Say your credit card routinely published all credit information on all their customers on a web page that you discovered via google. You told the the company about the security risk, but they said simply "these are not the droids you are looking for, go on your way".
Would you feel justified in spilling your guts to the papers? Would you feel it unjust that they could have you locked up for doing so?
The basis for programming languages is mathematics. Given that, we are doing quite well really. More expressive languages tend to have two downsides that faviour less expressive languages in many a case:
1) they tend to be slower than the same system written in a more traditional language, and no matter how fast processors get, there will always be incentive to squeeze the best performance out of them.
2) they tend to be less general purpose which limits their ability to become ubiquitous. If you have time to learn one language, would you pick a more specialised one which would limit what you could write, or a more general purpose one that allows more flexibility?
Those are really the big drivers (or inhibitors) to language take up in my view. Scripting languages tend not to obey those rules but fill the "its either done using a script or it gets done manually" niche, so the performance comparison is different, but still there.
The way to smooth out the lumps is to not use phonemes at all, but diphones. Imagine recording two phonemes uttered by a human speaker in sequence, and then slicing through the middle of each phoneme to and discarding the ends. That gives you a diphone.
Diphones are far superior because phonemes do not change in the middle, so there are no "lumps" at the splice. On the other hand phonemes do change depending on what phoneme is uttered next, simply because in articulating different phoneme sequences the human vocal tract must perform different gymnastics.
The only downside is that a full set of diphones is much larger than a full set of phonemes - and they are all buggers to record.
It has always struck me that the treatment of technology issues in courts of law has been rather haphazard. On the one hand there are moments of wonderous insight displayed which results in "the right thing" happenning. On the other hand, there have been far reaching decisions made which are clearly nuts to "one who is skilled in the art."
If you had the clean sheet, and were able to redefine how the law treated technology in court - what provisions would you make to ensure the law kept in touch with technology and technology issues in law? Or do you believe that the court system as it stands is adequate?
Slashdot Mirror
Say your credit card routinely published all credit information on all their customers on a web page that you discovered via google. You told the the company about the security risk, but they said simply "these are not the droids you are looking for, go on your way".
Would you feel justified in spilling your guts to the papers? Would you feel it unjust that they could have you locked up for doing so?
Yep, I miss the good old days when we got our software delivered at 45 rpm, and my-lame-app "Professional" just does not sound as good as LP.
The basis for programming languages is mathematics. Given that, we are doing quite well really. More expressive languages tend to have two downsides that faviour less expressive languages in many a case: 1) they tend to be slower than the same system written in a more traditional language, and no matter how fast processors get, there will always be incentive to squeeze the best performance out of them. 2) they tend to be less general purpose which limits their ability to become ubiquitous. If you have time to learn one language, would you pick a more specialised one which would limit what you could write, or a more general purpose one that allows more flexibility? Those are really the big drivers (or inhibitors) to language take up in my view. Scripting languages tend not to obey those rules but fill the "its either done using a script or it gets done manually" niche, so the performance comparison is different, but still there.
No, Hawkins has already refused upgrades. After all, it is his voice now.
The way to smooth out the lumps is to not use phonemes at all, but diphones. Imagine recording two phonemes uttered by a human speaker in sequence, and then slicing through the middle of each phoneme to and discarding the ends. That gives you a diphone. Diphones are far superior because phonemes do not change in the middle, so there are no "lumps" at the splice. On the other hand phonemes do change depending on what phoneme is uttered next, simply because in articulating different phoneme sequences the human vocal tract must perform different gymnastics. The only downside is that a full set of diphones is much larger than a full set of phonemes - and they are all buggers to record.
I think you will find that that has more to do with creating derivative works.
Are you new here?
It has always struck me that the treatment of technology issues in courts of law has been rather haphazard. On the one hand there are moments of wonderous insight displayed which results in "the right thing" happenning. On the other hand, there have been far reaching decisions made which are clearly nuts to "one who is skilled in the art." If you had the clean sheet, and were able to redefine how the law treated technology in court - what provisions would you make to ensure the law kept in touch with technology and technology issues in law? Or do you believe that the court system as it stands is adequate?
Er, wouldn't caching Nazi checks help the Allied war effort by moving money from Nazi Germany to USA?