In my opinion 911 simply must work. The VOIP providers have all fallen down about doing this, as have the wireless carriers. I have no sympathy for them. I think they should play at same table with landline, on this specific issue, in terms of passing through a fee for 911, and being simply required to provide this essential service. There is no excuse.
I understand that this is not a trivial task, in that location is not easily determined. But neither was setting up 911 in the first place.
This is the key. As I said earlier, there's a huge disparity between talented and mediocre doctors, just as there is in programmers. And as others have pointed out, so many doctors these days just follow the flow chart without really caring or even listening. They hone in on the most likely cause without even considering other possibilities.
Good doctors listen, they evaluate all the symptoms, they don't dismiss anything. Hell, a key part of my cancer diagnosis was a symptom I didn't think was related at all (itchiness), a belief that earlier doctors had reinforced. Indeed, I got unlucky in that I moved around a bunch and ended up moving from doctor to doctor.
I finally found a doctor who said, "What else?" ABut by that point, it was pretty clear that something was really wrong with me. However, there's nothing like having someone finally actually listen to you, ask probing questions, and act. The single biggest revelation out of my cancer experience was that I knew something was seriously wrong with me before the doctors did.
I agree with the_skywise's recommendation that you stick to a single doctor for a while, but make sure that single doctor is a good one. If, after giving her a couple chances, your doctor can't explain your symptoms to your satisfaction, find another. It can make all the difference in the world.
He has been to many doctors, and all of them have found little to nothing wrong.... Statistically, from the number and variety of doctors he's visited, a false negative at this point is incredibly unlikely.
I can't disagree with this strongly enough. This is very true for common illnesses, but very untrue for rare ones. I should know: I was recently diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a rare cancer of the lymph system that about 8,000 people will be diagnosed with this year in the US [1]. I had the symptoms of it (swollen glands, itchiness; ie very nonspecific symptoms) for nigh on 3 years, and had presented repeatedly to multiple doctors, all of whom missed the forest for the trees. I knew something was wrong with me (even, I think subconciously, that I had cancer), but I believed the doctors when they diagnosed allergies, or mononucleosis, or some other prosiac illness. It was not until the disease had spread extensively until it was drop dead obvious that something was really wrong.
I agree with the spirit of your post: he should let the doctors do the diagnosing. However, he should very strongly try to find the right doctors. Just like programmers, there's a huge disparity in talent between the good and the mediocre. Luckily, I found some good ones (I work at Mayo Clinic), and I'm doing much better now.
One of EA's major strengths is in management of people and process.
The largest sin at EA is not delivering your game on time.
EA has a very young, energetic work force.
People at EA work long hours, in large part because of their great passion for making games.
Who's telling the truth? You decide.
Personally, I think Randy Pausch is a putz, and I'm speaking both as someone who has seen him lecture at CMU and who has friends that were advised by him.
Just when you think all the great ideas have been thought of, scientists dream up a concept so radical, and so innovative, that you wonder if they've been smoking reefers the size of Yule logs.
Such is the case with a group of scientists from the National Research Laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M. (''Los Alamos'' is Spanish for ''More than One Alamo''). According to an Associated Press story that I am not making up, these scientists are proposing to build an elevator that would be 62,000 miles high. That's right: 62,000 MILES, which is 32 million stories. At the top would be a revolving restaurant serving what the scientists promise will be ''really mediocre food.''
Does this assume that the program is deterministic? By this I mean that the program always follows the same code path for the same inputs, or, put another way, that no randomness is involved.
...most people don't want to have to learn something new just to get their job done.
I agree with the overall point I think you're making here, which I might summarize as 'let the tool make this easy for me.' I do agree, honest. But, the devils advocate in me says, 'It's a tool, and sometimes you have to learn a bit about a tool in order for it to be really useful to you.' I say this because I often see people turn off their brains when it comes to computers. I've seen very logical people behave very illogically (almost superstitiously) when interacting with their computers. Often, they'll come find me (a perceived computer "expert") and want me to think for them about their computers. If instead, they thought of the computer as a tool, and took the time to a) learn a bit about it and b) reason logically about it, they would not need my assistance.
(Part of this may be due to bad experiences: they have been burned by bad software in the past, and now they're afraid that they'll screw it up, so they rely on me to get it right.)
Now, don't get me wrong, I think computers in general, and user interface driven software in particular, have a long way to go in terms of usability. For more on this, check out "The Design of Everyday Things" by Norman. But I think even Norman misses this point about some tools requiring a bit of learning. We, as designers of computing systems, should strive to make the learning as intuitive as possible, but users also need to put forth a bit of effort.
After I submitted this, a number of other advantages came to mind:
More personal - Just as the transition from desktop to laptop moves the computer from the desk into my lap, the transition from laptop to tablet computer makes the computer feel more "mine." The tablet moves computing further into my lap.
More expressive - Have you ever tried to draw with a mouse? Tablet computers are, I believe, inherently better for making sketches and drawings, particularly ones that are inpromptu and unstructured (for structured and well thought out figures tools like Illustrator excel at replication and uniformity; but then I imagine one could easily use Illustrator on a tablet computer). Sketches and illustrations become a natural part of my documents when using a pen computer rather than a labor I put off until absoltely necessary to make a point.
That said, I did carry the newton keyboard around and use it occaisionally, but generally only when I needed to quickly input a bunch of text. Even when writing papers and largely textual documents, consider how much time is spent thinking rather than typing. I wouldn't program in a text based programming language using a pen computer, because the input methods are not amenable, but that may change.
A tablet PC is like a PC with a mouse but no keyboard (yes, I know there is a keyboard buried inside). It's an impoverished communications channel, and no matter how cleverly you design it, it will never be as comfortable, efficient, or powerful as a channel that includes a keyboard or a keyboard-like modality.[Emphasis mine.]
I disagree strongly. I can't argue to Microsoft's implemenation of TabletPC, as I've never used one, but you're talking about the tablet computer or pen based computer in general. I believe that, maybe because we all learn to use a pencil before we learn to type and use a mouse, the tablet is a fundamentally more natural human interface than the mouse and keyboard, for anything other than bulk text input.
I think tablets have a number of advantages:
Closer - When using a tablet I feel as though I'm interacting directly with the machine rather than trying to command it through an intermediary.
Faster - I believe I spend less time trying to position items using a tablet than I do using a mouse, particularly when performing novel tasks.
Easier to learn - Have you ever watched someone (particularly an older person) use a mouse for the first time? Have you ever watched someone (particularly an older person) use a tablet computer for the first time? The difference is remarkable. Again, I think this is because the tablet models interacting with a piece of paper, in that, the feedback occurs directy underneath the input device, rather than at a separate location.
Three years of solid Newton (I took notes on it in college) use leads me to believe these things. I wonder if you have ever actually used a tablet/pen computer for more than a few minutes/hours?
MacKinnon and his co-workers are responsible for determining the crystal structure of the potassium ion channel protein, of fundamental importance to many biological processes, include nerve impulse transduction. Pictures of the tetrametric (four identical proteins complexed together) channel are available in the Science paper, or at the protein data bank. If you have the appropriate viewer (such as Chime or RasMol) you can view the structure in 3D!
Pilot Varsity, a disposable fountain pen. Somewhat hard to find, but a great pen. I like 'em cause they write well and I don't hate myself if I loose it (I always do).
Now as to your test...I'm only listening via my laptops, cheesy 1" speakers, and I notice a lot of distortion in the sibalant S's, and that's in the "original" MP3.
Really? And that's not caused by the speakers? Can you describe this further? I don't notice this at all, and I'm listening on fairly nice headphones (Etymotic ER4). I should put up a direct CD rip for comparison; I unfortunately don't have the CD with me. However, I remember doing a blind test on this same source material and not being able to distinguish them. And I usually hear artifacts that most people don't.
Anyway...
-c
Re:Just to keep you intellectually honest...
on
AAC Put To The Test
·
· Score: 1
I don't know anyone who's done a comparison between AAC files ripped from masters vs MP3s ripped from CD.
All I want to do is use the music I bought where I want it. I'm not stealing it; I already bought it. Go listen to my samples and see if you can tell the difference.
This is obviously true. However, the reason I want to do this is to play iTunes Music Store purchased music on non-Apple hardware. I have no source material to rip from other than the AAC track I download.
I think LAME actually does a pretty good job of re-encoding AAC to MP3. At least, I can't tell the difference (unlike when using iTunes to re-encode, where I most definitely could). This is good enough for me.
So a quick google search yielded iLoveMP3 which is able to re-encode encrypted AAC to MP3 using LAME. If it doesn't sound good using LAME, it probably won't sound good using anything else.
For what should be fairly obvious reasons, I'd rather see a comparison of encoders re-encoding AAC to MP3. I tried this several weeks ago using AudioHijack and the iTunes MP3 encoder, and the results were less than stellar.
I imagine that an encoder could be optimized for re-encoding. I wonder if anyone is working on this. I'd like to write a program which would automatically do this conversion in my music library, but currently I can't stand the loss of quality.
So, at the risk of sounding stupid, how does this work from the user's perspective? Are AAAA records used preferentially over A records? Do I have to type in obscenely long numerical addresses? What software does support it, currently?
That's the average bitrate. It's a Variable Bit Rate (VBR) encoding. It was surprising to me that the average bit rate was so low, but this is decided by the encoder, not by me. There's almost certainly some bad interaction between the two codecs (AAC and MP3) that generates such a low bit rate. Maybe its possible to modify the MP3 encoder to do a better job of recompressing AAC.
After reading your post, I downloaded Audio Hijack, used it on an AAC I bought from Apple earlier in the day, and then re-encoded to MP3 VBR using iTunes.
The result is usable, but is definitely inferior in quality to the original AAC. This isn't surprising, but I was hoping it wouldn't be so. I know this isn't a scientific test: it's only one song and it wasn't blinded. A truely useful comparison would use a variety of material, would compare the original source as well and would use A/B/X blinding.
I'm probably in the "audiophile" category, as I often hear things in audio that other's don't. However, I would call the differences between the original AAC and the hijacked MP3 substantial and not nit-picky. In my subjective test I found high percussion to be particularly objectionable. This is often what suffers in low(er) bit rit MP3 encodings.
Of course I could leave the file as the 45 mb AIFF that AudioHijack generated (which sounds great), but I don't have that kind of disk space.
Details: Song: Charm Attack (Leona Naess) 4:24. 4.2MB protected AAC @ 128kpbs. Audio Hijacked to 44.2MB AIFF. Recompressed to 3.2MB MP3 using iTunes (VBR Highest Quality 102kpbs average). Listened to on Etymotic ER-4 headphones. (I've heard people complain that the iTunes MP3 encoder is inferior. I don't hear any artifacts in VBR MP3s created from original CDs, but its certainly possible that another encoder might do a better job of recompressing.)
From time to time, you may see some movies in your queue with a wait status. A wait status is an indication that customer requests have exceeded our inventory levels. We recommend that you keep your movies in the order you would like to view them regardless of the availability status, as it helps us measure the demand for a particular movie.
Below are the three possibilities:
Short Wait: We don't have quite enough copies of this movie to meet all current demand, so we're unlikely to be able to ship it to you right now. We should have enough copies in the near future. The wait for this movie is generally less than 14 days.
Long Wait: There's considerably more demand than available copies for this movie. It's unlikely that we'll be able to send you this movie in the next week or two. The wait for this movie is generally less than 30 days.
Very Long Wait: There is extremely high demand, limited availability and/or a very long wait for this movie. The wait for this movie is generally less than 4 months, but could be longer.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that this is not a trivial task, in that location is not easily determined. But neither was setting up 911 in the first place.
This is the key. As I said earlier, there's a huge disparity between talented and mediocre doctors, just as there is in programmers. And as others have pointed out, so many doctors these days just follow the flow chart without really caring or even listening. They hone in on the most likely cause without even considering other possibilities.
Good doctors listen, they evaluate all the symptoms, they don't dismiss anything. Hell, a key part of my cancer diagnosis was a symptom I didn't think was related at all (itchiness), a belief that earlier doctors had reinforced. Indeed, I got unlucky in that I moved around a bunch and ended up moving from doctor to doctor.
I finally found a doctor who said, "What else?" ABut by that point, it was pretty clear that something was really wrong with me. However, there's nothing like having someone finally actually listen to you, ask probing questions, and act. The single biggest revelation out of my cancer experience was that I knew something was seriously wrong with me before the doctors did.
I agree with the_skywise's recommendation that you stick to a single doctor for a while, but make sure that single doctor is a good one. If, after giving her a couple chances, your doctor can't explain your symptoms to your satisfaction, find another. It can make all the difference in the world.
-c
I can't disagree with this strongly enough. This is very true for common illnesses, but very untrue for rare ones. I should know: I was recently diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a rare cancer of the lymph system that about 8,000 people will be diagnosed with this year in the US [1]. I had the symptoms of it (swollen glands, itchiness; ie very nonspecific symptoms) for nigh on 3 years, and had presented repeatedly to multiple doctors, all of whom missed the forest for the trees. I knew something was wrong with me (even, I think subconciously, that I had cancer), but I believed the doctors when they diagnosed allergies, or mononucleosis, or some other prosiac illness. It was not until the disease had spread extensively until it was drop dead obvious that something was really wrong.
I agree with the spirit of your post: he should let the doctors do the diagnosing. However, he should very strongly try to find the right doctors. Just like programmers, there's a huge disparity in talent between the good and the mediocre. Luckily, I found some good ones (I work at Mayo Clinic), and I'm doing much better now.
-c
[1] http://www.lymphomainfo.net/hodgkins/incidence.htm l
Randy Pausch:
Who's telling the truth? You decide.
Personally, I think Randy Pausch is a putz, and I'm speaking both as someone who has seen him lecture at CMU and who has friends that were advised by him.
-c
Yes, except, how many licenses did you have to buy? Who's really winning?
Wait, you want it longer? Please, Jesus, don't encourage him to write even longer.
-c
Such is the case with a group of scientists from the National Research Laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M. (''Los Alamos'' is Spanish for ''More than One Alamo''). According to an Associated Press story that I am not making up, these scientists are proposing to build an elevator that would be 62,000 miles high. That's right: 62,000 MILES, which is 32 million stories. At the top would be a revolving restaurant serving what the scientists promise will be ''really mediocre food.''
- Dave Barry
Does this assume that the program is deterministic? By this I mean that the program always follows the same code path for the same inputs, or, put another way, that no randomness is involved.
-cI agree with the overall point I think you're making here, which I might summarize as 'let the tool make this easy for me.' I do agree, honest. But, the devils advocate in me says, 'It's a tool, and sometimes you have to learn a bit about a tool in order for it to be really useful to you.' I say this because I often see people turn off their brains when it comes to computers. I've seen very logical people behave very illogically (almost superstitiously) when interacting with their computers. Often, they'll come find me (a perceived computer "expert") and want me to think for them about their computers. If instead, they thought of the computer as a tool, and took the time to a) learn a bit about it and b) reason logically about it, they would not need my assistance.
(Part of this may be due to bad experiences: they have been burned by bad software in the past, and now they're afraid that they'll screw it up, so they rely on me to get it right.)
Now, don't get me wrong, I think computers in general, and user interface driven software in particular, have a long way to go in terms of usability. For more on this, check out "The Design of Everyday Things" by Norman. But I think even Norman misses this point about some tools requiring a bit of learning. We, as designers of computing systems, should strive to make the learning as intuitive as possible, but users also need to put forth a bit of effort.
-cAfter I submitted this, a number of other advantages came to mind:
That said, I did carry the newton keyboard around and use it occaisionally, but generally only when I needed to quickly input a bunch of text. Even when writing papers and largely textual documents, consider how much time is spent thinking rather than typing. I wouldn't program in a text based programming language using a pen computer, because the input methods are not amenable, but that may change.
-cA tablet PC is like a PC with a mouse but no keyboard (yes, I know there is a keyboard buried inside). It's an impoverished communications channel, and no matter how cleverly you design it, it will never be as comfortable, efficient, or powerful as a channel that includes a keyboard or a keyboard-like modality.[Emphasis mine.]
I disagree strongly. I can't argue to Microsoft's implemenation of TabletPC, as I've never used one, but you're talking about the tablet computer or pen based computer in general. I believe that, maybe because we all learn to use a pencil before we learn to type and use a mouse, the tablet is a fundamentally more natural human interface than the mouse and keyboard, for anything other than bulk text input.
I think tablets have a number of advantages:
Three years of solid Newton (I took notes on it in college) use leads me to believe these things. I wonder if you have ever actually used a tablet/pen computer for more than a few minutes/hours?
-c-c
Pilot Varsity, a disposable fountain pen. Somewhat hard to find, but a great pen. I like 'em cause they write well and I don't hate myself if I loose it (I always do).
-cKASY0 nodes are completely diskless; there isn't even a floppy. (from the FAQ)
So how are the nodes booted? Are there bioses out there that can netboot?
-c
Really? And that's not caused by the speakers? Can you describe this further? I don't notice this at all, and I'm listening on fairly nice headphones (Etymotic ER4). I should put up a direct CD rip for comparison; I unfortunately don't have the CD with me. However, I remember doing a blind test on this same source material and not being able to distinguish them. And I usually hear artifacts that most people don't.
Anyway...
-c
You be the judge. It's only one song, I know.
-c
-c
I think LAME actually does a pretty good job of re-encoding AAC to MP3. At least, I can't tell the difference (unlike when using iTunes to re-encode, where I most definitely could). This is good enough for me.
-c
I'll post results when the encoding finishes.
I imagine that an encoder could be optimized for re-encoding. I wonder if anyone is working on this. I'd like to write a program which would automatically do this conversion in my music library, but currently I can't stand the loss of quality.
-c
The result is usable, but is definitely inferior in quality to the original AAC. This isn't surprising, but I was hoping it wouldn't be so. I know this isn't a scientific test: it's only one song and it wasn't blinded. A truely useful comparison would use a variety of material, would compare the original source as well and would use A/B/X blinding.
I'm probably in the "audiophile" category, as I often hear things in audio that other's don't. However, I would call the differences between the original AAC and the hijacked MP3 substantial and not nit-picky. In my subjective test I found high percussion to be particularly objectionable. This is often what suffers in low(er) bit rit MP3 encodings.
Of course I could leave the file as the 45 mb AIFF that AudioHijack generated (which sounds great), but I don't have that kind of disk space.
Details: Song: Charm Attack (Leona Naess) 4:24. 4.2MB protected AAC @ 128kpbs. Audio Hijacked to 44.2MB AIFF. Recompressed to 3.2MB MP3 using iTunes (VBR Highest Quality 102kpbs average). Listened to on Etymotic ER-4 headphones. (I've heard people complain that the iTunes MP3 encoder is inferior. I don't hear any artifacts in VBR MP3s created from original CDs, but its certainly possible that another encoder might do a better job of recompressing.)
From time to time, you may see some movies in your queue with a wait status. A wait status is an indication that customer requests have exceeded our inventory levels. We recommend that you keep your movies in the order you would like to view them regardless of the availability status, as it helps us measure the demand for a particular movie.
Below are the three possibilities:
Short Wait: We don't have quite enough copies of this movie to meet all current demand, so we're unlikely to be able to ship it to you right now. We should have enough copies in the near future. The wait for this movie is generally less than 14 days.
Long Wait: There's considerably more demand than available copies for this movie. It's unlikely that we'll be able to send you this movie in the next week or two. The wait for this movie is generally less than 30 days.
Very Long Wait: There is extremely high demand, limited availability and/or a very long wait for this movie. The wait for this movie is generally less than 4 months, but could be longer.