No way! You could play that in an ANSI interface! But the RIP version was kinda badass. I used RIPterm as my client, but I think there was at least one more.
Nope. It's already been done. For nearly 25 years, I think (it's referenced in Dennett's "Elbow Room"). The computer can track the position of your pupils in relation to the screen, and since eye movement is made up of tiny ballistic trajectories, the computer can figure out where your focus is going to land next, and can "clear" the data at that point, and then "garbage" the data at the point that your eye is no longer looking at. People take in groups of symbols in chunks when they read and then hop over to the next bit and the computer can switch data faster than a person can notice, so the person who's reading the screen sees nothing but normality, while anyone who's looking over your shoulder (unless they had the exact same focus at the exact same time, which is incredibly unlikely) only sees gibberish.
Note that it only works with text. I'm not sure it would work with any sort of non-text graphical information.
=FUD. I have never seen an article penned by him (or her) that does not over-exaggerate the facts of the matter. The silverlight player has been out for a few months now. To have 480-odd complaints in that time, considering the size of Netflix's user base, while not great, is not that significant.
The implementation of silverlight is still an important problem because of the DRM and the possible incompatibilities and bugs, but it is nowhere a "disaster".
kdawson does nothing positive for slashdot. He should be removed. His entries sound like the worst kind of hellraising politics.
While Google might be a little shifty when it comes to privacy, I'd have to say that this lands them some good points in my book. Combine this development with the recent ability to see Ancient Rome in Google Earth, I'd have to say that there's more than greed motivating this corporation. Of course, there's always the idea of increasing mindshare, but I really doubt that Rome in 3d and Life's photographical archives are really going to win them any immediate popularity points. Well, at least not as many as some other things that are within their financial means.
Dammit, I still like Google. And it's because of this nerdy and amazing shit that they do seemingly at random.
I know that they'll stagnate, and I know that I'll have a damn good reason to hate them at some point, but, just in the category of "cool shit done," I'm going to have to admit that I'm a huge fucking fan.
I want to read the entirety of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in pdf? No fucking problem. Thanks to Google.
I don't know very much about the mechanism of power, but if power is knowledge, then Google's done a lot to index it for our use. And for that I'm grateful.
The rate at which new formats are pushed are due to two forces: money, and money.
Media based corporations make money reselling older titles in new formats, and every introduction allows those same corporations to introduce new controls on how, why, what, and where one consumes this content.
I understand the advantages of one format over another, but I don't know if research into new formats would necessarily be as well funded if there wasn't something more to be gained than solely a different experience for the user.
Yeah, my discs are all in a few boxes somewhere. I ended up using a couple cd folders instead somewhere down the line. It's funny. I still have all my cds and cases, they just sit there, in my closet, in the exact same order as the last day I've listened to a cd, the day after I ripped everything. Since then, I've invested highly in my mp3 collection, and it far more than doubles my previous size.
But it's still kinda nice to know that your music is in the closet and safe. Unfortunately, in my case, I don't think I'll really be into hardcore or pop punkish stuff again. Oh well. I'll show my kids my copy of In Utero with the Sam Goody "New Releases" price tag on it someday.
I don't know. Maybe I'm one of the dying breed, but I still think a bookshelf of music (or books) looks aesthetically pleasing. It's vain, but knowing that I have a copy of the first pressing of Minor Threat's first album on vinyl is something that's just tactile and satisfying.
Same with books. I can get Les Miserables for free from numerous sources online, as well as all the ancient Greek philosophy I want, but it's so nice to have a beat-up paperback that I can pull out and scribble on. It's the detritus. It's unnecessary, but pleasing as hell.
Well, sure, why not? The album is a recent and unique phenomenon. After singles came a larger collection of already-released singles (an album of singles). The Beatles first few albums were nothing but a collection of songs. The LP format allowed these collections to occur.
The preference of a coherent album, I would argue, is something that people adhere to, but seldom practice nowadays. It's always nice to love an album front to back, but, unless you're listening to longer classical compositions or more obscure noise or art albums, an album is still essentially a collection of songs, each of which work on their own as a self-contained work.
Ever since the CD came about as the preferred method of distributing music, single tracks have dominated music listener's consciousness.
I agree with you that albums are great. It's wonderful for an artist to have 70-odd minutes to work with, to sequence, and to experiment. However, the idea of the coherent album that cannot be broken up is the exception rather than the rule, and has been since Sgt. Pepper's or whatever landmark you want to start the coherent album with. It's been ages since I've listened to that one front to back. How many times have you heard "Day in the Life" after listening to the whole album versus just listening to that one track?
Excerpts from songs are fine, too. I don't think anyone really thinks that a excerpted guitar solo or a chorus really represents its own work. I think people choose those because 1. It's a phone ringer, and usually you do not want to wait 2-6 minutes to pick up the phone as you enjoy some Led Zeppelin, and 2. The choice of an excerpt is meant to represent the entire song, possibly to signal what kind of music one prefers.
With the new method of distribution, songs will be haphazardly released. Compilations will be made that will eschew sequence, leading to an unpleasant mix. But I think that an artist or a group of artists will attempt to maintain control, and will still put out albums (even if they're only best-ofs), in order to get more music out there. Since albums on iTunes are at a discount as opposed to buying track-by-track, I still think that the album is a valid way to present the listener with lesser-known tracks, and will continue to survive in a single-driven market.
One final thing: An album of singles assembled after the fact can be coherent as an album conceived of as an album. Sgt. Pepper's works, but so does Weezer's Blue Album.
1. "why are journals such an important part of academic research?"
Reliability and respectability. You know a respectable journal has high standards. This can be reproduced on the internet, and sometimes it is, but this reproduction is still an academic journal article from a certain staff.
2. "Many of these journals take two or more years to print an article after it has been submitted, and the information is very difficult (or expensive) to obtain. Does this hinder technological advancement? "
No. There are significant delays for publication, but there are also reasons for this delay. There simply might be too many submissions for the staff available, but it is also important to note that a submission often has to be worked and reworked in order to be considered for publication. In fact, it might be the delay itself that allows the more important articles, once refined, to promote a higher level of advancement due to the clarity and response to objection.
The access to this information is often difficult and expensive to obtain. Colleges often provide access to journal articles free of charge to the students, but there's also a push to release the articles a specific publication finds important for free. The problem lies in how to monetize this type of distribution. There really is quite a limited audience for a lot of these journals, so a high price-point is often unavoidable.
3."There are certainly other venues for peer review, so why journals?"
Because they still work? I don't know what you're going for here. A peer-reviewed publication is a peer-reviewed publication. The method by which it's published doesn't really matter here. If you're referring to a dead-tree journal, I admit, it's a bit anachronistic. Electronic publication can remove a lot of the delay and cost, but it will be a journal nonetheless.
4."What do they offer our society? " A good source of information? Specialized ideas put under significant scrutiny? Something to read on the toilet? You might as well rally against citrus fruit.
5."Are they just a way to evaluate the productivity of professors?" No. They do evaluate the productivity of professors. But that's not their sole purpose. They provide a good way for people in specialized fields to share information that would otherwise lack an audience. And what's wrong with productive professors?
Genetics have a lot to do with race, but race is a cultural construct, and one's genetics do not necessarily determine one's racial category.
Look to the "one drop" rule for race inclusion, a rule that has been used in the United States extensively, and there would be no doubt that Obama would have been categorized as "colored" in a historical US. Since we are concerned with traditional race constructs in the US, it is safe to say that Obama is the democratic nominee for president, and he is black.
NASA does a lot just for show. Do you think those rockets need to produce all that fire and noise? Hell, those rockets could be the size of a large car and they'd still work. %90 of them are just styrofoam and cardboard. Remember, It's all for the benefit of the taxpayer. In fact, five years ago, NASA took a poll of what people wanted to see come out of the space program. Number one on the list? "A tiny stationary drilling labratory on the surface of mars. Preferably with a colorful parachute and a snazzy name."
Well. For one, it gets shit out. Two, yes, it goes into maintaining the metabolism of the animal, so some of it does get released as heat energy.
How much food do you eat? Does it all end up as muscle mass? If you ate 16 hungry-man 1LB meals, do you really expect to gain 16 lbs? You'd be unhealthy as fuck and sick as hell, but I'd imagine a large proportion of that food turns into fecal matter or energy.
I'm not sure about the factual underpinnings of the 16->1 argument, but it doesn't sound implausible. Cows eat A LOT of grain. If they put on as much weight as they ate, there'd be some fucking huge-ass cows running around. Grain is low in protein. Lots has to be eaten in order to grow.
Slashdot Mirror
No way! You could play that in an ANSI interface! But the RIP version was kinda badass. I used RIPterm as my client, but I think there was at least one more.
Christ, I played that game forever.
Amen.
Nope. It's already been done. For nearly 25 years, I think (it's referenced in Dennett's "Elbow Room"). The computer can track the position of your pupils in relation to the screen, and since eye movement is made up of tiny ballistic trajectories, the computer can figure out where your focus is going to land next, and can "clear" the data at that point, and then "garbage" the data at the point that your eye is no longer looking at. People take in groups of symbols in chunks when they read and then hop over to the next bit and the computer can switch data faster than a person can notice, so the person who's reading the screen sees nothing but normality, while anyone who's looking over your shoulder (unless they had the exact same focus at the exact same time, which is incredibly unlikely) only sees gibberish.
Note that it only works with text. I'm not sure it would work with any sort of non-text graphical information.
=FUD. I have never seen an article penned by him (or her) that does not over-exaggerate the facts of the matter. The silverlight player has been out for a few months now. To have 480-odd complaints in that time, considering the size of Netflix's user base, while not great, is not that significant.
The implementation of silverlight is still an important problem because of the DRM and the possible incompatibilities and bugs, but it is nowhere a "disaster".
kdawson does nothing positive for slashdot. He should be removed. His entries sound like the worst kind of hellraising politics.
Dammit, I still like Google. And it's because of this nerdy and amazing shit that they do seemingly at random.
I know that they'll stagnate, and I know that I'll have a damn good reason to hate them at some point, but, just in the category of "cool shit done," I'm going to have to admit that I'm a huge fucking fan.
I want to read the entirety of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in pdf? No fucking problem. Thanks to Google.
I don't know very much about the mechanism of power, but if power is knowledge, then Google's done a lot to index it for our use. And for that I'm grateful.
Your facial hair determines if your opinions should be respected?
From bearded geeks everywhere....
Fuck you.
The rate at which new formats are pushed are due to two forces: money, and money.
Media based corporations make money reselling older titles in new formats, and every introduction allows those same corporations to introduce new controls on how, why, what, and where one consumes this content.
I understand the advantages of one format over another, but I don't know if research into new formats would necessarily be as well funded if there wasn't something more to be gained than solely a different experience for the user.
What the fuck does being a Muslim have to do with anything here? There can't be black Muslims? Sometimes you can tell that this website is US-centric.
Yeah, flamebait. Yadda yadda yadda. It's true.
Really? Fuck! I'm there!
MOD PARENT UP
Holy crap. I feel like I've just read a pep talk from some low-rent football coach.
Let's not start chanting "Linux! Linux! Linux!" like some people chant "USA! USA! USA!"
Okay?
Thanks.
Yeah, me too. Fuck that Ghandi. Motherfucking quitter. Nothing but a goddamn whiner.
B u u u u u u r n!
Yeah, my discs are all in a few boxes somewhere. I ended up using a couple cd folders instead somewhere down the line. It's funny. I still have all my cds and cases, they just sit there, in my closet, in the exact same order as the last day I've listened to a cd, the day after I ripped everything. Since then, I've invested highly in my mp3 collection, and it far more than doubles my previous size.
But it's still kinda nice to know that your music is in the closet and safe. Unfortunately, in my case, I don't think I'll really be into hardcore or pop punkish stuff again. Oh well. I'll show my kids my copy of In Utero with the Sam Goody "New Releases" price tag on it someday.
Funny
I don't know. Maybe I'm one of the dying breed, but I still think a bookshelf of music (or books) looks aesthetically pleasing. It's vain, but knowing that I have a copy of the first pressing of Minor Threat's first album on vinyl is something that's just tactile and satisfying.
Same with books. I can get Les Miserables for free from numerous sources online, as well as all the ancient Greek philosophy I want, but it's so nice to have a beat-up paperback that I can pull out and scribble on. It's the detritus. It's unnecessary, but pleasing as hell.
Well, sure, why not? The album is a recent and unique phenomenon. After singles came a larger collection of already-released singles (an album of singles). The Beatles first few albums were nothing but a collection of songs. The LP format allowed these collections to occur.
The preference of a coherent album, I would argue, is something that people adhere to, but seldom practice nowadays. It's always nice to love an album front to back, but, unless you're listening to longer classical compositions or more obscure noise or art albums, an album is still essentially a collection of songs, each of which work on their own as a self-contained work.
Ever since the CD came about as the preferred method of distributing music, single tracks have dominated music listener's consciousness.
I agree with you that albums are great. It's wonderful for an artist to have 70-odd minutes to work with, to sequence, and to experiment. However, the idea of the coherent album that cannot be broken up is the exception rather than the rule, and has been since Sgt. Pepper's or whatever landmark you want to start the coherent album with. It's been ages since I've listened to that one front to back. How many times have you heard "Day in the Life" after listening to the whole album versus just listening to that one track?
Excerpts from songs are fine, too. I don't think anyone really thinks that a excerpted guitar solo or a chorus really represents its own work. I think people choose those because 1. It's a phone ringer, and usually you do not want to wait 2-6 minutes to pick up the phone as you enjoy some Led Zeppelin, and 2. The choice of an excerpt is meant to represent the entire song, possibly to signal what kind of music one prefers.
With the new method of distribution, songs will be haphazardly released. Compilations will be made that will eschew sequence, leading to an unpleasant mix. But I think that an artist or a group of artists will attempt to maintain control, and will still put out albums (even if they're only best-ofs), in order to get more music out there. Since albums on iTunes are at a discount as opposed to buying track-by-track, I still think that the album is a valid way to present the listener with lesser-known tracks, and will continue to survive in a single-driven market.
One final thing: An album of singles assembled after the fact can be coherent as an album conceived of as an album. Sgt. Pepper's works, but so does Weezer's Blue Album.
Um. Set your preferences to hide anything with a score of -1 and you're all set. It's like MAGIC!
Unless, you know, you like to read about well-lubed ass sex. Then, by all means, go for it.
1. "why are journals such an important part of academic research?"
Reliability and respectability. You know a respectable journal has high standards. This can be reproduced on the internet, and sometimes it is, but this reproduction is still an academic journal article from a certain staff.
2. "Many of these journals take two or more years to print an article after it has been submitted, and the information is very difficult (or expensive) to obtain. Does this hinder technological advancement? "
No. There are significant delays for publication, but there are also reasons for this delay. There simply might be too many submissions for the staff available, but it is also important to note that a submission often has to be worked and reworked in order to be considered for publication. In fact, it might be the delay itself that allows the more important articles, once refined, to promote a higher level of advancement due to the clarity and response to objection.
The access to this information is often difficult and expensive to obtain. Colleges often provide access to journal articles free of charge to the students, but there's also a push to release the articles a specific publication finds important for free. The problem lies in how to monetize this type of distribution. There really is quite a limited audience for a lot of these journals, so a high price-point is often unavoidable.
3."There are certainly other venues for peer review, so why journals?"
Because they still work? I don't know what you're going for here. A peer-reviewed publication is a peer-reviewed publication. The method by which it's published doesn't really matter here. If you're referring to a dead-tree journal, I admit, it's a bit anachronistic. Electronic publication can remove a lot of the delay and cost, but it will be a journal nonetheless.
4."What do they offer our society? "
A good source of information? Specialized ideas put under significant scrutiny? Something to read on the toilet? You might as well rally against citrus fruit.
5."Are they just a way to evaluate the productivity of professors?"
No. They do evaluate the productivity of professors. But that's not their sole purpose. They provide a good way for people in specialized fields to share information that would otherwise lack an audience. And what's wrong with productive professors?
There, troll. You're fed. Go away.
Genetics have a lot to do with race, but race is a cultural construct, and one's genetics do not necessarily determine one's racial category.
Look to the "one drop" rule for race inclusion, a rule that has been used in the United States extensively, and there would be no doubt that Obama would have been categorized as "colored" in a historical US. Since we are concerned with traditional race constructs in the US, it is safe to say that Obama is the democratic nominee for president, and he is black.
Lemmings don't throw themselves off of cliffs. That's a myth produced by Disney.
Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp
That's it. From now on, it's my demon sampling arm. The GF will love it, I'm sure.
NASA does a lot just for show. Do you think those rockets need to produce all that fire and noise? Hell, those rockets could be the size of a large car and they'd still work. %90 of them are just styrofoam and cardboard. Remember, It's all for the benefit of the taxpayer. In fact, five years ago, NASA took a poll of what people wanted to see come out of the space program. Number one on the list? "A tiny stationary drilling labratory on the surface of mars. Preferably with a colorful parachute and a snazzy name."
When will the government care about science?!
Well. For one, it gets shit out. Two, yes, it goes into maintaining the metabolism of the animal, so some of it does get released as heat energy.
How much food do you eat? Does it all end up as muscle mass? If you ate 16 hungry-man 1LB meals, do you really expect to gain 16 lbs? You'd be unhealthy as fuck and sick as hell, but I'd imagine a large proportion of that food turns into fecal matter or energy.
I'm not sure about the factual underpinnings of the 16->1 argument, but it doesn't sound implausible. Cows eat A LOT of grain. If they put on as much weight as they ate, there'd be some fucking huge-ass cows running around. Grain is low in protein. Lots has to be eaten in order to grow.
Humans are a developing lump of cells. Just a wee bit bigger and more complex. =)