Once, Oscar Peterson answered to a student, who wanted to impress him by aping him: "yeah, you know what I do, you know, how I do it, but you don't know, WHY I do it".
This pattern extracting, rule breaking (made doing so by other rules) program can ape styles, but can it invent new ones? Can it reflect about, what it does? This program reminds me of a more clever version of Karl Jenkins, whose melodies many people find nice but get boring after some pieces, because you begin to know, what musical knowledge and tricks he deploys.
Yes, there is a lot of mathematics underneath music, beginning from very mechanisms of sound creation, over to function of accords and harmonics reaching out to the structure of larger pieces. Every student of musicology knows that. Every student of musicolgy also has to compose smaller pieces after a particular style. It's really not surprising, that a computer program can do it, too. There is probably years of hard work in what Cope did in wading through compositions and writing the program, I won't deny that. But is that really creative? In the times of Mozart, there were a lot of musicians, who "knew the rules". But Mozart remains unique. If he were alive today and listened to Cope's "Mozart" pieces, he would easily outdo them, by inventing something completely different. Computers can analyze the "what" and can apply the "how", but they cannot reflect about the "why".
Compiling lists such as the Beloit College Annual Mindset List is in itself 20th century old-think about large collections of people like the baby boomer generation. Did they ever heard about concepts like the long tail? No one likes generalizations, which are applied to himself (as many posts above) point out.
Back at university I somehow dodged functional programming. I knew functional programming was and is an important concept, but besides an excursion to Prolog and some SQL I never went outside imperative and/or object-oriented programming. I never wanted to learn Lisp or Scheme, Haskell seemed to much for mathematicians back then. Scala intrigued me enough to give functional programming a try again. It's object-oriented, has generics, is strongly typed, but has a powerful inference systems, so declaring things is not too tedious. Java classes and packages can be used within. It has not only builtins for concurrency but also for parallelism. However, it was the functional programming paradigm opened my eyes, what I was missing yet.
While I admire artistic tattoos, I probably won't get one for myself. The idea of something on my skin that is forever, but is perhaps not looking good or cool forever repels me.
But when I was a kid, I accidentally tattooed myself, atleast with one dot of ink:-)
It was in arts education in school. We did calligraphy with old fashioned dip pens. I had the habit then to gnaw on all my writing utensils like pencils, pens etc. So I did that with my dip pen too. Something fell on the floor, I bent down to get it and...ouch... I had the tip of the nib in my thigh. It's still a small greenish dot after 30 years.
I was a long time user of KDE (I think, it goes back to the early 1.x releases) and never even bothered to try out GNOME. I knew, that some of the really cool apps (Mozilla, Gimp etc.) are GTK+ and the KDE and GNOME both share technology from FreeDesktop.org), but overall I always had the impression, that KDE was so flexible in configuration and the use of Qt superior to GTK+) that a change wasn't needed and not even desired. But with KDE 4.0 I had big usability problems that even KDE 4.1 did not really solve. One of the reasons was immaturity, it had fewer features than 3.5 and the remaining one were often buggy. The other reason was a change in usability that I did not understand in the beginning. GNOME is less functional even compared with KDE 4.0 but I appreciated it's stability for a while. I used it extensively with Compiz and found few stability issues. It's less configurable, but the handling is solid.
In the meantime, I switched back to KDE 4.1, because it begins to look usable again. I simply appreciate Qt more than GTK+ and overall I have the impression there are more (and more really usefull) apps in KDE than in GNOME. KDE 4.2 will hopefully implement everything what was promised for 4.0.
Both the title and the summary of the article are misleading, this article describes much better, what the scientist really wanted to acomplish.
It basically says, that the QCD is describing the gluon-gluon and gluon-quark interactions and therefore the electrostrong force correctly. This leads to correct proton and neutron masses.
Most of the computations were conducted with this computer.
While I agree with some posters, that these MR inspired interfaces will not replace the mouse/keyboard interfaces we now have, I'm a bit surprised at the level of unimaginativeness here.
These interfaces are definitely interesting for several application realms: CAD/CAM, drug research (remember Jurassic Park?), x-ray crystallography, image manipulation.
From all the Minority Report "based" interfaces seen so far, this is one of the best one, it seems.
My brother works on a theory in support of MOND. He says, that the original MOND theory is ad-hoc, but that he discovered underlying physical principals, namely changes and additions to special relativity. He says he's able to explain and exactly compute different anomalies like the galaxy rotation, the pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomaly without resorting to dark matter and dark energy.
He's not so sure, what causes the cosmic microwave anisotropy. He also says, that recent proofs for dark matter like the bullet-cluster are actually misinterpretations of the observations.
While he's not an astrophyicist per se, I trust him somewhat, because he's a respected researcher in the field of scientific computing and theoretical physics and thought about these changes to special relativity (he calls it "local relativity") for about 20 years. He soon will publish his findings.
Accepting dark matter and dark energy as a fact is maybe a bit premature.
My brother is working on a theory in support of MOND. He says, that original MOND (Mordechai Milgrom) is ad-hoc, but he has discovered some underlying physical principals.
He says he can not only explain the galaxy rotation but also the pioneer anomaly and the flyby-anomaly. In his concepts, no dark matter or dark energy is needed, "only" a change of special relativity.
He's not so sure about the cosmic microwave anisotropy. He says he needs further investigation into a new field theory of electromagnetism.He says the recent proof of dark matter like the bullet-cluster are actually misunderstandings of the observations.
While he's not an astrophysicist, I trust him somewhat. Not only he's a respected scientist in the fields of scientific computing and theoretical physics, he also thinks about changes to special relativity for over 20 years.
Maybe it would be premature to give the Nobel prize in support to dark matter and dark energy at this point in time.
Not really faster than 2.x with FasterFox with respect to loading content. But Beta 5 is really quick with executing JavaScript, as can be most prominently experienced with GMail.
We will have the hardware. In 2009 we will already have achieved 1 Petaflops. Experts think that we need 1 Exaflop to be able to simulate completely the activities of the human brain. Looking at when 1 Teraflop was achieved by a supercomputer (10 years ago, http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/one-teraflop.html), it's perfectly possible that we reach 1 Exaflop in 2029.
But what about the software? Do they really think they have to wire the hardware like a human brain and that's it?
Played with OS/2 from 1993 until late 1996. I think I've used 2.1, 2.11, 3.0 and even 4.0 (Merlin?) after upgrading my previously 4MB 386 to 8MB and then later to a whopping 16MB (and a 486 and later a Pentium). It was an exhilarating, rewarding but often also excruciatingly frustrating experience.
It multitasked better and more stable than Win95, but was hampered with missing hardware and software support. And the lack of marketing and market understanding on IBM's side.
I abandoned OS/2 when it was finally clear that IBM would not improve it neither on the home user nor on the business side.
I'm not much into P2P but I research a lot on YouTube. Increased listening and experimentation in before never heard music let me buy more music (CD or online) than ever before. So I'm a good example for the article. The RIAA is stupid (as if you didn't know that before).
Booker writes "So IBM announces a 25 gig hard drive... does the world need this yet? Unless this is in a RAID, would you really want to trust 25 gigs on a single drive? What would you use this for? 400+ hours of MP3s comes to mind... ":-=
I learned about/. somewhere around Summer 1998, but was only lurking then. Joined in the end somewhere end of 1999 beginning of 2000.
You raise some valid points here. It seems, that records are not the primary source of income anymore for musicians now. It's the venues. 10 years ago, the gigs were for the support of the record sales, now it's the other way around: albums are promotion for live gigs and thats where the lion share of the money comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
Once, Oscar Peterson answered to a student, who wanted to impress him by aping him: "yeah, you know what I do, you know, how I do it, but you don't know, WHY I do it". This pattern extracting, rule breaking (made doing so by other rules) program can ape styles, but can it invent new ones? Can it reflect about, what it does? This program reminds me of a more clever version of Karl Jenkins, whose melodies many people find nice but get boring after some pieces, because you begin to know, what musical knowledge and tricks he deploys.
Yes, there is a lot of mathematics underneath music, beginning from very mechanisms of sound creation, over to function of accords and harmonics reaching out to the structure of larger pieces. Every student of musicology knows that. Every student of musicolgy also has to compose smaller pieces after a particular style. It's really not surprising, that a computer program can do it, too. There is probably years of hard work in what Cope did in wading through compositions and writing the program, I won't deny that. But is that really creative? In the times of Mozart, there were a lot of musicians, who "knew the rules". But Mozart remains unique. If he were alive today and listened to Cope's "Mozart" pieces, he would easily outdo them, by inventing something completely different. Computers can analyze the "what" and can apply the "how", but they cannot reflect about the "why".
Market research fiirm Hitwise thinks, that Bing's market share is (was?) actually falling.
The best way to keep a secret is .. to forget it :-)
Compiling lists such as the Beloit College Annual Mindset List is in itself 20th century old-think about large collections of people like the baby boomer generation. Did they ever heard about concepts like the long tail? No one likes generalizations, which are applied to himself (as many posts above) point out.
Back at university I somehow dodged functional programming. I knew functional programming was and is an important concept, but besides an excursion to Prolog and some SQL I never went outside imperative and/or object-oriented programming. I never wanted to learn Lisp or Scheme, Haskell seemed to much for mathematicians back then. Scala intrigued me enough to give functional programming a try again. It's object-oriented, has generics, is strongly typed, but has a powerful inference systems, so declaring things is not too tedious. Java classes and packages can be used within. It has not only builtins for concurrency but also for parallelism. However, it was the functional programming paradigm opened my eyes, what I was missing yet.
It's one manifestion of the "Yrr" from The Swarm
Repent, the end is nigh!
While I admire artistic tattoos, I probably won't get one for myself. The idea of something on my skin that is forever, but is perhaps not looking good or cool forever repels me.
But when I was a kid, I accidentally tattooed myself, atleast with one dot of ink :-)
It was in arts education in school. We did calligraphy with old fashioned dip pens. I had the habit then to gnaw on all my writing utensils like pencils, pens etc. So I did that with my dip pen too. Something fell on the floor, I bent down to get it and ...ouch... I had the tip of the nib in my thigh. It's still a small greenish dot after 30 years.
I was a long time user of KDE (I think, it goes back to the early 1.x releases) and never even bothered to try out GNOME. I knew, that some of the really cool apps (Mozilla, Gimp etc.) are GTK+ and the KDE and GNOME both share technology from FreeDesktop.org), but overall I always had the impression, that KDE was so flexible in configuration and the use of Qt superior to GTK+) that a change wasn't needed and not even desired. But with KDE 4.0 I had big usability problems that even KDE 4.1 did not really solve. One of the reasons was immaturity, it had fewer features than 3.5 and the remaining one were often buggy. The other reason was a change in usability that I did not understand in the beginning. GNOME is less functional even compared with KDE 4.0 but I appreciated it's stability for a while. I used it extensively with Compiz and found few stability issues. It's less configurable, but the handling is solid. In the meantime, I switched back to KDE 4.1, because it begins to look usable again. I simply appreciate Qt more than GTK+ and overall I have the impression there are more (and more really usefull) apps in KDE than in GNOME. KDE 4.2 will hopefully implement everything what was promised for 4.0.
Both the title and the summary of the article are misleading, this article describes much better, what the scientist really wanted to acomplish.
It basically says, that the QCD is describing the gluon-gluon and gluon-quark interactions and therefore the electrostrong force correctly. This leads to correct proton and neutron masses.
Most of the computations were conducted with this computer.
While I agree with some posters, that these MR inspired interfaces will not replace the mouse/keyboard interfaces we now have, I'm a bit surprised at the level of unimaginativeness here.
These interfaces are definitely interesting for several application realms: CAD/CAM, drug research (remember Jurassic Park?), x-ray crystallography, image manipulation.
From all the Minority Report "based" interfaces seen so far, this is one of the best one, it seems.
My brother works on a theory in support of MOND. He says, that the original MOND theory is ad-hoc, but that he discovered underlying physical principals, namely changes and additions to special relativity. He says he's able to explain and exactly compute different anomalies like the galaxy rotation, the pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomaly without resorting to dark matter and dark energy.
He's not so sure, what causes the cosmic microwave anisotropy. He also says, that recent proofs for dark matter like the bullet-cluster are actually misinterpretations of the observations.
While he's not an astrophyicist per se, I trust him somewhat, because he's a respected researcher in the field of scientific computing and theoretical physics and thought about these changes to special relativity (he calls it "local relativity") for about 20 years. He soon will publish his findings.
Accepting dark matter and dark energy as a fact is maybe a bit premature.
My brother is working on a theory in support of MOND. He says, that original MOND (Mordechai Milgrom) is ad-hoc, but he has discovered some underlying physical principals. He says he can not only explain the galaxy rotation but also the pioneer anomaly and the flyby-anomaly. In his concepts, no dark matter or dark energy is needed, "only" a change of special relativity.
He's not so sure about the cosmic microwave anisotropy. He says he needs further investigation into a new field theory of electromagnetism.He says the recent proof of dark matter like the bullet-cluster are actually misunderstandings of the observations.
While he's not an astrophysicist, I trust him somewhat. Not only he's a respected scientist in the fields of scientific computing and theoretical physics, he also thinks about changes to special relativity for over 20 years.
Maybe it would be premature to give the Nobel prize in support to dark matter and dark energy at this point in time.
between a scramjet and the PDE? Both seem to operate by burning the fuel at supersonic speed ?
Is it just me or did the street and locality names disappear with the upgrade from 4.2 beta to 4.3?
Not really faster than 2.x with FasterFox with respect to loading content. But Beta 5 is really quick with executing JavaScript, as can be most prominently experienced with GMail.
...weather controls YOU!
Article says "(hydrogen is the most difficult element to compress)". Is that true? It's surely quite hard to liquify. But compressing it?
We will have the hardware. In 2009 we will already have achieved 1 Petaflops. Experts think that we need 1 Exaflop to be able to simulate completely the activities of the human brain. Looking at when 1 Teraflop was achieved by a supercomputer (10 years ago, http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/one-teraflop.html), it's perfectly possible that we reach 1 Exaflop in 2029.
But what about the software? Do they really think they have to wire the hardware like a human brain and that's it?
TrueCrypt 5.0 came out recently. Guess, you will be sent home then for not complying with some rules you don't know.
Played with OS/2 from 1993 until late 1996. I think I've used 2.1, 2.11, 3.0 and even 4.0 (Merlin?) after upgrading my previously 4MB 386 to 8MB and then later to a whopping 16MB (and a 486 and later a Pentium). It was an exhilarating, rewarding but often also excruciatingly frustrating experience.
It multitasked better and more stable than Win95, but was hampered with missing hardware and software support. And the lack of marketing and market understanding on IBM's side.
I abandoned OS/2 when it was finally clear that IBM would not improve it neither on the home user nor on the business side.
So the bits will be kept fresh and crispy?
Urban Challenge Event winners announced!
1st Place - Tartan Racing, Pittsburgh, PA
2nd Place - Stanford Racing Team, Stanford, CA
3rd Place - Victor Tango, Blacksburg, VA
I'm not much into P2P but I research a lot on YouTube. Increased listening and experimentation in before never heard music let me buy more music (CD or online) than ever before. So I'm a good example for the article. The RIAA is stupid (as if you didn't know that before).
Haha:
:-=
/. somewhere around Summer 1998, but was only lurking then. Joined in the end somewhere end of 1999 beginning of 2000.
IBM announces a 25 gigger.
Booker writes "So IBM announces a 25 gig hard drive... does the world need this yet? Unless this is in a RAID, would you really want to trust 25 gigs on a single drive? What would you use this for? 400+ hours of MP3s comes to mind... "
I learned about
You raise some valid points here. It seems, that records are not the primary source of income anymore for musicians now. It's the venues. 10 years ago, the gigs were for the support of the record sales, now it's the other way around: albums are promotion for live gigs and thats where the lion share of the money comes from.