A single optical stream is much easier to use, sort of like the communications equivalent of Amdahl's Law.
She only made one law? I thought she was a queen. Kind of cool though that real-life tech is starting to take advantage of laws that before belonged only to the realm of science fiction.;)
"Folks" just don't know what they're talking about;) I will concede that the lines are blurring, especially with stuff like granular synthesis, which often (always?) uses a sample as its source, but repeats very small slices to make entirely new sounds.
Wonko the Sane (surprised to see you here in the asylum, BTW!) is right. What you're talking about isn't the purpose, but an effect beneficial to corps with political power and detrimental to everyone else. The sense of power felt by the regulators just makes it a lot easier for bad regulations (which means "most of them") to be created. The quality of the regulation doesn't affect the feeling of power; it only affects everything else.
Is the Emerson effect due to something like crosstalk? I just looked it up because I was intrigued, and WP and what it links to are of little help, but it looks to me like the two frequencies activate different systems within the plant cell.
Simple materials and a fairly straightforward relatively low tech process to make it reeks of cold fusion.
I don't think this should make a difference. Haven't we discovered similar processes for making nanotubes? Haven't there also been similar improvements to photovoltaic cells? I get what you're saying--this appears to the layman (me) to be a bigger jump in tech than those, but I won't dismiss it because it's too lucky or ingenious--stranger things have happened, by accident even.
OTOH the further issues you raise are quite valid, as is the desire for repeatability testing.
I use TreeStyleTabs and it's better than nothing, but it's far from optimal. I don't like giving up a sixth of my width to keep everything in view, and it doesn't play nicely with all websites--sometimes you have to hide the tabs in order to see a whole video frame, other times text goes off the right side of the screen without a horizontal scroll bar to see it, etc. I recently tried the Top view, more like a conventional tab bar, but then the trees expand horizontally which is confusing and not useful.
I think Tab Candy strikes a nice balance. All tabs in your current tab group are displayed across the top, taking up minimal space. With a button press (there had better be a keyboard shortcut), you can bring up all of your tab groups and pick the one you want. This simplifies navigation and doesn't sacrifice real-estate. It won't work for everyone, but it looks perfect for my browsing habits.
This gadget will let you use VSTs without a computer, looks to be around $500 and has a smaller footprint than a laptop. It doesn't have a built-in keyboard, and reading a little more about it, it looks like not all VSTs will work with it. I guess it's a first step. While I'm not really surprised that a dedicated VST controller isn't out yet, I think it's only a matter of time before one is introduced. Everybody's moving to softsynths nowadays, and VST is a pretty prevalent architecture for them.
Those organs are a dime a dozen. It's not like he defaced the last remaining one or anything. There are also advantages to using an organ as a starting point: the kind of synth he is using has a bunch of presets, and the sound is changed by turning them on and off in various combinations--exactly like the stops on an organ.
A synthesizer connected to a module would have been cool. But retrofitting that synth into an organ case and using the expected behavior of an organ's controls to make an extremely playable instrument is wonderful. I have software that can reproduce all those sounds, and a big, friendly MIDI controller to play them all. It would take me ten minutes to get everything set up for one of the songs he plays, and another five to switch up for the next one. He just flips a few switches and turns a knob and he's there. That's genius.
I'm with you, actually. I played Dr. Mario against a friend for at least two hours a few days ago, and once you're in the zone it's almost a pure contest of wills as opposed to getting the good gun or the high ground.
There are key differences in the experience, however. Marijuana slows you down, but unlike with alcohol you tend to be very aware of this and able to compensate for it somewhat. The typical example is the drunk driver going 90 MPH passing a stoner going 40. You're less likely to attempt driving in the first place if you're high enough to be dangerous: while your motor skills are impaired, you don't lose your inhibitions like you do with alcohol. Accident records reflect this reality. I don't advocate toking and driving, but I don't think it will become a big issue even with full legalization.
If it takes religion for someone to start caring for people around them, there's something wrong with that person.
For many people a religious group is the first place where they experience a community with such an outward focus. You were probably lucky enough to get the community aspect without the baggage that religion can bring with it. It's important to recognize the primacy of experience, and if your experience up until finding a good church (synagogue, mosque, temple) was every-man-for-himself-ishness, it's only sensible for you to have acted as those around you did--it was all you knew--and only sensible to tie the religion with the newfound outward focus. That doesn't excuse the vindictive convert-or-burn types because they're obviously not practicing an outward focus. I also don't mean to imply that every religious group is caring for those about them; I've seen more than one that has failed utterly in that aspect both within and without the congregation.
One interesting thing that I have heard quite often from atheist friends of mine is that (Protestant, in all their cases, hired for weddings) pastors are more likely to take you as you are and not try to force their views on you than most people in general. I felt the same way but I grew up Protestant and had generally assumed it was because they took it for granted that I shared their views.
Myself, I was able to dump the religious baggage, I think because when I had enough experience I was able to see how the good actions produced results while most of the beliefs didn't, and because I have an inquisitive nature. I tend to think less of those who have an uninformed faith in any belief system, and I include scientism and atheism in that. You can usually tell within five minutes of conversation whether or not someone has examined their beliefs, and I generally respect those who have even if they're different from my own.
I'm in the same boat. Yet I wonder, without all those suckers still subscribing to cable, would my internet utopia be viable? The collapse of traditional news media and the simultaneous decline in quality makes me wonder. Of course the news has been going downhill for a while, but it often takes a lot of cash to produce the TV shows worth watching, and nobody's found a way to raise that amount of money exclusively from online media.
Even when that step is taken, here in America whatever the politician says in response is almost invariably taken as gospel. "These are trying times, so my opinion on X has changed" is rarely questioned further--what exactly about now instead of then makes X a necessary measure or less onerous? Will the future consequences of X not be just as dire now as the were then, even if it seems more expedient to do X now? I've heard some BBC programs where politicians are truly taken to task and I wish we had more of that here.
There is a radio station that does a pretty good job of fulfilling your three critera: WHYY of Philadlephia. This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but I've been impressed by the depth of coverage of their locally produced shows like Radio Times and, less frequently only because they often focus on entertainment, Fresh Air, and also some of the syndicated shows they carry such as This American Life. You can listen online to both what's currently playing and to past shows. It's not nearly as convenient as written articles but the quality is there and they will benefit greatly from your donation.
They do tend towards a slightly leftist bent, but it's more often by omission than by an overt bias from their hosts, and the fact that they've found a paying member in a libertarian like me despite that shortcoming should speak to their integrity. Even if you don't find it worthwhile to listen regularly (Radio Times fairly often focuses on news local to PA or nearby states) their RSS feed might be worth subscribing to.
Me,I figured "halophile potatoes" were like couch potatoes that only played Halo instead of the more traditional channel surfing. I was excited by the harvesting, thinking we'd increase the average IQ by it, but alas it was not to be.
Pure granular synthesis would destroy the sound, yes. I could see some aspects of granular synthesis used to vary sounds instead of going full-on. Have a look at the "graintable synthesis" used in the Malstrom synth. It involves a lot of preprocessing of the sounds used, but an intelligent algorithm could do the trick.
Be that as it may, I think the gains of either of these synthesis methods over simply having 4 or more alternate sounds which play at random are minimal. Space is dirt cheap nowadays while CPU cycles aren't, and a large filesize is much more acceptable than a sluggish game. Something like graintables will get you more variation yet the production work is intensive. It's very easy to break some junk and record the sound. This new synthesis has its place but it won't be in a video game anytime soon.
It's like saying a car is a sociopath, because when it hits something, it doesn't feel anything. Well of course it doesn't, idiot. It's the person driving the car who controls it - they will be the ones to feel remorse, or grief, or sadness at hitting the person. The car itself is just a amalgamation of metal and plastic.
See how idiotic it sounds, to say a car is evil?
The difference being, of course, that the driver of the car will be held liable in a way that corporations really cannot be. Or, if there is a way, we certainly aren't using it. Making them pay for damages is better than nothing, but it isn't justice.
In this case, BP seriously fucked up through negligence. Why should we trust them to run other offshore wells in this country? Make them shut the other wells down--they can sell the rigs off to someone else since it's their property, but they shouldn't be allowed to run them anymore. The same goes for any subcontractors found to contribute.
Chilling effects from restrictive laws on copying cause more creative work to go unpublished than free copying would.
Can you elaborate on this? The only "creative work" that I can see being unpublished due to copyright laws is work based on samples. While some sample use is indeed quite creative (Radiohead's Idioteque comes to mind), the vast majority just capitalizes on people's familiarity with the original work, and it seems to me that the creator of the original work should be compensated for its use.
I am extremely dubious that your anecdote is truthful.
I didn't make it up--I really was told this story--but having only seen the guy once I won't rule out that he was spinning a yarn for his own amusement at my expense or some other more nefarious purpose. This is just what I heard and if true it's something to look out for; if not, just disregard my post.
Thanks for taking the time to provide further information.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I trust the punctuational advice of someone who, according to his own statement, has a sentence fragment as his sig...? Hmm.
And this is not the most important topic for us to consider.
The 650+ comment count begs to differ!
It does make me simultaneously cringe and chuckle that this story has the highest number of comments of any on the front page.
A single optical stream is much easier to use, sort of like the communications equivalent of Amdahl's Law.
She only made one law? I thought she was a queen. Kind of cool though that real-life tech is starting to take advantage of laws that before belonged only to the realm of science fiction. ;)
"Folks" just don't know what they're talking about ;) I will concede that the lines are blurring, especially with stuff like granular synthesis, which often (always?) uses a sample as its source, but repeats very small slices to make entirely new sounds.
I'm just cantankerous, I guess.
Then it's a sampler, not a synthesizer.
Wonko the Sane (surprised to see you here in the asylum, BTW!) is right. What you're talking about isn't the purpose, but an effect beneficial to corps with political power and detrimental to everyone else. The sense of power felt by the regulators just makes it a lot easier for bad regulations (which means "most of them") to be created. The quality of the regulation doesn't affect the feeling of power; it only affects everything else.
We already have something like that in the Netherlands: http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/.
Hey! Speaking English and not Dutch should not count as a disability! We are differently-abled.
Is the Emerson effect due to something like crosstalk? I just looked it up because I was intrigued, and WP and what it links to are of little help, but it looks to me like the two frequencies activate different systems within the plant cell.
Oh, the Peace and Economics prizes are often indications of whim, but I think the Science one is still pretty grounded.
Simple materials and a fairly straightforward relatively low tech process to make it reeks of cold fusion.
I don't think this should make a difference. Haven't we discovered similar processes for making nanotubes? Haven't there also been similar improvements to photovoltaic cells? I get what you're saying--this appears to the layman (me) to be a bigger jump in tech than those, but I won't dismiss it because it's too lucky or ingenious--stranger things have happened, by accident even.
OTOH the further issues you raise are quite valid, as is the desire for repeatability testing.
I use TreeStyleTabs and it's better than nothing, but it's far from optimal. I don't like giving up a sixth of my width to keep everything in view, and it doesn't play nicely with all websites--sometimes you have to hide the tabs in order to see a whole video frame, other times text goes off the right side of the screen without a horizontal scroll bar to see it, etc. I recently tried the Top view, more like a conventional tab bar, but then the trees expand horizontally which is confusing and not useful.
I think Tab Candy strikes a nice balance. All tabs in your current tab group are displayed across the top, taking up minimal space. With a button press (there had better be a keyboard shortcut), you can bring up all of your tab groups and pick the one you want. This simplifies navigation and doesn't sacrifice real-estate. It won't work for everyone, but it looks perfect for my browsing habits.
This gadget will let you use VSTs without a computer, looks to be around $500 and has a smaller footprint than a laptop. It doesn't have a built-in keyboard, and reading a little more about it, it looks like not all VSTs will work with it. I guess it's a first step. While I'm not really surprised that a dedicated VST controller isn't out yet, I think it's only a matter of time before one is introduced. Everybody's moving to softsynths nowadays, and VST is a pretty prevalent architecture for them.
Those organs are a dime a dozen. It's not like he defaced the last remaining one or anything. There are also advantages to using an organ as a starting point: the kind of synth he is using has a bunch of presets, and the sound is changed by turning them on and off in various combinations--exactly like the stops on an organ.
A synthesizer connected to a module would have been cool. But retrofitting that synth into an organ case and using the expected behavior of an organ's controls to make an extremely playable instrument is wonderful. I have software that can reproduce all those sounds, and a big, friendly MIDI controller to play them all. It would take me ten minutes to get everything set up for one of the songs he plays, and another five to switch up for the next one. He just flips a few switches and turns a knob and he's there. That's genius.
First Person Tetris
I'm with you, actually. I played Dr. Mario against a friend for at least two hours a few days ago, and once you're in the zone it's almost a pure contest of wills as opposed to getting the good gun or the high ground.
There are key differences in the experience, however. Marijuana slows you down, but unlike with alcohol you tend to be very aware of this and able to compensate for it somewhat. The typical example is the drunk driver going 90 MPH passing a stoner going 40. You're less likely to attempt driving in the first place if you're high enough to be dangerous: while your motor skills are impaired, you don't lose your inhibitions like you do with alcohol. Accident records reflect this reality. I don't advocate toking and driving, but I don't think it will become a big issue even with full legalization.
If it takes religion for someone to start caring for people around them, there's something wrong with that person.
For many people a religious group is the first place where they experience a community with such an outward focus. You were probably lucky enough to get the community aspect without the baggage that religion can bring with it. It's important to recognize the primacy of experience, and if your experience up until finding a good church (synagogue, mosque, temple) was every-man-for-himself-ishness, it's only sensible for you to have acted as those around you did--it was all you knew--and only sensible to tie the religion with the newfound outward focus. That doesn't excuse the vindictive convert-or-burn types because they're obviously not practicing an outward focus. I also don't mean to imply that every religious group is caring for those about them; I've seen more than one that has failed utterly in that aspect both within and without the congregation.
One interesting thing that I have heard quite often from atheist friends of mine is that (Protestant, in all their cases, hired for weddings) pastors are more likely to take you as you are and not try to force their views on you than most people in general. I felt the same way but I grew up Protestant and had generally assumed it was because they took it for granted that I shared their views.
Myself, I was able to dump the religious baggage, I think because when I had enough experience I was able to see how the good actions produced results while most of the beliefs didn't, and because I have an inquisitive nature. I tend to think less of those who have an uninformed faith in any belief system, and I include scientism and atheism in that. You can usually tell within five minutes of conversation whether or not someone has examined their beliefs, and I generally respect those who have even if they're different from my own.
it is a deep-seated feature of religious groups that they attribute their own failures to some fundamental failing of humanity
Yeah, but everybody does that. ;)
I'm in the same boat. Yet I wonder, without all those suckers still subscribing to cable, would my internet utopia be viable? The collapse of traditional news media and the simultaneous decline in quality makes me wonder. Of course the news has been going downhill for a while, but it often takes a lot of cash to produce the TV shows worth watching, and nobody's found a way to raise that amount of money exclusively from online media.
Even when that step is taken, here in America whatever the politician says in response is almost invariably taken as gospel. "These are trying times, so my opinion on X has changed" is rarely questioned further--what exactly about now instead of then makes X a necessary measure or less onerous? Will the future consequences of X not be just as dire now as the were then, even if it seems more expedient to do X now? I've heard some BBC programs where politicians are truly taken to task and I wish we had more of that here.
There is a radio station that does a pretty good job of fulfilling your three critera: WHYY of Philadlephia. This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but I've been impressed by the depth of coverage of their locally produced shows like Radio Times and, less frequently only because they often focus on entertainment, Fresh Air, and also some of the syndicated shows they carry such as This American Life. You can listen online to both what's currently playing and to past shows. It's not nearly as convenient as written articles but the quality is there and they will benefit greatly from your donation.
They do tend towards a slightly leftist bent, but it's more often by omission than by an overt bias from their hosts, and the fact that they've found a paying member in a libertarian like me despite that shortcoming should speak to their integrity. Even if you don't find it worthwhile to listen regularly (Radio Times fairly often focuses on news local to PA or nearby states) their RSS feed might be worth subscribing to.
Me,I figured "halophile potatoes" were like couch potatoes that only played Halo instead of the more traditional channel surfing. I was excited by the harvesting, thinking we'd increase the average IQ by it, but alas it was not to be.
Pure granular synthesis would destroy the sound, yes. I could see some aspects of granular synthesis used to vary sounds instead of going full-on. Have a look at the "graintable synthesis" used in the Malstrom synth. It involves a lot of preprocessing of the sounds used, but an intelligent algorithm could do the trick.
Be that as it may, I think the gains of either of these synthesis methods over simply having 4 or more alternate sounds which play at random are minimal. Space is dirt cheap nowadays while CPU cycles aren't, and a large filesize is much more acceptable than a sluggish game. Something like graintables will get you more variation yet the production work is intensive. It's very easy to break some junk and record the sound. This new synthesis has its place but it won't be in a video game anytime soon.
It's like saying a car is a sociopath, because when it hits something, it doesn't feel anything. Well of course it doesn't, idiot. It's the person driving the car who controls it - they will be the ones to feel remorse, or grief, or sadness at hitting the person. The car itself is just a amalgamation of metal and plastic.
See how idiotic it sounds, to say a car is evil?
The difference being, of course, that the driver of the car will be held liable in a way that corporations really cannot be. Or, if there is a way, we certainly aren't using it. Making them pay for damages is better than nothing, but it isn't justice.
In this case, BP seriously fucked up through negligence. Why should we trust them to run other offshore wells in this country? Make them shut the other wells down--they can sell the rigs off to someone else since it's their property, but they shouldn't be allowed to run them anymore. The same goes for any subcontractors found to contribute.
Chilling effects from restrictive laws on copying cause more creative work to go unpublished than free copying would.
Can you elaborate on this? The only "creative work" that I can see being unpublished due to copyright laws is work based on samples. While some sample use is indeed quite creative (Radiohead's Idioteque comes to mind), the vast majority just capitalizes on people's familiarity with the original work, and it seems to me that the creator of the original work should be compensated for its use.
I am extremely dubious that your anecdote is truthful.
I didn't make it up--I really was told this story--but having only seen the guy once I won't rule out that he was spinning a yarn for his own amusement at my expense or some other more nefarious purpose. This is just what I heard and if true it's something to look out for; if not, just disregard my post.
Thanks for taking the time to provide further information.