case for why robots are better than rats though. I think the original reference to rescue rats was a stunt to get funding/publicity (practically the same thing).
Some of the problem is that any press other than journals and a few science magazines won't report any basic research without having some gee whizz possible applications.
I'm not sure that you can divide some work into that done by engineers and scientists so easily.
I'm nominally a physicist, but I develop high frequency radio receivers for astronomy. This looks remarkably like engineering, in that I have to design a product for reproducibility, to specifications. Admittedly I don't have to then sell the thing, mainly because we have to see if the current designs can be improved first.
To do this engineering type thing, I have to work with and develop theoretical techniques for calculating EM fields, develop theories for describing the performance of the receivers etc.
Einstein's first Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect, which clarified the basic physics of how metals interact with light, and how electrons behavein materials. These results go straight into semiconductor physics, and electron guns in CRTs. Are the TV and semiconductor device industries a big enough return?
Also, Einstein invented and received a patent on(in conjunction with Leo Szilard) an electromagnetic pump for pumping metallised fluids with no moving parts.
As for general relativity, if that wasn't taken into account, then GPS systems would be inaccurate, satelite orbits wouldn't be entirely correct, and so geostationary orbits wouldn't work so well, etc. etc. etc.
Also, possibly no nuclear power, which gives us 1/5 of the world's electricity, and is just about the only hope for continuing growth of power usage at current (no pun, honestly) rates (renewables just can't provide enough power if you assume continuous growth of power demands at current rates for about 60 years) in the form of fusion power.
And then there are all sorts of social gains that can be assigned costs that Einstein as a populariser of science is partially responsile for. I'm no sociologists, so I won't expand on that here.
You can justify basic research in monetary terms, but one of the many problems is that any changes made by a current government won't have an effect until the next government is in power. It might take 40 years for some basic research to get out of the lab (superconductors say). Governments need quick results and easy soundbites to survive in the modern media.
I work in the Cambridge Astrophysics group, and many people there are doing very fundamental research, but also coming up with immediately applicable side results. The problem is that these are often not obvious from the official description of the research. For example, data analysis techniques developed for CMB observations can be applied to general pattern matching, and image analysis. However when the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's funding is discussed, this kind of thing is often forgotten. Fortunately, the current government is being reasonably enlightened about this kind of thing.
Quantum Computation Polymer Electronics Spintronics Quantum Cryptography Informatics (Which I suppose can include Bioinformatics, and is really a branch of thermodynamics) Quantum
Biophysics in general seems to be quite a popularised area. There is some very interesting work going on w.r.t. neurons and neural mechanisms, both experimental and theoretical.
However, some governments seem to like the quick appliciability of modern biological research to everyday life. This forgets that most of this has come from fundamental advances in physics, often in very unrelated fields that happened many years before they were applied to biology. E.g. discovery of the structure of DNA was worked out using x-ray diffraction. If x-rays hadn't been discovered out of research into cathode ray tubes 70 years earlier, then genetics wouldn't have got started.
I think it mostly comes down to politicians having to have simple soundbite justifications for any money spent, which is quite hard to do, for say, the LHC, or research into the early universe.
You obviously missed that episode of the Brady Bunch! Let me summarise- 1) The Brady family invents a new/. cliche for the kids. 2) Good family fun ensues!
IBM also made some of the punch card sorters at Los Alamos that were used in hydrodynamic calculations for the plutonium implosion nuclear bomb. These pretty much led to the US effort to make a programmable computer.
Slashdot Mirror
I can hear the ghost of McCarthy (I guess he's dead, if not his ghost can time travel, OK?) now:
"Hey, let's ship all the commies to Mars. What do you mean we haven't got any bases there yet? What's that matter?"
I like way I saw this story with a big advert under the story for Visual Studio .Net.
Hmm.
1. Get adverts from Microsoft,
2. Run lots of Microsoft stories,
3. Get more adverts from Microsoft
4. Profit
5. Switch Slashdot to IIS
6. Lose profit.
When SCO released a Linux distro under the GPL they released the IP that IBM suposedly infringed under the GPL. So current Linux distros are safe, but IBM may have infringed SCO's IP at some point in the past.
He only uses one mic for vocals. His guitar amp is a Line 6 with amp/speaker simulators, and does sound as good as a studio amp/mic setup, with a bit of tweaking, and the drum kit is also digital, which doesn't sound absolutely perfect, but is pretty good in the middle of a mix. Add a Fishman piezo acoustic pickup, and preamp, and you're pretty much there.
Not true. The home version includes hardware.
The main point of ProTools is the I/O boards you get with it (8 analogue I/Os, and a few digital I/Os on the home version) that do the ADC outside of the computer case, which helps with noise and fidelity, and recording things like drums which need a whole lot of mics. Free software is all very good, but you can't quite get the sound quality from cheap soundcards that you can from expensive ADCs.
I'm sure similar things happened when Les Paul invented multitracking.
I think that it now needs different qualities in a producer to get good results with Pro Tools than it did to record with old style big desks etc., although the techniques haven't changed that much. Pro Tools essentially simulates using a very big and expensive studio in software, so you can do everything that very expensive studios have been doing for years. It does automate some of these things though, so that there is a temptation to over use some things.
Just using Pro Tools doesn't mean that recordings suffer from the afflictions that you've listed (listen to Martin Grech's "Open Heart Zoo" for a recording which certainly isn't over-compressed, and was recorded on Pro Tools, with just two instrumentalists).
Pro Tools is allowing my brother to record almost an entire album, where he plays almost all of the instruments (not the drums, but only because he has a drummer available, he can play drums), for the cost of a computer and the software/hardware, in his bedroom, and get a better sound than most people managed in the 1980's (from a technical point of view, I'm not diss'ing the 80's sound).
And if your determined enough, you probably don't even need the other 3 qualities.
Or even if your rich enough
7. Freeze It
8. Snowball Fight!
And parlimentary democracy was instituted in the 13th Century with the signing of the Magna Carta. By the 17th Century we'd had a civil war during which the King was removed from power and only parliment ruled the country. So Britain was a democracy at least a century before the American Revolution
Northern Ireland? I suppose you could argue that it was a civil war divided along Religious lines.
> The RIAA is an industry association. It does not control its members, its members control it
And therefore, its members control what it says, and what its priorities are. Its members are saying that piracy is the problem, so the RIAA says priacy is the problem, and by complaining about the RIAA you are complaining about all the members of the RIAA.
Be fair, the other story is right at the bottom, and maybe their mouse wheel is broken.
Einstein got two Nobel prizes though, which come with a check for 1 million US (nowadays, I don't know how much back then). His fame attracted students to him, which under Germany's university system means more cash. Einstein wasn't particularly interested in developing his theories into useful products, but as I stated before, he did work on a refrigerator pump, reportedly motivated by a news article about the asphyxiation of a family when their fridge pump failed, leaking toxic gases into their flat.
I think that to count all the results from any scientific progress over all results for all time.
On the nuclear front, I agree that the current state of the nuclear fission industry is not entirely healthy, but since the current alternative is a 10% rise in CO2 emissions, I'm not convinced its wholly bad (radiation effects from power plant accidents are a lot more local than global warming effects). Nuclear weapons are abhorrant, but so are chemical, biological and even the most powerful conventional weapons (I believe FAE bombs can inflict damage over a similar area to the Nagasaki bomb, just without the delayed effects).
However, nuclear fusion power could be a major boost to the human race, with relatively little downside compared to all current power generation methods, and fission power appears to have been a necessary step towards its development.
But as the article points out, in many ways robots are better than any living creature. A rat can't get (or wouldn't go) through areas with temperatures higher than about 70 C, or without sufficient oxygen, and they can't sit deactivated for long periods of time.
Which would be the number of rescue workers who didn't die in shifting rubble etc. checking on indications of possible survivors, plus the number of any survivors rescued who would other wise have died. How many rescue workers died after the robots arrived on the scene? How many would have been in danger looking for survivors if the robots had not been there?
Rats, that have to be looked after (lab cruelty is a no-no if you don't want to recieve letter bombs), transported, modified and fitted with little backpacks to carry the communications gear.
I think the only difference between the rats and the robots here is the motive system and the motion control system. Everything else has to be developed and built anyway, so the costs aren't going to be that different (medical sensors are more expensive than motors I guess).
The best cooperation here would be to study the brain functions of rats in a maze, and use that to build navigation models for robots.
He does make a rather good case for why robots are better than rats though. I think the original reference to rescue rats was a stunt to get funding/publicity (practically the same thing).
Some of the problem is that any press other than journals and a few science magazines won't report any basic research without having some gee whizz possible applications.
Does .travel mean anything you would want a tld of, or anything inappropriate in other languages?
Enquiring minds want to know
And yet you quote Turing, a mathematician. hmm.
I'm not sure that you can divide some work into that done by engineers and scientists so easily.
I'm nominally a physicist, but I develop high frequency radio receivers for astronomy. This looks remarkably like engineering, in that I have to design a product for reproducibility, to specifications. Admittedly I don't have to then sell the thing, mainly because we have to see if the current designs can be improved first.
To do this engineering type thing, I have to work with and develop theoretical techniques for calculating EM fields, develop theories for describing the performance of the receivers etc.
Einstein's first Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect, which clarified the basic physics of how metals interact with light, and how electrons behavein materials. These results go straight into semiconductor physics, and electron guns in CRTs. Are the TV and semiconductor device industries a big enough return?
Also, Einstein invented and received a patent on(in conjunction with Leo Szilard) an electromagnetic pump for pumping metallised fluids with no moving parts.
As for general relativity, if that wasn't taken into account, then GPS systems would be inaccurate, satelite orbits wouldn't be entirely correct, and so geostationary orbits wouldn't work so well, etc. etc. etc.
Also, possibly no nuclear power, which gives us 1/5 of the world's electricity, and is just about the only hope for continuing growth of power usage at current (no pun, honestly) rates (renewables just can't provide enough power if you assume continuous growth of power demands at current rates for about 60 years) in the form of fusion power.
And then there are all sorts of social gains that can be assigned costs that Einstein as a populariser of science is partially responsile for. I'm no sociologists, so I won't expand on that here.
You can justify basic research in monetary terms, but one of the many problems is that any changes made by a current government won't have an effect until the next government is in power. It might take 40 years for some basic research to get out of the lab (superconductors say). Governments need quick results and easy soundbites to survive in the modern media.
I work in the Cambridge Astrophysics group, and many people there are doing very fundamental research, but also coming up with immediately applicable side results. The problem is that these are often not obvious from the official description of the research. For example, data analysis techniques developed for CMB observations can be applied to general pattern matching, and image analysis. However when the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's funding is discussed, this kind of thing is often forgotten. Fortunately, the current government is being reasonably enlightened about this kind of thing.
> anyone want to addd some more?
Quantum Computation
Polymer Electronics
Spintronics
Quantum Cryptography
Informatics (Which I suppose can include Bioinformatics, and is really a branch of thermodynamics)
Quantum
Biophysics in general seems to be quite a popularised area. There is some very interesting work going on w.r.t. neurons and neural mechanisms, both experimental and theoretical.
However, some governments seem to like the quick appliciability of modern biological research to everyday life. This forgets that most of this has come from fundamental advances in physics, often in very unrelated fields that happened many years before they were applied to biology. E.g. discovery of the structure of DNA was worked out using x-ray diffraction. If x-rays hadn't been discovered out of research into cathode ray tubes 70 years earlier, then genetics wouldn't have got started.
I think it mostly comes down to politicians having to have simple soundbite justifications for any money spent, which is quite hard to do, for say, the LHC, or research into the early universe.
is this format going to replace the
/. cliche for the kids.
1) do something
2) ?
3) profit!
cliche
You obviously missed that episode of the Brady Bunch! Let me summarise-
1) The Brady family invents a new
2) Good family fun ensues!
IBM also made some of the punch card sorters at Los Alamos that were used in hydrodynamic calculations for the plutonium implosion nuclear bomb. These pretty much led to the US effort to make a programmable computer.