And if you're out running, the algorithm has to deal with background noise, breathlessness, etc. Plus you probably have to handle it with your greasy, sweaty hands to put it in 'voice dial activation' mode.
Everything has its plus and minus points. I thought no tactile feedback would be a problem until I actually got an iPhone. Now I can't imagine going back to a phone in which so much real estate is wasted through separating input and output.
I'll never own one of those new-fangled rotary dial phones. Will a 'normal' phone I can pick up and just tell the operator who I want to talk to. I can't do that with a rotary dial phone. It is simply a poor design decision;)
Not only that, but the implication is that you should be inserting new physical media each time you want to listen to a different set of tracks. Guess this article's author hasn't quite got his head round the advantages of an MP3 player over a Discman yet.
Blind Source Separation algorithms are improving all the time. Melodyne, as others have mentioned, has such functionality, though (having dabbled in DSP and MIR) I doubt it would work as well for soprano as it does for guitar -- and I'd be surprised if one separated note didn't at least have a little of the ghost of the notes that used to accompany it.
I read that article on Quantum Suicide and went off and killed myself, you insensitive clod! I'm having to post this from one of the universes in which I survived.
Well, we won't be the ones who get destroyed. And neither will we. Nor, indeed, us. Because for every instant that passes, there is a new choicepoint and a new us. So don't fret it -- you personally will never experience oblivion.
Now whether you believe that or not is your own business.
See, that's the problem. Even Thomas, who knew Jesus personally, doubted. What chance do we have, with advice like "test everything, keep the good" coming from within the pages of scripture itself?!
1) Go to http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.a-big-huge-giant-clits-hairy-wet-cunts.com 2) Observe text which says "Other Site On 63.243.140.77" 3) There is no step 3. Oh alright I'll spell it out for you because you're obviously not the sharpest tool in the box: 63.243.140.77 is what we in the trade call an IP address.
i mean, how does a fancy screen transition improve usability in any way? does it let you do what you want easier/faster?
No.
does it improve efficiency or make the software more intuitive?
That's the feller. It associates different actions and parts of the interface with one another.
would flipping through hundreds of virtual album covers be more usable than a simple searchable list that lets you immediately jump to the album or track you want?
What's wrong with both? Each of them has its place.
Why would a usable interface have to "mimic physical reality"?
I didn't say they have to. I just said they do (generally).
they've used their awesome brains to make a connection between movement of mouse and movement of pointer on screen
And if that wasn't how reality worked (like, you know, when you draw the curtains you don't have to grasp them at the rail), people wouldn't understand how to use a mouse.
The transitions are an (albeit overhyped) usability bonus
I'm glad we agree. Presumably you are a different Mr. Coward to the OP.
1) Fat Cat Investment Banks encourage US populace to spend more money than collectively exists, based on perversion of American Dream promising infinite growth. "Trust Private Enterprise", they say, "Keep Government small, taxes are daylight robbery". 2) Turns out money doesn't grow on infinite trees: economy goes tits up. "Help us", say Fat Cats, "You've got to bail us out, because you've build your house on our cards". 3) ??? 4) Profit! 5) "Hey, we warned you about those taxes", says Big Media. "You should vote for the Rebublicrats next time." 6) Goto 1
These matters are considerably more complicated when there are issues of sovereignty. I know you and many Americans don't understand that -- we (the British) used not to either, so I can identify with that: it comes with the territory of thinking your empire is different from the ones that came before it.
Oh, I see. When you said "[Bush] certainly mistakenly kills civilians with his policies, certainly. and for this there is remorse and attempt at restitution", I thought you meant remorse from Bush.
Also, there's a big difference between a report of someone saying sorry, and them being sorry. Actions speak louder than words.
If you don't like taxes, move to a country where there aren't any.
Let's Godwin that argument, shall we? "Hey, Jew, if you don't like being worked to death, escape from the camp and flee to Allied territory." Go on, knee-jerk dismiss me!
I don't have to: I can dismiss you with a perfectly cogent argument.
There *are* countries in which you don't have to pay taxes. Or at least, they're not called taxes. I don't think you'd like the way things are done there, though. This is not at all the same as escaping from a prison camp; you are free to renounce your UK citizenship at any time and make your way there. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
You actually want me to answer why I think £34 million/year (from the UK, in which I pay taxes, to the LHC alone) is a lot of money? Well, since it will be more than the income tax bill for my entire lifetime, that means that I could have paid no income tax whatsoever all my life if the LHC hadn't been built. And ditto for several dozen other above-average wage earners. Each year. We could all then choose to invest that money in projects we consider of greater value than the LHC.
But let me guess - you're using a metric which considers proportion of total government spending, conveniently forgetting that "government spending" is "collection of individuals' income" spending?
I'm using the same metric as you: "me and my mates think this is where the money is well spent". The difference is, I don't claim everyone agrees with me!
You were allowed to be quirky, absent-minded, a loner, as long as you published good science.
Just not a sense of humour, eh? Luckily, not everyone agrees with you. Of course, if you have supporting evidence that the decrease in Physics intake is that everyone is appalled that Physicians are also having fun as well as doing incredible work, then I'd love to see it.
Your chief tools were imagination and mathematics. Today, science's chief weapons are:
(1) the good communicator - because there's so much noise between scientist and scientist, and between scientists and the public. The real science geek is sidelined
Those with no social skills have always been sidelined. Nothing new here.
(2) the grant, because science has gone from being chiefly analytical to chiefly numerical. Got a problem? Buy a cluster and simulate it. Need to test a theory? Collect petabytes of data about it.
Whereas to test your pet theory about molecular physics, all you need is a paper and pencil and your "imagination". No, science is, and always has been, empirical. Again, you're thinking about maths; you don't seem to be able to get past that.
Feel an air of superiority much? The papers picked up a story about a potentially dangerous experiment which, thanks to the elite nature of science, no-one outside the scientific world understands much about.
Potentially dangerous my arse. The papers would have you believe that talking to your neighbour is dangerous.
Ignorance breeds fear, yes, but you seem to be blaming *the people who funded the experiment* rather than *the people doing it*, when the latter have a duty to inform the former.
I am doing nothing of the sort. Please explain why you claim this.
You're a mathematician -- I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Hm, confirms my previous paragraph then.
No, you just don't seem to understand that empirical evaluation requires money.
The reason you can't, as a mathematician, command budgets like these is that you don't need to.
Given £36 million/year I could do great things for mathematics education in the UK, so I "need" £36 million/year.
Yes, it is a silly question. Except for the extreme amount of indirection taking place, it's akin to a mugger holding a gun to your head and shouting, "give me $200, it's essential!" When you deny the request they respond that, since you're not an [insert random title here], you wouldn't understand - then take it anyway.
If you don't like taxes, move to a country where there aren't any.
1. I think we're all agreed that it's high priced, yes?
Absolutely not. Where do you get your metric from?
2. Sensationalism in the everyday sense - remembering that my OP was motivated by a bloody rap video
No, your OP provided a link to a rap video. It's an amusing and educational video. No-one is suggesting that video is worth billions of dollars.
- comes from the fact that they built the biggest, most expensive structure evar, made no big deal about it until soon before launch, and are now milking the press time.
What a load of crap. The papers picked up a story about the end of the world, which is what sells newspapers, and suddenly the LHC is in the news. The reason it's caught the imagination is nothing to do with CERN's publicity or lack thereof.
In the philosophical sense, the whole thing is sensationalist by putting so much emphasis on experiencing xome aspect of the sub-microscopic world to derive knowledge about it.
You're a mathematician -- I wouldn't expect you to understand.
3. I can't say whether "more esoteric work" is bullcrap, and I'm not saying it's all bad science either - but see point (2) above. I'm not enough of an egotist to assume that undergraduate physics gives me enough to judge worth - indeed, many scientists don't even realise the full value of their work in their own lifetimes.
What I am saying is that the framework for justifying funding of much so-called academic work is fucked.
The reason you can't, as a mathematician, command budgets like these is that you don't need to. It's not a value judgment -- get over it.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you're out running, the algorithm has to deal with background noise, breathlessness, etc. Plus you probably have to handle it with your greasy, sweaty hands to put it in 'voice dial activation' mode.
Everything has its plus and minus points. I thought no tactile feedback would be a problem until I actually got an iPhone. Now I can't imagine going back to a phone in which so much real estate is wasted through separating input and output.
I'm getting regular sex from a girl that looks enough like Tina Fey that both my nerd cred and erection are rock hard and unquestionable.
"Regular" as in "every month" as in "she costs a month's wages".
you will never get within sniffing distance any quality pussy
Whereas you are apparently quite the charmer :)
Music is math
That's what I thought when I started my PhD in MIR. I haven't finished it yet :)
I'll never own one of those new-fangled rotary dial phones. Will a 'normal' phone I can pick up and just tell the operator who I want to talk to. I can't do that with a rotary dial phone. It is simply a poor design decision ;)
Not only that, but the implication is that you should be inserting new physical media each time you want to listen to a different set of tracks. Guess this article's author hasn't quite got his head round the advantages of an MP3 player over a Discman yet.
Blind Source Separation algorithms are improving all the time. Melodyne, as others have mentioned, has such functionality, though (having dabbled in DSP and MIR) I doubt it would work as well for soprano as it does for guitar -- and I'd be surprised if one separated note didn't at least have a little of the ghost of the notes that used to accompany it.
Using a radio is not as convenient for a blind person as using a TV? I'm looking forward to you backing that statement up!
I read that article on Quantum Suicide and went off and killed myself, you insensitive clod! I'm having to post this from one of the universes in which I survived.
Well, we won't be the ones who get destroyed. And neither will we. Nor, indeed, us. Because for every instant that passes, there is a new choicepoint and a new us. So don't fret it -- you personally will never experience oblivion.
Now whether you believe that or not is your own business.
See, that's the problem. Even Thomas, who knew Jesus personally, doubted. What chance do we have, with advice like "test everything, keep the good" coming from within the pages of scripture itself?!
Nah. I was way better at coding when I was 15 than when I was 13 ;)
You really are an idiot, aren't you?
1) Go to http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.a-big-huge-giant-clits-hairy-wet-cunts.com
2) Observe text which says "Other Site On 63.243.140.77"
3) There is no step 3. Oh alright I'll spell it out for you because you're obviously not the sharpest tool in the box: 63.243.140.77 is what we in the trade call an IP address.
i mean, how does a fancy screen transition improve usability in any way? does it let you do what you want easier/faster?
No.
does it improve efficiency or make the software more intuitive?
That's the feller. It associates different actions and parts of the interface with one another.
would flipping through hundreds of virtual album covers be more usable than a simple searchable list that lets you immediately jump to the album or track you want?
What's wrong with both? Each of them has its place.
You continue to be skeptical. Might wanna throw away that TV and get a radio too in case you ever get struck blind, rendering your TV useless.
Why would a usable interface have to "mimic physical reality"?
I didn't say they have to. I just said they do (generally).
they've used their awesome brains to make a connection between movement of mouse and movement of pointer on screen
And if that wasn't how reality worked (like, you know, when you draw the curtains you don't have to grasp them at the rail), people wouldn't understand how to use a mouse.
The transitions are an (albeit overhyped) usability bonus
I'm glad we agree. Presumably you are a different Mr. Coward to the OP.
1) Fat Cat Investment Banks encourage US populace to spend more money than collectively exists, based on perversion of American Dream promising infinite growth. "Trust Private Enterprise", they say, "Keep Government small, taxes are daylight robbery".
2) Turns out money doesn't grow on infinite trees: economy goes tits up. "Help us", say Fat Cats, "You've got to bail us out, because you've build your house on our cards".
3) ???
4) Profit!
5) "Hey, we warned you about those taxes", says Big Media. "You should vote for the Rebublicrats next time."
6) Goto 1
The iPhone heavily features transitions to make the UI look sexy. Try focusing on real usability issues
You're quite right. If only Apple knew as much about HCI as you, Mr. Coward.
Clue: Usable interfaces mimic physical reality. Physical reality doesn't instantaneously flick from one state to another.
Nice try at a straw man.
These matters are considerably more complicated when there are issues of sovereignty. I know you and many Americans don't understand that -- we (the British) used not to either, so I can identify with that: it comes with the territory of thinking your empire is different from the ones that came before it.
Oh, I see. When you said "[Bush] certainly mistakenly kills civilians with his policies, certainly. and for this there is remorse and attempt at restitution", I thought you meant remorse from Bush.
Also, there's a big difference between a report of someone saying sorry, and them being sorry. Actions speak louder than words.
You describe some moral dilemmas, certainly. But none of them are akin to the invasion of Iraq.
he certainly mistakenly kills civilians with his policies, certainly. and for this there is remorse and attempt at restitution.
I see no evidence whatsoever for this. Please provide some.
If you don't like taxes, move to a country where there aren't any.
Let's Godwin that argument, shall we? "Hey, Jew, if you don't like being worked to death, escape from the camp and flee to Allied territory." Go on, knee-jerk dismiss me!
I don't have to: I can dismiss you with a perfectly cogent argument.
There *are* countries in which you don't have to pay taxes. Or at least, they're not called taxes. I don't think you'd like the way things are done there, though. This is not at all the same as escaping from a prison camp; you are free to renounce your UK citizenship at any time and make your way there. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
You actually want me to answer why I think £34 million/year (from the UK, in which I pay taxes, to the LHC alone) is a lot of money? Well, since it will be more than the income tax bill for my entire lifetime, that means that I could have paid no income tax whatsoever all my life if the LHC hadn't been built. And ditto for several dozen other above-average wage earners. Each year. We could all then choose to invest that money in projects we consider of greater value than the LHC.
But let me guess - you're using a metric which considers proportion of total government spending, conveniently forgetting that "government spending" is "collection of individuals' income" spending?
I'm using the same metric as you: "me and my mates think this is where the money is well spent". The difference is, I don't claim everyone agrees with me!
You were allowed to be quirky, absent-minded, a loner, as long as you published good science.
Just not a sense of humour, eh? Luckily, not everyone agrees with you. Of course, if you have supporting evidence that the decrease in Physics intake is that everyone is appalled that Physicians are also having fun as well as doing incredible work, then I'd love to see it.
Your chief tools were imagination and mathematics. Today, science's chief weapons are:
(1) the good communicator - because there's so much noise between scientist and scientist, and between scientists and the public. The real science geek is sidelined
Those with no social skills have always been sidelined. Nothing new here.
(2) the grant, because science has gone from being chiefly analytical to chiefly numerical. Got a problem? Buy a cluster and simulate it. Need to test a theory? Collect petabytes of data about it.
Whereas to test your pet theory about molecular physics, all you need is a paper and pencil and your "imagination". No, science is, and always has been, empirical. Again, you're thinking about maths; you don't seem to be able to get past that.
Feel an air of superiority much? The papers picked up a story about a potentially dangerous experiment which, thanks to the elite nature of science, no-one outside the scientific world understands much about.
Potentially dangerous my arse. The papers would have you believe that talking to your neighbour is dangerous.
Ignorance breeds fear, yes, but you seem to be blaming *the people who funded the experiment* rather than *the people doing it*, when the latter have a duty to inform the former.
I am doing nothing of the sort. Please explain why you claim this.
You're a mathematician -- I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Hm, confirms my previous paragraph then.
No, you just don't seem to understand that empirical evaluation requires money.
The reason you can't, as a mathematician, command budgets like these is that you don't need to.
Given £36 million/year I could do great things for mathematics education in the UK, so I "need" £36 million/year.
it seems foolish to promote this study around the concept of the Big Bang when that is a HIGHLY contested theory
Highly contested by creationists, but not by people with a brain cell between them.
I prefer to stereotype the scientists on this project as ultra serious super-intelligent researchers
They are not only considerably more intelligent than you, they also have a better sense of humour than you do. And they are probably more dorky too.
Yes, it is a silly question. Except for the extreme amount of indirection taking place, it's akin to a mugger holding a gun to your head and shouting, "give me $200, it's essential!" When you deny the request they respond that, since you're not an [insert random title here], you wouldn't understand - then take it anyway.
If you don't like taxes, move to a country where there aren't any.
1. I think we're all agreed that it's high priced, yes?
Absolutely not. Where do you get your metric from?
2. Sensationalism in the everyday sense - remembering that my OP was motivated by a bloody rap video
No, your OP provided a link to a rap video. It's an amusing and educational video. No-one is suggesting that video is worth billions of dollars.
- comes from the fact that they built the biggest, most expensive structure evar, made no big deal about it until soon before launch, and are now milking the press time.
What a load of crap. The papers picked up a story about the end of the world, which is what sells newspapers, and suddenly the LHC is in the news. The reason it's caught the imagination is nothing to do with CERN's publicity or lack thereof.
In the philosophical sense, the whole thing is sensationalist by putting so much emphasis on experiencing xome aspect of the sub-microscopic world to derive knowledge about it.
You're a mathematician -- I wouldn't expect you to understand.
3. I can't say whether "more esoteric work" is bullcrap, and I'm not saying it's all bad science either - but see point (2) above. I'm not enough of an egotist to assume that undergraduate physics gives me enough to judge worth - indeed, many scientists don't even realise the full value of their work in their own lifetimes.
What I am saying is that the framework for justifying funding of much so-called academic work is fucked.
The reason you can't, as a mathematician, command budgets like these is that you don't need to. It's not a value judgment -- get over it.
Why that way round? I'd have thought that centrifugal force would cause the outer wheels to wear faster.