Computers can't groove? Why not? Because of the "players [sic] response to current air pressure"? What does that mean anyway?
Taken individually, the items in your list that actually make sense [sonic characteristics of the venue, instrument temperature, amount of rosin on bow, "touch character"] can quite easily be measured and fed back into an appropriate alogorithm, allowing a computer to respond to those things.
The "audience" item is the one exception - it's very vague, but I guess you mean something like the audience's emotional response to the performance. I would bet that selecting certain key feedback elements (e.g., monitor ambient noise from crowd, facial recognition (at a stretch), perhaps heart rate monitors or even some sort of human-mediated system for this feedback channel) and feeding those to the appropriate parameters in the algorithm would do the job - e.g., play this section faster when the audience seems to be excited, or play louder when everyone seems to be falling asleep.
Who said "musicianship is a product"? No-one. It's not relevant, and you're straying from your own original point, which was the baseless assertion that computers can't groove.
I assert that musicianship *can* be programmed, or more precisely that algorithms and systems can and will be devised that generate musical performances that are satisfying to a human audience.
I predict that within fifty years "static" recordings will be very uncommon, replaced by algorithmic systems that generate music in real-time. Probably the most popular types will be hybrids that have, for example, a static vocal track/key melody line and a procedurally generated accompaniment. Listeners will have access to many parameters, allowing them to customize the piece to their prefences.
Genuine questions for those more in the know about this than me.
thx,
grib.
I met the author...
on
Lucky Wander Boy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
...at my boxing class. I won't ruin the "mystique" except to say he's a really nice, smart guy with a genuine love for video games.
I read the book too, and I agree very much with the review. The excerpts from the "Catalogue of Obsolete Entertainments" were my favorite part - some very canny insights into old-school arcade games. I particularly liked in one section where on of the character starts critiquing the catalogue in a manner that completely echoed what I was thinking...
You then refer to the logical controls in your docs. So for "foo-functionality" you advise [option_key01] + [primary_click] and so forth.
Now, before the "that's stupid and unreadable flames" start, consider these points:
1) at the very least, start the documentation with a table of the default mappings. This will be slow, but at least the user can look up the default physical keys if they need to.
2) for fundamental controls like left and right click, I'd recommend using the name of the default physical control as the logical name (e.g., [left_click]). The minor confusion of mapping logical [left_click] to the RMB is probably preferable to trying to get people to think of the LMB as the "primary_click".
3) as another poster suggested, take a lesson from video games and have your soft-documentation be dynamic. So it does the look-up described in (1) above automatically, and every time it encounters a [left_click] token in the docs it automatically replaces it with the currently configured physical control.
For those to lazy to read the article, the salient points appear to be:
1) There is a correlation between being smart and being unpopular.
2) The reason it's hard to be smart AND popular is that being popular takes up mental bandwidth that most smart people would rather use "making great things" (rockets and computers are used as examples). "Few smart kids can spare the attention that popularity requires."
3) The reason "popular" kids persecute "nerds" is that, in general, pushing others down lifts you up and makes you feel better. Also, persecuting nerds is a kind of bonding process for "popular" kids. "...nothing brings people closer than a common enemy".
4) Things are different when you leave high school. In fact "nerds collect in certain places and form their own societies where intelligence is the most important thing." (e.g., university).
That seems to be mainly it. Interesting reading... it matches up with my experience of high school. Certainly the worst time of my life (so far).
It's just hard to make this profession look interesting on the big screen.
Which is what all those goofy 3D interfaces that people have to "hack through" are for. ACCESS DENIED!
While I didn't like the movie very much, "A Beautiful Mind" had an interesting conceit for helping the audience understand Nash's talent for pattern recognition - for example in a very early scene where he matches the pattern on the guys tie with another pattern. The relevant details of the pattern were highlighted for you in a very artificial manner, but it helped understand that this guy had almost a "super power". Like I said, I didn't actually like the movie much, but this was an interesting choice.
Perhaps something similar would work for coding.
However, I think it would be possible to be both realistic and interesting. A lot of coders have unique work spaces, and many make interesting "thinking faces" (various grimaces, frowns and other unconcious facial expressions). With appropriate music and editing I think you could sustain a couple of minute sequence of this, intercut with actual footage of actual code, focusing on the stark beauty of the shape of alphanumerics.
And I'm not even joking!!!
Oh and a lot of software development involves a lot of talking (in meetings, or just informally), which is surely the bread and butter of film.
I totally disagree. Don't ever disregard valuable feedback from an end-user perspective.
Without wanting to get into the same old debate about what OSS is "for", I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that a tech-savvy user should be able to find, install and run a decent video player under Linux without encountering a million problems.
JWZ brings the added advantage of having some noteriety, so he can shine a spotlight on a particular area. Just or unjust, deserved or undeserved, that's how it works.
The same principle is as work when mainstream news sources report what Barbra Streisand or Goldie Hawn think of the War of Terrorism. I mean - who cares, right? But people tend to *listen* when people that they have heard of speak.
So I say embrace the criticism. Take a deep breath. It can only make Linux stronger and better in the long run.
The parent didn't say Sony made top-quality stereo equipment, it said that Sony had *a reputation* for making top-quality stereo equipment.
</pedantic>
grib.
You just don't know console games...
on
Phantom Game Console
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Much more flexibility and immersiveness in games.
1) What do you mean by "flexibility"? A larger variety of games? Not true - I propose that the variety of game genres is roughly equivalent console/PC. I can't play Civ 2 on my PS2, but you can't play DDR on your PC.
2) More immersive? Vague nonsense. Immersiveness is all about personal experience with a game, and is generally totally independant of hardware. Tell me GTA3 isn't "immersive". Tell me Virtua Fighter 4 isn't "immersive".
No console can match the PC for depth of gameplay
Vague nonsense. What do you mean by "depth"? Virtua Fighter has astonishing tactical depth as well as unrivalled twitch gameplay.
and especially not for customization
OK, granted =]
A mod. And now it's the most popular FPS game in the world.
So? How is this relevant?
Consoles still have a looong way to go before they can compete with the PC
In terms of what? Sales? Hoo boy are you in for a shock =]
if you're a more serious gamer, then there's nothing out there that can beat a good PC
How about a custom built machine that never crashes, never needs patches, and has the most polished games with interfaces specifically designed for standardized controllers? You know, like a PS2? =]
I prefer this setup greatly over sitting on the floor in front of my TV
Man, talk about comparing apples to oranges. You have a "big comfy chair" for PC gaming, but are somehow forced to sit on the floor to play console games?
Anyway, entirely missing from your post is the obvious fact that PC games are (in general) totally different to console games in terms of interaction complexity, depth, robustness, even tone and content.
Some people (like you) like PC games. Others (like me) enjoy console games a lot more.
grib.
"Please note, the content of this interactive movie, including characters and any and all elements, hereof, is entirely fictional, and is not based upon any actual individual or of any other legal entity"
No person's views and unconscious bias are inflicted on you
Wait a minute, someone wrote the code and filters that Google News uses. So there's still an inherent bias, although it may be at one remove. There's certainly "people behind it", just in a different way.
This is not to say I don't like Google News. It's just that saying that it's unbiased is a somewhat dangerous assumption.
A quote along these lines that has served me very well:
"He who asks is a fool for five minues. He who doesn't ask is a fool forever."
...which I take to mean that it can be a little embarrassing to implicitly admit you don't know something (by asking). But it's a lot better than never asking and consequently never knowing. I mutter this to myself at least once a week, usually right before I learn something new =]
I think this may be a Confusian saying... but I DON'T KNOW!!!
[i]If an object the size of the sun suddenly acquired the 99x its mass[/i]
I'll explain what will happen to the sun when you explain how you 'instantly' accelerated ~20 x 10^29 tons of matter to 'almost' the speed of light.
But suppose we take away the instantaneous acceleration and instead smoothly accelerate the sun. From the sun's local frame of reference the increase in mass will be continuous, not sudden. Also, local time will slow as the sun approaches the speed of light which is likely to prevent sudden and catastrophic state changes like those you describe.
On this project, I have a de-facto role of a software team leader
De-facto team leader? Where's the real lead programmer? This sounds like the problem.
You're a guy who likes to code and is obviously good at it, and can obviously self-manage. It sounds like the other team members aren't so good at the self-management part. This doesn't make them useless, it just means they need to be managed. Many excellent programmers fall into that category.
The way to keep programmers productive is to cleanly specify (and by "specify" I mean really, formally specify) what you need, give them the tools/equipment they need, then get out of the way. This is the job of a lead programmer, or other manager. Not a team-mate, except in a dysfunctional project.
BTW if they really need to ask that many questions re: the spec, then you did a bad job of specifying the task.
Well if it's M$' goal to build "a Trustworthy Computing environment for customers that is as reliable as the electricity that powers our homes and businesses today", then mission accomplished. In California, at least... =]
You missed XBox, surely the lamest possible name for a video game console.
>I blame the rise of X near the end of >the internet bubble
Yes I expect it was the sharp corners on the 'X' that burst the bubble. If only it had been an 'O' or a carefully oriented 'Q' instead none of this dot.bomb stuff would have happened and we'd all be snorting coke in the back of a limo as people flocked to our eCommerce B2B enabled portal eXperiences. Oops... there's that letter again.
Perfect protection kills innovation, just as the perfect absence of protection kills innovation.
This reminds me of a section of Murray Gell Man's excellent book The Quark and the Jaguar. Gell Man is discussing complexity, and describes how for a wide variety of "complex adaptive systems" (including evolution) there is an optimal amount of complexity -- enough randomness to serve as raw material, but not so much randomness that any meaningful patterns are destroyed before they form. A kind of "sweet spot" in the continuum of complexity from minimal complexity (a string of bits, all 0s) to maximal complexity (a totally random string). Gell Man defines all this quite formally, and I'm not doing him justice. Go read the book.
I don't think it would be much of a stretch to apply some of Gell Man's ideas about complex adaptive systems to a community of artists working within an environment (i.e., their society/culture, including legal restrictions).
I wish I had the book here with me, as I'm being very tentative because I don't want to misquote or misconstrue him.
Slashdot Mirror
...would be awesome =]
grib.
Computers can't groove? Why not? Because of the "players [sic] response to current air pressure"? What does that mean anyway?
Taken individually, the items in your list that actually make sense [sonic characteristics of the venue, instrument temperature, amount of rosin on bow, "touch character"] can quite easily be measured and fed back into an appropriate alogorithm, allowing a computer to respond to those things.
The "audience" item is the one exception - it's very vague, but I guess you mean something like the audience's emotional response to the performance. I would bet that selecting certain key feedback elements (e.g., monitor ambient noise from crowd, facial recognition (at a stretch), perhaps heart rate monitors or even some sort of human-mediated system for this feedback channel) and feeding those to the appropriate parameters in the algorithm would do the job - e.g., play this section faster when the audience seems to be excited, or play louder when everyone seems to be falling asleep.
Who said "musicianship is a product"? No-one. It's not relevant, and you're straying from your own original point, which was the baseless assertion that computers can't groove.
I assert that musicianship *can* be programmed, or more precisely that algorithms and systems can and will be devised that generate musical performances that are satisfying to a human audience.
I predict that within fifty years "static" recordings will be very uncommon, replaced by algorithmic systems that generate music in real-time. Probably the most popular types will be hybrids that have, for example, a static vocal track/key melody line and a procedurally generated accompaniment. Listeners will have access to many parameters, allowing them to customize the piece to their prefences.
Real composers will adapt.
cam.
Ah, thanks. One more question though - why is it called "habibi"?
grib.
...and why was the 007 team 'stupid'?
Genuine questions for those more in the know about this than me.
thx,
grib.
...at my boxing class. I won't ruin the "mystique" except to say he's a really nice, smart guy with a genuine love for video games.
I read the book too, and I agree very much with the review. The excerpts from the "Catalogue of Obsolete Entertainments" were my favorite part - some very canny insights into old-school arcade games. I particularly liked in one section where on of the character starts critiquing the catalogue in a manner that completely echoed what I was thinking...
Go read the book, it's cool!
grib.
The answer is to use logical controls in the documentation, as opposed to physical controls.
l ick]
So to handle your example I would define:
[primary_click]
[secondary_click]
[tertiary_c
[option_key01]
[option_key02]
You then refer to the logical controls in your docs. So for "foo-functionality" you advise [option_key01] + [primary_click] and so forth.
Now, before the "that's stupid and unreadable flames" start, consider these points:
1) at the very least, start the documentation with a table of the default mappings. This will be slow, but at least the user can look up the default physical keys if they need to.
2) for fundamental controls like left and right click, I'd recommend using the name of the default physical control as the logical name (e.g., [left_click]). The minor confusion of mapping logical [left_click] to the RMB is probably preferable to trying to get people to think of the LMB as the "primary_click".
3) as another poster suggested, take a lesson from video games and have your soft-documentation be dynamic. So it does the look-up described in (1) above automatically, and every time it encounters a [left_click] token in the docs it automatically replaces it with the currently configured physical control.
Easy!
grib.
For those to lazy to read the article, the salient points appear to be:
1) There is a correlation between being smart and being unpopular.
2) The reason it's hard to be smart AND popular is that being popular takes up mental bandwidth that most smart people would rather use "making great things" (rockets and computers are used as examples). "Few smart kids can spare the attention that popularity requires."
3) The reason "popular" kids persecute "nerds" is that, in general, pushing others down lifts you up and makes you feel better. Also, persecuting nerds is a kind of bonding process for "popular" kids. "...nothing brings people closer than a common enemy".
4) Things are different when you leave high school. In fact "nerds collect in certain places and form their own societies where intelligence is the most important thing." (e.g., university).
That seems to be mainly it. Interesting reading... it matches up with my experience of high school. Certainly the worst time of my life (so far).
grib.
It's just hard to make this profession look interesting on the big screen.
Which is what all those goofy 3D interfaces that people have to "hack through" are for. ACCESS DENIED!
While I didn't like the movie very much, "A Beautiful Mind" had an interesting conceit for helping the audience understand Nash's talent for pattern recognition - for example in a very early scene where he matches the pattern on the guys tie with another pattern. The relevant details of the pattern were highlighted for you in a very artificial manner, but it helped understand that this guy had almost a "super power". Like I said, I didn't actually like the movie much, but this was an interesting choice.
Perhaps something similar would work for coding.
However, I think it would be possible to be both realistic and interesting. A lot of coders have unique work spaces, and many make interesting "thinking faces" (various grimaces, frowns and other unconcious facial expressions). With appropriate music and editing I think you could sustain a couple of minute sequence of this, intercut with actual footage of actual code, focusing on the stark beauty of the shape of alphanumerics.
And I'm not even joking!!!
Oh and a lot of software development involves a lot of talking (in meetings, or just informally), which is surely the bread and butter of film.
grib.
JWZ should STFU
I totally disagree. Don't ever disregard valuable feedback from an end-user perspective.
Without wanting to get into the same old debate about what OSS is "for", I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that a tech-savvy user should be able to find, install and run a decent video player under Linux without encountering a million problems.
JWZ brings the added advantage of having some noteriety, so he can shine a spotlight on a particular area. Just or unjust, deserved or undeserved, that's how it works.
The same principle is as work when mainstream news sources report what Barbra Streisand or Goldie Hawn think of the War of Terrorism. I mean - who cares, right? But people tend to *listen* when people that they have heard of speak.
So I say embrace the criticism. Take a deep breath. It can only make Linux stronger and better in the long run.
grib.
The parent didn't say Sony made top-quality stereo equipment, it said that Sony had *a reputation* for making top-quality stereo equipment.
</pedantic>
grib.
Much more flexibility and immersiveness in games.
1) What do you mean by "flexibility"? A larger variety of games? Not true - I propose that the variety of game genres is roughly equivalent console/PC. I can't play Civ 2 on my PS2, but you can't play DDR on your PC.
2) More immersive? Vague nonsense. Immersiveness is all about personal experience with a game, and is generally totally independant of hardware. Tell me GTA3 isn't "immersive". Tell me Virtua Fighter 4 isn't "immersive".
No console can match the PC for depth of gameplay
Vague nonsense. What do you mean by "depth"? Virtua Fighter has astonishing tactical depth as well as unrivalled twitch gameplay.
and especially not for customization
OK, granted =]
A mod. And now it's the most popular FPS game in the world.
So? How is this relevant?
Consoles still have a looong way to go before they can compete with the PC
In terms of what? Sales? Hoo boy are you in for a shock =]
if you're a more serious gamer, then there's nothing out there that can beat a good PC
How about a custom built machine that never crashes, never needs patches, and has the most polished games with interfaces specifically designed for standardized controllers? You know, like a PS2? =]
grib.
I prefer this setup greatly over sitting on the floor in front of my TV
Man, talk about comparing apples to oranges. You have a "big comfy chair" for PC gaming, but are somehow forced to sit on the floor to play console games?
Anyway, entirely missing from your post is the obvious fact that PC games are (in general) totally different to console games in terms of interaction complexity, depth, robustness, even tone and content.
Some people (like you) like PC games. Others (like me) enjoy console games a lot more.
grib.
Anyway:
There you go!
grib
*sigh*
From the terms of use page on this site:
"Please note, the content of this interactive movie, including characters and any and all elements, hereof, is entirely fictional, and is not based upon any actual individual or of any other legal entity"
grib.
Wait a minute, someone wrote the code and filters that Google News uses. So there's still an inherent bias, although it may be at one remove. There's certainly "people behind it", just in a different way.
This is not to say I don't like Google News. It's just that saying that it's unbiased is a somewhat dangerous assumption.
grib.
A quote along these lines that has served me very well:
"He who asks is a fool for five minues. He who doesn't ask is a fool forever."
...which I take to mean that it can be a little embarrassing to implicitly admit you don't know something (by asking). But it's a lot better than never asking and consequently never knowing. I mutter this to myself at least once a week, usually right before I learn something new =]
I think this may be a Confusian saying... but I DON'T KNOW!!!
grib.
I'll explain what will happen to the sun when you explain how you 'instantly' accelerated ~20 x 10^29 tons of matter to 'almost' the speed of light.
But suppose we take away the instantaneous acceleration and instead smoothly accelerate the sun. From the sun's local frame of reference the increase in mass will be continuous, not sudden. Also, local time will slow as the sun approaches the speed of light which is likely to prevent sudden and catastrophic state changes like those you describe.
=]
grib.
On this project, I have a de-facto role of a software team leader
De-facto team leader? Where's the real lead programmer? This sounds like the problem.
You're a guy who likes to code and is obviously good at it, and can obviously self-manage. It sounds like the other team members aren't so good at the self-management part. This doesn't make them useless, it just means they need to be managed. Many excellent programmers fall into that category.
The way to keep programmers productive is to cleanly specify (and by "specify" I mean really, formally specify) what you need, give them the tools/equipment they need, then get out of the way. This is the job of a lead programmer, or other manager. Not a team-mate, except in a dysfunctional project.
BTW if they really need to ask that many questions re: the spec, then you did a bad job of specifying the task.
All IMO, of course!
grib.
Well if it's M$' goal to build "a Trustworthy Computing environment for customers that is as reliable as the electricity that powers our homes and businesses today", then mission accomplished. In California, at least... =]
grib.
You missed XBox, surely the lamest possible name for a video game console.
>I blame the rise of X near the end of
>the internet bubble
Yes I expect it was the sharp corners on the 'X' that burst the bubble. If only it had been an 'O' or a carefully oriented 'Q' instead none of this dot.bomb stuff would have happened and we'd all be snorting coke in the back of a limo as people flocked to our eCommerce B2B enabled portal eXperiences. Oops... there's that letter again.
grib.
2.) Easy to glance at, no more turning my head. Face it, no matter how close your TV is, you'll have to turn your head.
Yes, god forbid you should have to *turn your head*.
Once again, technology to the rescue!
well, you have to say it don't you?
Two things:
1) remember, your wedding day is not *your* wedding day. It's your parents' day. Remember that, and everything will be fine.
2) be honest with each other, always.
Have fun!
trust you to know where hardcore porn is legal, Dan. "My friend must have put it in the magazine!". Yeah right... whatever...
=]
grib.
Perfect protection kills innovation, just as the perfect absence of protection kills innovation.
This reminds me of a section of Murray Gell Man's excellent book The Quark and the Jaguar. Gell Man is discussing complexity, and describes how for a wide variety of "complex adaptive systems" (including evolution) there is an optimal amount of complexity -- enough randomness to serve as raw material, but not so much randomness that any meaningful patterns are destroyed before they form. A kind of "sweet spot" in the continuum of complexity from minimal complexity (a string of bits, all 0s) to maximal complexity (a totally random string). Gell Man defines all this quite formally, and I'm not doing him justice. Go read the book.
I don't think it would be much of a stretch to apply some of Gell Man's ideas about complex adaptive systems to a community of artists working within an environment (i.e., their society/culture, including legal restrictions).
I wish I had the book here with me, as I'm being very tentative because I don't want to misquote or misconstrue him.
Anyway, just a resonance.
grib.
"They want things familiar and comfortable"
In what sense, exactly, is the new iMac "familiar"? And it may be ergonomically comfortable, but that's not what you meant, is it?
grib.