The Glass is a very obvious device. I suppose this is because they are selling the concept.
But what about a camera embedded in a pair of standard glasses?
You just turn the recording device (could be Bluetooth or stand alone) that even doesn't need to be with you, only in reachable distance, and record everything around. No wires, nothing delating what you are doing.
mm... I suppose this must be happening thousands of times just now.... and for much less than $1500.... Amazon, Fashion Listens Glasses Digital Video Glasses Hidden Eyewear DVR Camcorder Eyeglass $48.98
I don't think that the UI builders that create code, as a concept are bad.
The problem is not there, the problem is in the framework they are based to create the code.
In fact, if the framework is well ordered, efficient and trustworthy, they do almost nothing, very similar to create XML to run the user interface, but letting you to fill some gaps with more creative methods (when they won't destroy your own modifications when re-creating the source files).
On the other side, sometimes the UI builders really don't help you. Once I created a very complex and flexible database library directly using the VCL Delphi's framework without the usage of the UI Builder. The framework was wonderful, but the UI Builder just did't let you to go beyond some basic limit. And as I understand they never improved this, just made the particular libraries obsolete instead of trying to improve how they used them.
I think that there is a basic fundamental problem here.
There are characteristics and there are characteristics in a device that carry you to another place.
The first ones are classified as critical and it is important to invest all possible resources to make them to work. I know one car computer could cost $100 but to develop it cost millions of dollars, so there are resources to make them well.
The other characteristics, to attach an iPod, to control the temperature in your seat, to dim the internal light, they can have bugs, nobody will die because of them.
But, please, don't make bugs in the critical areas because you like to have the superficial characteristics at hand without using money, I will name that an irresponsible design behaviour.
At the end, what happened is that the current user-computing environments where not created to be in a connected world where resources were available through the Internet. This has been a very disordered and incomplete evolution where something must die in the improvement process.
You are the owner of your environment. But others can execute sensitive/powerful code without your permission. Must be a difference between "you" and the "others" for you to be really secure, a difference that disappear when the software is already in execution position. And this is the main problem.
This is like to have a car. If you let an unknown person to drive your car then you are doomed. You don't do that, you have keys, you have a safe place to store your car, and when other takes your car it is an abnormal behaviour. But current systems see with good eyes that other pieces of software are executed without enough control inside them, and this is their normal behaviour... something is not logical in this equation.
To watch TV and to hear music is useless because they are oriented to commercial goals, they are not intended to teach anybody useful things. With clear exceptions (let me see... BBC, BBC... BBC... ).
Right now I am hearing Arthur Honegger: "Une Cantate de Noël" in Youtube, and I suppose nobody knows this music because of standard TV or Radio... even, I doubt people, in general, knows that Honegger even exist as a composer or that there is this option to find good modern music; let me see, 6801 people saw this including me. Another test... Samuel Barber (a very important US composer)... "Summer Music"... 958 views... and a last one... Miley Cyrus - "Wrecking Ball"... 523,997,788 views....
I use C++ every day and I understand you... but in that case maybe what could be said is that C++ is bigger and, in that sense, more difficult to master.
In fact, you can do exactly the same you do with C++ with C, even object oriented programming. But... and this is where things turn out, C becomes more complex tha C++ because you need to figure how to do the things with less language constructors.
At the end, returning to the original posting about education, what people needs to know is how to use effectively their computer and programming is a good way to have the maximum of such devices. What I don't see is everybody using C or C++ as daily basis because "both" are hard to use well. What the people need is to understand the concepts well and then, to use some language that permits them to have a flexible life with their devices without committing programming sins that later will take their eyes our of their orbits.
Calculus is important in the sense that Mathematics is the language of science.
And our computers are based on mathematics. Of course, you can create software without mathematical background, but when you do it with a careful design based on well stablished mathematical principles... oh, what a difference!!
The modern Patterns based programming is... a mathematical model. The object oriented programming follows rules that are crafted according with mathematical practice. How the cycles and conditions work inside the software flow describe mathematical considerations, and it is possible to anticipate how your software will behave using mathematical theory to save you a lot of time and "money".
The problem is not to learn "Calculus". The problem is to learn when to "apply" Calculus. As an example, I have many years learning english (spanish is my native language)... my writing is not perfect, but I am improving it every day... but as I don't use Mandarin for daily communications, my low Mandarin knowledge is rusted and disappearing. But this doesn't mean that to learn Mandarin is not important, talking fluent Mandarin could open me many doors that today are closed.
I am from Costa Rica, so my opinions are different because I am a compromised witness.
This sunday we have national elections to choose our president and our congress. But this time it is a complex issue that makes these Windows/Linux, GPL/Apache/BSD, etc., fights to be pale in comparison.
Instead of two main candidates, as usually happens in the U.S., we have 5 main candidates from 13 (around that quantity). And our people it is now very fragmented on their opinions, going from hard core communists to liberal oriented ones, with many "nuances" in the middle. Who will win?... today it is very difficult to say even who will be in third place, and the Congress will be a complete salad of gray, oranges, blues, etc.
The "other option" in the Snowden case could be a healthy one. To try to label somebody only as good or bad not always seems to be the best option. Today, because of this, the NSA is becoming more careful about what they do, and the general population keep open eyes on them. Also, the "watergate" style problems are coming to the table again, I think, for the best. And Snowden, yes, he broke the rules, but was he trying to commit a crime?
Oh, CSound is not for Linux, it is multiplatform. In fact, it is a programming library, so you could seriously think on this if you like to make a synthesiser as an "offline" or "high quality sound rendering" option.
For example, you use the standard midi options with latency and whatever you find to work, but when you are satisfied, then you ask the software to render a sound file. This will work for a while, but would be independent of whatever limitation your hardware could have.
For notation you also can consider Lylipond (also multiplatform). It is a language and a compiler. The output is a PDF and MIDI. For some people, the PDF quality is even higher than Finale itself can do. It is based on the same philosophy as LaTEX and PS, but taking into consideration musical nuances.
So you see, you only need to find the way of making the creation of CSound and Lylipond scripts easier, and then to call the corresponding compilers. What I don't have at hand is an option for WYSIWYG music imput; I have been trying but no one solution (commercial or not) in the market is good enough for me:-)
The idea is to build the music algorithmically, so you only need a CPU, not even a Sound card... and "if" latency exist working with MIDI software devices, that doesn't exist when creating audio files directly from mathematical definitions.
I need to return to this some day... I was checking and they have been working to advance this technology continuously:-)
Well, we can try with sugar (http://www.businessinsider.com/sugar-based-battery-developed-by-virginia-tech-2014-1)
With today's technology we can't reload our car's energy quick enough with the sun to compare with fossil based fuels, that are also "solar powered" but for many years, not for minutes.
But a combination - sun, sugar, brakes, plug at home or office, wind - could deliver what we really need to have a normal trip.
A perfect option would be if someone invent the way to have energy from CO2 to produce water or something similar (to complete the normally incomplete combustion our current vehicles perform). But... let's see what happens.
It is a very interesting point of view... by experience, I know several "servers" (different brands) that had one or another hardware problem before some "desktop" computers, incorrectly used as servers, had one.
In fact, I really don't remember those desktops to fail, they were replaces because simply they became not strong enough to continue backing the business they were focused on.
Another interesting thing: with the desktops, you only need to go to a regular store to find the parts and you can change them by yourself. With the servers, you need to purchase "premium" parts and, depending on your company budget, you also need to pay premium support to help you with the machines maintenance.
I am talking about "breakthrough" because I am trying to define the limits for computing "only" processing.
My myself, am a musician for several decades, both writing music and playing with chamber groups and complete symphony orchestras, and I am also a Systems Engineer for more than 20 years. I really appreciate the efforts to conjugate both disciplines, but I also understand their limits because I have been experimenting them for many years.
Do I like only to hear these marvellous pieces of music that change history? Of course not. I usually hear youtube when I am working on software, and there are many different types of pieces there, some good others not so good. It is common that I hear movie soundtracks when I am trying to design software. However...
... I also understand that there is a huge difference when I consider Beethoven or Ravel string quartets compared with some of these Soundtracks. And not only because of the music by itself, but also because of who plays the music. You can't compare a well intentioned group of students with famous string players having a lot of experience.
And, it is very important to write music. You need to be in both sides of the fence to understand this. There is the people that hear, the people that plays and the people that write the music. This is like to make exercise (I am not good on this I must confess). You need to make the exercise to have a benefit from it, you can't put a machine to exercise by yourself. This is a revitalising experience, much better than just hearing it.
Taking comments from some in this thread into consideration. I prefer not to have a program that do everything for myself only to hear something, even if this is good quality material. But I would appreciate if the software permits me to express my musical feelings even if I don't have enough experience time and/or knowledge to have it... this will be, in my opinion, the best approach to write music with computers anybody could have, and this type of assistant need to be much more complex than the current systems that create music because you need to express your feelings and the software needs to understand them, this is really difficult to do but I trust that some day this will be in our hands.
Mr Cope's made Emily, an important advancement on information science (thanks for the reference). But look at it... what was published in the article and what has been shown are pieces of music that are chosen by Mr. Cope. I don't say that the machine can't do a good job, the article also indicates that people can't see the difference between Bach music and Emily's music. What I say is that there is one person helping to refine and to choose the music because, at last, the human taste must be taken into consideration.
And this is very very simple. The audience are people. If the audience be machines, nobody must be involved, because between machines they communicate very well. When the material is created for people, however, always must exist some filtering. And this happens in every type of knowledge (music was only an example). If the machine can create a scientific article to be published in a scientific magazine to be read by people, somebody must review it first to define if the article worth to be published.
About the Everest... it is dangerous to go there in an helicopter (well, in general it is not healthy to go there under any circumstances).
HTML is not the only technology application exist on TCP/IP.
If the time arrived for the HTML to bypass every right for privacy, maybe the time to forget HTML arrived and to look for a different type of technology.
The problem is that for some law offenders, the authorities are accusing all the other users as criminals and forcing them to receive the same treatment. In this new world, we are becoming guilty by default unless we can give a proof that we are the good ones.
Do you know what is the interesting thing?... the firewalls work that way. Everything is closed and we open what we need to open, and we learned that this is the best way to control what the people do, so we are extending this to other knowledge domains.
Not a music critic... usually (with the Berlioz exception) they are not so good doing that work.
What I think is on good music writers, the ones can find a marvellous piece of music mixed with a lot of crap, even if the music doesn't follow their ideals. For example, I write music and I hate Rock, because for me it could explore more the ideas define it, but I can tell you when Rock music is well written because this is not on me, this is in the music and its inner force, even if I don't like it.
The problem with the robotised tasks is that we program them for them to find what we expect to find there. But they will pass on top of these pieces of magic that are not following the patterns we have in mind and that could finish in the trash can.
The robots will trash many pieces of arts. If we code on them the rules Camille Saint-Saëns had in his mind, the robot will let pass Stravinsky material as not good enough to be considered as music.
That is exactly the problem. It will meet my metric.... it is a style copy.
Today could make the 9th Beethoven Symphony because the machine can compare with it. But if we move our machine with our algorithms to Beethoven time before the 9th Symphony or anything similar was produced, I don't see the machine making such breakthrough in history, it will continue building "classical" style music, not even near to the new "romantic" style Beethoven invented.
The algorithm will make a nice, decent piece of music, but won't be able to create the "art" that break the history as the big masters were able to create in their time and their reality space. They modified the path of history. Our brains and mind are not only filled with data, we have an incredible capacity to associate/dissociate facts that no machine is near to match. But I agree with something, if we are able to code "our" style in the machine, being a new style, the machine could help us to find alternatives faster than when we write the music itself, being very good tools for us in such case.
Java already do this with Strings, being immutable objects. The only you can do is to create copies with the changes within and to erase the original, more or less what happens on Star Trek when you teletransport a person to other place, something I really don't like very much;-)
Make MSOffice 100% touch-screen compatible, removing all mouse compatibility
Before XEROX Start, no mouse was there and we were able to use word processors very well. The problem with the mouse is that it became ubiquitous and there are moments where the mouse sucks but we became accustomed to it; would be nice to see another approach on the desktop.
Remove Right-Click capability
Contextual menu is an object/oriented extension. Although I use objects everywhere, they are not the only way to do the things. And without a mouse, you won't have the contextual menu anyway, at least not with a click.
Remove all menu bars and hotkeys
Let's do things more intelligent, anyway our desktop machines are using their huge power on stupid things as transparency calculation, why not to use that power where it would really help?
An helicopter won't climb the Everest because it is the wrong device to do so. Not enough density in the air, and excessive wind. But, some type of flying machine will go there for sure, the one designed for that labor that is, a simple one (to go there).
The same could be said for the composing symphony robot. The issue is not to compose a symphony, because a symphony is a very structured definition that can be easily be given to an algorithm to be defined. The issue is to compose an endurable symphony, one that could be remembered and that would be praised five hundred years from today, this is the difficult, if not impossible task for a machine.
Humans and Machines deal with the same information every day. When the task doesn't requires of the "humanity" ingredient, usually the machines do a better job than us. That human component is very special, because we can choose what we decide to use in our symphonies, not because it is logical or practical or mathematically plausible, but because "we like it". And in five hundred years, humans will decide on human created material, and they will notice that "humanity" that makes the symphony so special. If the machines are used to perform that decision, maybe they won't notice that "human" component there.
This is like if we put a million monkeys typing on keyboards for one million years. Surely some of them could create a beautiful symphony, why not?... but who will decide what, of the billions and billions of created materials will be beautiful?... again, a person. Because beauty is a relative, and people can see beautiful things in the chaos, out of any type of rule that a machine could follow to help to do the task. Just examples... Debussy, Stravinsky... they decided to use "other" rules... but they created masterpieces.
This, as many things in human history is a vocabulary problem.
If we think on them as bugs that must be exterminated, then we are in a battle "killing bugs". But if we realise they are just mistakes that must be "resolved", then we are in a continuously improvement process oriented to improve what we do.
The real problem is if the person that will provide the working parameters to these algorithms defines that some of us, as humans, are mistakes that must be "resolved" and that the weapons working on these algorithms are the tools to perform that improvement. In fact, this sounds very much as what happened with Nazis in the Second World War.
If I am in a tropical forest, and I can't see where is the sun because so many trees and every direction is "green", have no GPS neither a device with WIFI... but have a dog.
I am saved:-)... just I need to give the dog some food and to wait.
On #1... that is a merchant/payment processor rule, you are right, but this really limits the electronic commerce with the United States and isolates the country, so at the end is a country-level definition. I have purchased things in several countries online and as I remember the US is the only one blocked my purchases because I didn't have an US address. Those web sites were really made only for internal country usage, even published on the broad Internet.
On #2... the judicial US system defined that if a third party produces the data, the authorities can have direct access to it without asking for additional permission (the problem is not the warrant, the problem is the free access without a warrant). This is a recent US definition. But if I play with so loose definition, if I make an automatic encrypted backup of my customer's data, I generated this data, was not the customer, so the US government can have access to it without asking for permission. Also, they can have free access to my browsing customs, and this is a clear privacy invasion.
On #3...this is not worse than #2, but for travellers will be very uncomfortable. In fact, it is better not to travel with computing devices at all.
The general problem is that technology really is "local" and we, as technology users, forget that. The sensation that we have a browser and we just go from one page to the other with a click, and that everything lives in the "virtual world", or that we are the owners of our data when we travel with it, is false. If I have a german web site with a link to an US web site that have a link to a Chinese web site, I could see all them in five minutes, but I really have been in three different countries ruled by three different types of laws.
Maybe, to make the user aware of privacy concerns, the browsers must add a small flag and a warning level to every visited page. If I see "green", I know the host country won't "normally" seize information about me, but if I see "red", it will do it. And I will take any browsing decision based on that.
Slashdot Mirror
The Glass is a very obvious device. I suppose this is because they are selling the concept.
... and for much less than $1500. ... Amazon, Fashion Listens Glasses Digital Video Glasses Hidden Eyewear DVR Camcorder Eyeglass $48.98
But what about a camera embedded in a pair of standard glasses?
You just turn the recording device (could be Bluetooth or stand alone) that even doesn't need to be with you, only in reachable distance, and record everything around. No wires, nothing delating what you are doing.
mm... I suppose this must be happening thousands of times just now.
I don't think that the UI builders that create code, as a concept are bad.
The problem is not there, the problem is in the framework they are based to create the code.
In fact, if the framework is well ordered, efficient and trustworthy, they do almost nothing, very similar to create XML to run the user interface, but letting you to fill some gaps with more creative methods (when they won't destroy your own modifications when re-creating the source files).
On the other side, sometimes the UI builders really don't help you. Once I created a very complex and flexible database library directly using the VCL Delphi's framework without the usage of the UI Builder. The framework was wonderful, but the UI Builder just did't let you to go beyond some basic limit. And as I understand they never improved this, just made the particular libraries obsolete instead of trying to improve how they used them.
mm .. a "smart" phone without the operating system is basically ... nothing.
I think that there is a basic fundamental problem here.
There are characteristics and there are characteristics in a device that carry you to another place.
The first ones are classified as critical and it is important to invest all possible resources to make them to work. I know one car computer could cost $100 but to develop it cost millions of dollars, so there are resources to make them well.
The other characteristics, to attach an iPod, to control the temperature in your seat, to dim the internal light, they can have bugs, nobody will die because of them.
But, please, don't make bugs in the critical areas because you like to have the superficial characteristics at hand without using money, I will name that an irresponsible design behaviour.
At the end, what happened is that the current user-computing environments where not created to be in a connected world where resources were available through the Internet. This has been a very disordered and incomplete evolution where something must die in the improvement process.
... something is not logical in this equation.
You are the owner of your environment. But others can execute sensitive/powerful code without your permission. Must be a difference between "you" and the "others" for you to be really secure, a difference that disappear when the software is already in execution position. And this is the main problem.
This is like to have a car. If you let an unknown person to drive your car then you are doomed. You don't do that, you have keys, you have a safe place to store your car, and when other takes your car it is an abnormal behaviour. But current systems see with good eyes that other pieces of software are executed without enough control inside them, and this is their normal behaviour
To watch TV and to hear music is useless because they are oriented to commercial goals, they are not intended to teach anybody useful things. With clear exceptions (let me see ... BBC, BBC ... BBC ... ).
... even, I doubt people, in general, knows that Honegger even exist as a composer or that there is this option to find good modern music; let me see, 6801 people saw this including me. Another test ... Samuel Barber (a very important US composer) ... "Summer Music" ... 958 views ... and a last one ... Miley Cyrus - "Wrecking Ball" ... 523,997,788 views ....
Right now I am hearing Arthur Honegger: "Une Cantate de Noël" in Youtube, and I suppose nobody knows this music because of standard TV or Radio
I think everything is said.
I use C++ every day and I understand you ... but in that case maybe what could be said is that C++ is bigger and, in that sense, more difficult to master.
... and this is where things turn out, C becomes more complex tha C++ because you need to figure how to do the things with less language constructors.
In fact, you can do exactly the same you do with C++ with C, even object oriented programming. But
At the end, returning to the original posting about education, what people needs to know is how to use effectively their computer and programming is a good way to have the maximum of such devices. What I don't see is everybody using C or C++ as daily basis because "both" are hard to use well. What the people need is to understand the concepts well and then, to use some language that permits them to have a flexible life with their devices without committing programming sins that later will take their eyes our of their orbits.
Calculus is important in the sense that Mathematics is the language of science.
... oh, what a difference!!
... a mathematical model. The object oriented programming follows rules that are crafted according with mathematical practice. How the cycles and conditions work inside the software flow describe mathematical considerations, and it is possible to anticipate how your software will behave using mathematical theory to save you a lot of time and "money".
... my writing is not perfect, but I am improving it every day ... but as I don't use Mandarin for daily communications, my low Mandarin knowledge is rusted and disappearing. But this doesn't mean that to learn Mandarin is not important, talking fluent Mandarin could open me many doors that today are closed.
And our computers are based on mathematics. Of course, you can create software without mathematical background, but when you do it with a careful design based on well stablished mathematical principles
The modern Patterns based programming is
The problem is not to learn "Calculus". The problem is to learn when to "apply" Calculus. As an example, I have many years learning english (spanish is my native language)
This is not true.
Both have advanced compilers, just that they are based on different principles.
You can create very complex things with C. An example are the UNIX like operating systems.
IE is a niche product in fact ... it is designed to work with Windows only.
... it is simple.
When Windows decline, mainly because OSX and the mobile platforms (indirectly we see Linux because of Android here), IE must decline
If Microsoft likes IE to grows, they need to increase their Windows sales, or they must go out their Windows bubble.
I am from Costa Rica, so my opinions are different because I am a compromised witness.
... today it is very difficult to say even who will be in third place, and the Congress will be a complete salad of gray, oranges, blues, etc.
This sunday we have national elections to choose our president and our congress. But this time it is a complex issue that makes these Windows/Linux, GPL/Apache/BSD, etc., fights to be pale in comparison.
Instead of two main candidates, as usually happens in the U.S., we have 5 main candidates from 13 (around that quantity). And our people it is now very fragmented on their opinions, going from hard core communists to liberal oriented ones, with many "nuances" in the middle. Who will win?
The "other option" in the Snowden case could be a healthy one. To try to label somebody only as good or bad not always seems to be the best option. Today, because of this, the NSA is becoming more careful about what they do, and the general population keep open eyes on them. Also, the "watergate" style problems are coming to the table again, I think, for the best. And Snowden, yes, he broke the rules, but was he trying to commit a crime?
Oh, CSound is not for Linux, it is multiplatform. In fact, it is a programming library, so you could seriously think on this if you like to make a synthesiser as an "offline" or "high quality sound rendering" option.
:-)
For example, you use the standard midi options with latency and whatever you find to work, but when you are satisfied, then you ask the software to render a sound file. This will work for a while, but would be independent of whatever limitation your hardware could have.
For notation you also can consider Lylipond (also multiplatform). It is a language and a compiler. The output is a PDF and MIDI. For some people, the PDF quality is even higher than Finale itself can do. It is based on the same philosophy as LaTEX and PS, but taking into consideration musical nuances.
So you see, you only need to find the way of making the creation of CSound and Lylipond scripts easier, and then to call the corresponding compilers. What I don't have at hand is an option for WYSIWYG music imput; I have been trying but no one solution (commercial or not) in the market is good enough for me
Something to try in your free time, could be interesting.
... by concept, latency doesn't exist.
... and "if" latency exist working with MIDI software devices, that doesn't exist when creating audio files directly from mathematical definitions.
... I was checking and they have been working to advance this technology continuously :-)
I was trying CSound several years ago
http://www.csounds.com/
The idea is to build the music algorithmically, so you only need a CPU, not even a Sound card
I need to return to this some day
Well, we can try with sugar (http://www.businessinsider.com/sugar-based-battery-developed-by-virginia-tech-2014-1)
... let's see what happens.
With today's technology we can't reload our car's energy quick enough with the sun to compare with fossil based fuels, that are also "solar powered" but for many years, not for minutes.
But a combination - sun, sugar, brakes, plug at home or office, wind - could deliver what we really need to have a normal trip.
A perfect option would be if someone invent the way to have energy from CO2 to produce water or something similar (to complete the normally incomplete combustion our current vehicles perform). But
It is a very interesting point of view ... by experience, I know several "servers" (different brands) that had one or another hardware problem before some "desktop" computers, incorrectly used as servers, had one.
In fact, I really don't remember those desktops to fail, they were replaces because simply they became not strong enough to continue backing the business they were focused on.
Another interesting thing: with the desktops, you only need to go to a regular store to find the parts and you can change them by yourself. With the servers, you need to purchase "premium" parts and, depending on your company budget, you also need to pay premium support to help you with the machines maintenance.
Good to point on this.
No no ... let me explain myself better.
...
... I also understand that there is a huge difference when I consider Beethoven or Ravel string quartets compared with some of these Soundtracks. And not only because of the music by itself, but also because of who plays the music. You can't compare a well intentioned group of students with famous string players having a lot of experience.
... this will be, in my opinion, the best approach to write music with computers anybody could have, and this type of assistant need to be much more complex than the current systems that create music because you need to express your feelings and the software needs to understand them, this is really difficult to do but I trust that some day this will be in our hands.
I am talking about "breakthrough" because I am trying to define the limits for computing "only" processing.
My myself, am a musician for several decades, both writing music and playing with chamber groups and complete symphony orchestras, and I am also a Systems Engineer for more than 20 years. I really appreciate the efforts to conjugate both disciplines, but I also understand their limits because I have been experimenting them for many years.
Do I like only to hear these marvellous pieces of music that change history? Of course not. I usually hear youtube when I am working on software, and there are many different types of pieces there, some good others not so good. It is common that I hear movie soundtracks when I am trying to design software. However
And, it is very important to write music. You need to be in both sides of the fence to understand this. There is the people that hear, the people that plays and the people that write the music. This is like to make exercise (I am not good on this I must confess). You need to make the exercise to have a benefit from it, you can't put a machine to exercise by yourself. This is a revitalising experience, much better than just hearing it.
Taking comments from some in this thread into consideration. I prefer not to have a program that do everything for myself only to hear something, even if this is good quality material. But I would appreciate if the software permits me to express my musical feelings even if I don't have enough experience time and/or knowledge to have it
I like your comment, thanks :-)
... what was published in the article and what has been shown are pieces of music that are chosen by Mr. Cope. I don't say that the machine can't do a good job, the article also indicates that people can't see the difference between Bach music and Emily's music. What I say is that there is one person helping to refine and to choose the music because, at last, the human taste must be taken into consideration.
... it is dangerous to go there in an helicopter (well, in general it is not healthy to go there under any circumstances).
Mr Cope's made Emily, an important advancement on information science (thanks for the reference). But look at it
And this is very very simple. The audience are people. If the audience be machines, nobody must be involved, because between machines they communicate very well. When the material is created for people, however, always must exist some filtering. And this happens in every type of knowledge (music was only an example). If the machine can create a scientific article to be published in a scientific magazine to be read by people, somebody must review it first to define if the article worth to be published.
About the Everest
HTML is not the only technology application exist on TCP/IP.
... the firewalls work that way. Everything is closed and we open what we need to open, and we learned that this is the best way to control what the people do, so we are extending this to other knowledge domains.
If the time arrived for the HTML to bypass every right for privacy, maybe the time to forget HTML arrived and to look for a different type of technology.
The problem is that for some law offenders, the authorities are accusing all the other users as criminals and forcing them to receive the same treatment. In this new world, we are becoming guilty by default unless we can give a proof that we are the good ones.
Do you know what is the interesting thing?
Not a music critic ... usually (with the Berlioz exception) they are not so good doing that work.
What I think is on good music writers, the ones can find a marvellous piece of music mixed with a lot of crap, even if the music doesn't follow their ideals. For example, I write music and I hate Rock, because for me it could explore more the ideas define it, but I can tell you when Rock music is well written because this is not on me, this is in the music and its inner force, even if I don't like it.
The problem with the robotised tasks is that we program them for them to find what we expect to find there. But they will pass on top of these pieces of magic that are not following the patterns we have in mind and that could finish in the trash can.
The robots will trash many pieces of arts. If we code on them the rules Camille Saint-Saëns had in his mind, the robot will let pass Stravinsky material as not good enough to be considered as music.
Hi
... it is a style copy.
That is exactly the problem. It will meet my metric.
Today could make the 9th Beethoven Symphony because the machine can compare with it. But if we move our machine with our algorithms to Beethoven time before the 9th Symphony or anything similar was produced, I don't see the machine making such breakthrough in history, it will continue building "classical" style music, not even near to the new "romantic" style Beethoven invented.
The algorithm will make a nice, decent piece of music, but won't be able to create the "art" that break the history as the big masters were able to create in their time and their reality space. They modified the path of history. Our brains and mind are not only filled with data, we have an incredible capacity to associate/dissociate facts that no machine is near to match. But I agree with something, if we are able to code "our" style in the machine, being a new style, the machine could help us to find alternatives faster than when we write the music itself, being very good tools for us in such case.
Some ideas ...
;-)
...
Remove ability to save over existing files
Java already do this with Strings, being immutable objects. The only you can do is to create copies with the changes within and to erase the original, more or less what happens on Star Trek when you teletransport a person to other place, something I really don't like very much
Make MSOffice 100% touch-screen compatible, removing all mouse compatibility
Before XEROX Start, no mouse was there and we were able to use word processors very well. The problem with the mouse is that it became ubiquitous and there are moments where the mouse sucks but we became accustomed to it; would be nice to see another approach on the desktop.
Remove Right-Click capability
Contextual menu is an object/oriented extension. Although I use objects everywhere, they are not the only way to do the things. And without a mouse, you won't have the contextual menu anyway, at least not with a click.
Remove all menu bars and hotkeys
Let's do things more intelligent, anyway our desktop machines are using their huge power on stupid things as transparency calculation, why not to use that power where it would really help?
etc
An helicopter won't climb the Everest because it is the wrong device to do so. Not enough density in the air, and excessive wind. But, some type of flying machine will go there for sure, the one designed for that labor that is, a simple one (to go there).
... but who will decide what, of the billions and billions of created materials will be beautiful? ... again, a person. Because beauty is a relative, and people can see beautiful things in the chaos, out of any type of rule that a machine could follow to help to do the task. Just examples ... Debussy, Stravinsky ... they decided to use "other" rules ... but they created masterpieces.
The same could be said for the composing symphony robot. The issue is not to compose a symphony, because a symphony is a very structured definition that can be easily be given to an algorithm to be defined. The issue is to compose an endurable symphony, one that could be remembered and that would be praised five hundred years from today, this is the difficult, if not impossible task for a machine.
Humans and Machines deal with the same information every day. When the task doesn't requires of the "humanity" ingredient, usually the machines do a better job than us. That human component is very special, because we can choose what we decide to use in our symphonies, not because it is logical or practical or mathematically plausible, but because "we like it". And in five hundred years, humans will decide on human created material, and they will notice that "humanity" that makes the symphony so special. If the machines are used to perform that decision, maybe they won't notice that "human" component there.
This is like if we put a million monkeys typing on keyboards for one million years. Surely some of them could create a beautiful symphony, why not?
This, as many things in human history is a vocabulary problem.
If we think on them as bugs that must be exterminated, then we are in a battle "killing bugs". But if we realise they are just mistakes that must be "resolved", then we are in a continuously improvement process oriented to improve what we do.
The real problem is if the person that will provide the working parameters to these algorithms defines that some of us, as humans, are mistakes that must be "resolved" and that the weapons working on these algorithms are the tools to perform that improvement. In fact, this sounds very much as what happened with Nazis in the Second World War.
mmm ...
... but have a dog.
:-) ... just I need to give the dog some food and to wait.
If I am in a tropical forest, and I can't see where is the sun because so many trees and every direction is "green", have no GPS neither a device with WIFI
I am saved
Hi ... happy new year.
... that is a merchant/payment processor rule, you are right, but this really limits the electronic commerce with the United States and isolates the country, so at the end is a country-level definition. I have purchased things in several countries online and as I remember the US is the only one blocked my purchases because I didn't have an US address. Those web sites were really made only for internal country usage, even published on the broad Internet.
... the judicial US system defined that if a third party produces the data, the authorities can have direct access to it without asking for additional permission (the problem is not the warrant, the problem is the free access without a warrant). This is a recent US definition. But if I play with so loose definition, if I make an automatic encrypted backup of my customer's data, I generated this data, was not the customer, so the US government can have access to it without asking for permission. Also, they can have free access to my browsing customs, and this is a clear privacy invasion.
...this is not worse than #2, but for travellers will be very uncomfortable. In fact, it is better not to travel with computing devices at all.
On #1
On #2
On #3
The general problem is that technology really is "local" and we, as technology users, forget that. The sensation that we have a browser and we just go from one page to the other with a click, and that everything lives in the "virtual world", or that we are the owners of our data when we travel with it, is false. If I have a german web site with a link to an US web site that have a link to a Chinese web site, I could see all them in five minutes, but I really have been in three different countries ruled by three different types of laws.
Maybe, to make the user aware of privacy concerns, the browsers must add a small flag and a warning level to every visited page. If I see "green", I know the host country won't "normally" seize information about me, but if I see "red", it will do it. And I will take any browsing decision based on that.