I like how I go to one website, and it automatically tells me what I do or do not have installed. Then I get presented with a list of new patches, arranged neatly into ranks like Critical, Highly Recommended, Fun and Games, even Beta Testing. I can even get told within minutes of a new critical patch being posted by installing Microsoft's Critical Update Notifier. Each patch included a description of the component involved so I can choose if it is right for that computer. Then, after checkmarking all the items I want, click a button to download and install the patches automatically
I suggest this is a Bad Thing, in general. I haven't used this service since I dont do NT. However, from this sounds of it, all this tells you is what you do and don't have, and what microsoft has to say about whatever the current patches are. It is not the case that you want to apply all patches merely because they are new. You need to know which ones work, which don't, which are buggy and which are stable.
This is merely an excuse for lazy admins to think they are doing a good job by hitting the microsoft site every week or so, and fooling themselves into thinking that applying whatever patches are new makes their systems secure and stable.
There is no substitute for knowledge. And convenience is definitely not a good substitute for knowing your way around your machines.
With the naming of this new chip as "Itanium" we now have proof that Intel is in league with the mafia. I suspect the next IA-64 chip following Itanium will be named "Sicilium"
I havent had a chance to read them in detail, but on page 37 (I think it was), there are packet definitions for midi data transfer. i.e. no more MIDI cables.
While on the topic...now all I need is some professional quality sound editing tool's for LINUX. Anybody have any sugesstions? I've used Cakewalk for years and I am sick of it. As soon as I find this solution, my last Windows box will be gone!
AFAIK, you'll find links to the gammut of linux sound s/w here
The short answer is that it all pretty much sucks. Some suck less than others, of course. But if you hate Cakewalk, you are really going to hate this mess of s/w. I've used Rosegarden a bit, and it seems to be the most complete editor, but even still, it's not all that great.
The specs are there on the GMICS site in pdf format. How open do you want? This is definitely better than the MIDI standard. Sure you can get the MIDI specs, but the the MIDI Manufacturers Association (MMA), who maintain them, expect you to pay 40 or 50 bux for them.
Having put that aside, I've only skimmed the specs, I haven't got a complete view of how this all works, but it appears that it will solve a number of problems that many of us musicians currently deal with.
[0] MIDI works and is useful, but it's getting old and crispy. Connecting MIDI devices can be a royal pain, and MIDI patch bays are equally annoying.
[1] Mixing analogue and digital signals is another pain in the butt, particularly in live situations.
[2] Somewhat related to [1], with any decent sized MIDI setup, the number of midi and patch cords becomes almost unmanagable. GMIC will at least cut this mess in half.
These are just a few of them. Most importantly, GMICS should, if accepted by manufactures, go a long way in unifying studio and live setups, and making them easier to deal with (even with fairly small "studios" like mine).
On the other hand, I'm not going to get too excited untill a few things happen.
[0] Manufacturers other than Gibson need to accept this as a standard and start building gear around the standard.
[1] Decent software needs to exist before I'll consider it usefull.
[2] It better deal well with my pre-existing gear in some sane and reasonable manner, or it is pointless. I like the gear I have and I don't intend to sell it all off just so I can retrofit. (fortunately most of my gear is MIDI enabled, including FX processors, so this might not be too big a deal).
Anyhow, it sounds pretty cool, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out in practice. It's about time somebody is trying to update digital interfaces for instruments. I don't think the MMA is going to like this much:)
Gotta love those pretty pictures, that's for sure.
However, while reading the captions something occurred to me: When astronomers say in articles such as these, things like, "this star exploded about 40,000 years ago", do they typically mean, "we would have seen it explode 40,000 years ago", or "it actually exploded 40,000 years ago, but we would have seen it explode (40,000 - X) years ago given an adjustment for distance"?
I always find ambiguous statments like this irritating. Please enlighten me, oh great and wise astrogeeks!
I tend to agree with much of the sentiment generated here about the (non) validity of using these things for your everyday commute. However, assuming this flying gizmo actually makes it to production, there might be some very good/interesting uses for them:
[0] recreation, as has been previously mentioned
[1] wilderness search and rescue
[2] forest fire fighting
[3] military activities (obviously)
In fact, altho i'm no parachutist, if these things can hand 10,000 feet, I would guess that you could potentially forget about the parachute and just cruise out the back of a plane with one of these things. It might give you more choice of landing spots, and would give you mobility after you hit [sic] the ground.
This brings up an interesting question: how is code handled inside Microsoft?
Altho this isn't really on-topic I'll relate this little story because you brought this up.
When I was in university and taking a program design class, I had a TA who had previously worked for both NASA and Microsoft (not at the same time).
The TA session was on specifications, and he trotted out some of the specs for the space shuttle software. It included huge amounts of detail, as you might expect for something like the shuttle.
After the class, a few of us accosted him about specs. I asked him what kind of specs they used at Microsoft. He said that he was worked on a word processor (presumably Word), and he said that the design/coding went like this:
[0] Microsoft "designer" draws a picture of what the gui should look like.
[1] "designer" goes to coders office and hands him/her the drawing.
[2] "designer" says to coder, "make it look like this"
[3] "designer" leaves office.
Assuming this is true, it might explain a few things:)
I find that the most memorable adds are typically of the humourous variety, but the article never mentions, as far as I recall, any mention of humour in the adds that the program creates. It's also interesting to note that the article seems to imply that the authors (of the program) found all the rules for creative advertisement creation (that may not be what they mean, but that's how it sounded to me).
If they can come up with a program that could produce some humourous adds on demand (i.e. I want an add for product X and it has to be funny), I'd be very impressed. Of course, this is, as the AI crowd has long babbled about, much more difficult that coding up a few rules.
As was posted earlier, it's much more impressive that these folks could figure out some of the "rules of creative advertisement creation" that the fact that they wrote some little program to prove the point.
... goofy looking aliens aside, it's going to feature a ship called the "USS Excellent". Is the captain of said ship going to be "Bill" or "Ted"? Maybe it's a comedy:)
That's valuable information and all, but it makes me wonder, given the fact that these companies all have websites (who doesn't), if Delta (the originator of the Ask Slashdot article) couldn't have just done a web search and found this stuff without beating on slashdot with this request.
Sounds a bit like if, given an assignment in school, you ask your prof/teacher for relevent references instead of just spending the 30 minutes to check your library index for an answer.
As services on the net become ubiquitous and even your grandmother starts to use those services, I suspect that things will be changing. For the most part, I thought the story was a bit bogus, but the last statement was interesting:
Another way is to create mechanism of accountability, which replace fancy worded "commitments" with "binding obligations" so that screwing up really hurts. Like in most other areas of life.
I suspect that the truth of the internet service future is summed up rather well here. The more folks use these services, the more pressure there will be for providers of these services to be accountable. Admittedly, policing the net seems intractible. On the other hand, that doesn't mean some bright cookie won't figure out a decent way to deal with it.
For instance, what if Texas decided that it would make net service providers accountable for the stability and security of the services they provide? Maybe they would let anybody sue a Texas provider that didn't meet that provider's claims of stability and security in the hopes that companies would flock to Texas with the idea that net-users would consider Texan providers more accountable, hence generating more business localy?
IANAL, but such things seem at least possible. Or maybe there is a completely different idea out there floating around that would produce the same result.
I suspect that in a world which allows idiots to sue McDonald's because the coffee they ordered was actually hot will eventualy devolve into a world in which Joe Average can sue Provider-X for losing his index.html and not having a backup on the server.
I don't like it, but that seems to be the way things are going.
"If this site can debunk a few more hacker/cracker myths propigated by the mass media, more power to them"
While I'd like to agree with this statement, I can't. It's just a wild guess, but I'd say/. is pretty much preaching to the converted. Most of us here have at least half a clue what the difference is between "hacker" and "cracker."
Sites that are visited by the unwashed masses are probably the only place any useful debunking could occur. But that just isn't happening, and I doubt it will anytime soon.
Therefore, I'd suggest that/. isn't really the forum for this drivel at all. But, of course, The Geek Compound is free to post what they will and I'm free not to read it if I don't want to.
At least crappy articles like this sometimes produce some pretty humourous responses from/. readers:)
I'm not sure that using user id's for reference is necessarily the best idea since you get assigned a new id if for some reason you need to re-register. I should also point out that DonkPunch himself has an id of 30957 by my count and I'm fairly sure he's been around/. for quite some time.
Anyhow, this newbie will shuttup until he enters the magic percentile.
quote chapter and verse (gimme a URL) as proof, and I'll be content with the answer, altho a/. hack would have been cooler.
BTW, i've been watching/. for 8 months to a year and dont recall anything said about rob's "little bit 'o perl code that adjusts the scores". what do you consider !newbie ?
Don't get me wrong, I certainly dont begrudge you for getting your posts moderated up (some of them are bloddy hilarious), but how in hell do you get *every* post moderated up by at least one point? you got a |33+ hack you wanna share with the rest of the class?:)
Slashdot Mirror
I like how I go to one website, and it automatically tells me what I do or do not have installed. Then I get presented with a list of new patches, arranged neatly into ranks like Critical, Highly Recommended, Fun and Games, even Beta Testing. I can even get told within minutes of a new critical patch being posted by installing Microsoft's Critical Update Notifier. Each patch included a description of the component involved so I can choose if it is right for that computer. Then, after checkmarking all the items I want, click a button to download and install the patches automatically
I suggest this is a Bad Thing, in general. I haven't used this service since I dont do NT. However, from this sounds of it, all this tells you is what you do and don't have, and what microsoft has to say about whatever the current patches are. It is not the case that you want to apply all patches merely because they are new. You need to know which ones work, which don't, which are buggy and which are stable.
This is merely an excuse for lazy admins to think they are doing a good job by hitting the microsoft site every week or so, and fooling themselves into thinking that applying whatever patches are new makes their systems secure and stable.
There is no substitute for knowledge. And convenience is definitely not a good substitute for knowing your way around your machines.
With the naming of this new chip as "Itanium" we now have proof that Intel is in league with the mafia. I suspect the next IA-64 chip following Itanium will be named "Sicilium"
wtf does OLAP stand for?
How old was she?
I havent had a chance to read them in detail, but on page 37 (I think it was), there are packet definitions for midi data transfer. i.e. no more MIDI cables.
While on the topic...now all I need is some professional quality sound editing tool's for LINUX. Anybody have any sugesstions? I've used Cakewalk for years and I am sick of it. As soon as I find this solution, my last Windows box will be gone!
:)
AFAIK, you'll find links to the gammut of linux sound s/w here
The short answer is that it all pretty much sucks. Some suck less than others, of course. But if you hate Cakewalk, you are really going to hate this mess of s/w. I've used Rosegarden a bit, and it seems to be the most complete editor, but even still, it's not all that great.
Happy Hunting!
First, to address this issue:
:)
Definitely cool, but apparently not open.
The specs are there on the GMICS site in pdf format. How open do you want? This is definitely better than the MIDI standard. Sure you can get the MIDI specs, but the the MIDI Manufacturers Association (MMA), who maintain them, expect you to pay 40 or 50 bux for them.
Having put that aside, I've only skimmed the specs, I haven't got a complete view of how this all works, but it appears that it will solve a number of problems that many of us musicians currently deal with.
[0] MIDI works and is useful, but it's getting old and crispy. Connecting MIDI devices can be a royal pain, and MIDI patch bays are equally annoying.
[1] Mixing analogue and digital signals is another pain in the butt, particularly in live situations.
[2] Somewhat related to [1], with any decent sized MIDI setup, the number of midi and patch cords becomes almost unmanagable. GMIC will at least cut this mess in half.
These are just a few of them. Most importantly, GMICS should, if accepted by manufactures, go a long way in unifying studio and live setups, and making them easier to deal with (even with fairly small "studios" like mine).
On the other hand, I'm not going to get too excited untill a few things happen.
[0] Manufacturers other than Gibson need to accept this as a standard and start building gear around the standard.
[1] Decent software needs to exist before I'll consider it usefull.
[2] It better deal well with my pre-existing gear in some sane and reasonable manner, or it is pointless. I like the gear I have and I don't intend to sell it all off just so I can retrofit. (fortunately most of my gear is MIDI enabled, including FX processors, so this might not be too big a deal).
Anyhow, it sounds pretty cool, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out in practice. It's about time somebody is trying to update digital interfaces for instruments. I don't think the MMA is going to like this much
Gotta love those pretty pictures, that's for sure.
However, while reading the captions something occurred to me: When astronomers say in articles such as these, things like, "this star exploded about 40,000 years ago", do they typically mean, "we would have seen it explode 40,000 years ago", or "it actually exploded 40,000 years ago, but we would have seen it explode (40,000 - X) years ago given an adjustment for distance"?
I always find ambiguous statments like this irritating. Please enlighten me, oh great and wise astrogeeks!
Hey, Tom, I thought you were ditchting slashdot? The slashdot addiction just a little to much to handle? :)
I tend to agree with much of the sentiment generated here about the (non) validity of using these things for your everyday commute. However, assuming this flying gizmo actually makes it to production, there might be some very good/interesting uses for them:
[0] recreation, as has been previously mentioned
[1] wilderness search and rescue
[2] forest fire fighting
[3] military activities (obviously)
In fact, altho i'm no parachutist, if these things can hand 10,000 feet, I would guess that you could potentially forget about the parachute and just cruise out the back of a plane with one of these things. It might give you more choice of landing spots, and would give you mobility after you hit [sic] the ground.
We are Sony. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
This brings up an interesting question: how is code handled inside Microsoft?
:)
Altho this isn't really on-topic I'll relate this little story because you brought this up.
When I was in university and taking a program design class, I had a TA who had previously worked for both NASA and Microsoft (not at the same time).
The TA session was on specifications, and he trotted out some of the specs for the space shuttle software. It included huge amounts of detail, as you might expect for something like the shuttle.
After the class, a few of us accosted him about specs. I asked him what kind of specs they used at Microsoft. He said that he was worked on a word processor (presumably Word), and he said that the design/coding went like this:
[0] Microsoft "designer" draws a picture of what the gui should look like.
[1] "designer" goes to coders office and hands him/her the drawing.
[2] "designer" says to coder, "make it look like this"
[3] "designer" leaves office.
Assuming this is true, it might explain a few things
I find that the most memorable adds are typically of the humourous variety, but the article never mentions, as far as I recall, any mention of humour in the adds that the program creates. It's also interesting to note that the article seems to imply that the authors (of the program) found all the rules for creative advertisement creation (that may not be what they mean, but that's how it sounded to me).
If they can come up with a program that could produce some humourous adds on demand (i.e. I want an add for product X and it has to be funny), I'd be very impressed. Of course, this is, as the AI crowd has long babbled about, much more difficult that coding up a few rules.
As was posted earlier, it's much more impressive that these folks could figure out some of the "rules of creative advertisement creation" that the fact that they wrote some little program to prove the point.
... goofy looking aliens aside, it's going to feature a ship called the "USS Excellent". Is the captain of said ship going to be "Bill" or "Ted"? Maybe it's a comedy :)
That's valuable information and all, but it makes me wonder, given the fact that these companies all have websites (who doesn't), if Delta (the originator of the Ask Slashdot article) couldn't have just done a web search and found this stuff without beating on slashdot with this request.
Sounds a bit like if, given an assignment in school, you ask your prof/teacher for relevent references instead of just spending the 30 minutes to check your library index for an answer.
[0] read it again. I'm talking about service providers (as in Hotmail, E-bay, Amazon, etc), not ISPs
[1] if said service providers could make substantially more cash than by operating out of another state, they would happily pay the insurance.
[2] I'm not suggesting this is the only possibility, only that it is A possibility.
As services on the net become ubiquitous and even your grandmother starts to use those services, I suspect that things will be changing. For the most part, I thought the story was a bit bogus, but the last statement was interesting:
Another way is to create mechanism of accountability, which replace fancy worded "commitments" with "binding obligations" so that screwing up really hurts. Like in most other areas of life.
I suspect that the truth of the internet service future is summed up rather well here. The more folks use these services, the more pressure there will be for providers of these services to be accountable. Admittedly, policing the net seems intractible. On the other hand, that doesn't mean some bright cookie won't figure out a decent way to deal with it.
For instance, what if Texas decided that it would make net service providers accountable for the stability and security of the services they provide? Maybe they would let anybody sue a Texas provider that didn't meet that provider's claims of stability and security in the hopes that companies would flock to Texas with the idea that net-users would consider Texan providers more accountable, hence generating more business localy?
IANAL, but such things seem at least possible. Or maybe there is a completely different idea out there floating around that would produce the same result.
I suspect that in a world which allows idiots to sue McDonald's because the coffee they ordered was actually hot will eventualy devolve into a world in which Joe Average can sue Provider-X for losing his index.html and not having a backup on the server.
I don't like it, but that seems to be the way things are going.
... you *all* forgot:
9) How much faster will I be able to play q3test?
While I'd like to agree with this statement, I can't. It's just a wild guess, but I'd say /. is pretty much preaching to the converted. Most of us here have at least half a clue what the difference is between "hacker" and "cracker."
Sites that are visited by the unwashed masses are probably the only place any useful debunking could occur. But that just isn't happening, and I doubt it will anytime soon.
Therefore, I'd suggest that /. isn't really the forum for this drivel at all. But, of course, The Geek Compound is free to post what they will and I'm free not to read it if I don't want to.
At least crappy articles like this sometimes produce some pretty humourous responses from /. readers :)
Why does MTV suck so hard?
Abe answers:
The fact that I've been on MTV should be answer enough.
Gawddamit that was funny, dude. You rock :)
I'm not sure that using user id's for reference is necessarily the best idea since you get assigned a new id if for some reason you need to re-register. I should also point out that DonkPunch himself has an id of 30957 by my count and I'm fairly sure he's been around /. for quite some time.
Anyhow, this newbie will shuttup until he enters the magic percentile.
quote chapter and verse (gimme a URL) as proof, and I'll be content with the answer, altho a /. hack would have been cooler.
/. for 8 months to a year and dont recall anything said about rob's "little bit 'o perl code that adjusts the scores". what do you consider !newbie ?
BTW, i've been watching
Don't get me wrong, I certainly dont begrudge you for getting your posts moderated up (some of them are bloddy hilarious), but how in hell do you get *every* post moderated up by at least one point? you got a |33+ hack you wanna share with the rest of the class? :)