Reading the article, all I see being described is the idea of going back to local processing and computation. Which, by definition, is not new. And definitely not edgy. Then again, how will I promote myself as an expert unless I make shit up?
This is much easier to understand if you don't think of it as sound. Sound only exists inside the brain, and the word has numerous connotations that obfuscate what's going on here. Outside of the brain, you have simple waves of air pressure. At the simplest level, if you blow on anything hard enough, you can levitate it. But perhaps there is a more efficient way to encode the energy in the moving air, and one that allows more flexibility in how the object can be moved, and balance. That's all that's at work here. The devil is in the details of aligning the frequencies, vectors, etc. [Source: was PhD candidate in audio research at Glasgow University.]
I suppose you are right, and perhaps being the grown-up in all of this. As a scientist, the situation is very, very frustrating to me for so many reasons, though.
Without Sci-Hub and Libgen, I literally could not have completed my PhD thesis. My University's system's to access papers was broken, and so time-consuming to use, that it made accessing papers nearly impossible.
I'm as anti-piracy as they get, but in this case, Elsevier does not create anything, and adds very little value. As someone who publishers papers, I do not want a company selling them. I am not compensated. My university is not compensated. The editors of the publication are not compensated.
There are some a few cases where journals have legitimate expenses. And in this case, those people should be paid. But generally, there are no costs to review and publish academic papers. And it goes against the spirit of science to impose them on readers.
As a music producer, the situation is very different—we all want (and need) to be paid for our work—the artists, engineers, producers, record labels—everyone involved in the process of creating and delivering music.
But as a scientist, this is bullshit.
Quite interestingI wonder what the German news wires would have been?
I was actually referring to a cultural habit of giving feel-good names to things that already have names. Instead of "propaganda", we have "fake news." Instead of "genocide", we have "ethnic cleansing". The feel-good names remove all mention of intention, rendering the terms impotent.
A paid user of what? That doesn't even make sense.
The rest of your response is copypasta - it doesn't warrant a response. As I said, they're here on Slashdot, too. Enjoy the weather in Kiev.
It was very interesting to watch Reddit's administrators actively support Russian interference in the US elections through their support of bots, trolls, and repeated Reddit policy violations. It was here on Slashdot, too — but Reddit actively supported it — Slashdot merely tolerated it. And these are forums where we'd expect the audience to be the least tolerant of such behavior—and indeed there was much anger. But not enough to change anything.
I hear you and appreciate your points. Respectfully, I think you have partially mischaracterised the memory problems on the MacBooks. According to Schiller, it came down not being able to use 32GB of low-power RAM, in order to save battery life. Although he didn't mention it, he means LPDDR RAM. Yes, the current standards are limited to 16GB.
http://bgr.com/2016/11/21/macb...https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pr...
Mobile Skylake does support 64GB:
http://ark.intel.com/compare/8...
But it depends on what kind of memory you use - with Apple's new battery technology, memory compression, app nap and other technologies - they could have made that work if thinness was more important to them than performance.
You're absolutely right that later Intel chips do support more than 16GB for LPDDR. Likewise, yes - Xeon chips have not gotten faster. But graphics cards have! And I've currently got more solid state storage in my Mac Mini than the Mac Pro supports.
Agreed on the chip development, as well, but their operating systems run very slowly on older devices - which is not necessary - it's a design decision. If they used better specs in their devices, this wouldn't be as much of a problem. I have an original iPadit had 256MB of RAM. What were they thinking? (Battery life, mostly.) You couldn't even have two tabs open in a web browser without reloading the whole page.
Soyes, their developments DO increase performance, but they USE them to increase profitnot making high-performance, long-term investments for consumers.
Just my $0.02.
Yeah - I kinda feel like that bar is yet another thing that everyone says is useless - and then five years later, everyone said Apple didn't innovate it because obviously it's a good idea. But because of clumsy engineering on the battery, they had to use low power ram in those computers that didn't support 32GB. I think we're all saying the same thing - though I'd add that their lack of support for their workstation-class machine is borderline criminal.
To me, the salient question is whether they are investing to increase profits, or to make better products. The lack of updates in most of the mac line, along with battery and memory issues that crippled the new Macbooks, are decisions about resource allocation - Apple simply isn't interested. This is especially strange, since they still have strong development on OSX. On the mobile side, there is a lot of criticism about a lack of innovation to drive new product sales—but what I see is Apple simply looking to R&D to stabilise cost and production, based on the goal of meeting market expectations more consistently. All of this is very Tim Cook, and not very Steve Jobs. For all his faults, Steve did seem genuine about his passion to make "insanely great" products. Tim seems committed to demonstrable returns stability.
The things you list are not nearly as simple as you make them out to be - there's not "one thing" that generated these ideas. Each of these "ideas" is, fact, hundreds of different ideas, refined, combined, and cross-influenced. Look up some peer-reviewed papers on these topics—you'll find hundreds of papers on even very specific topics, usually representing small, evolutionary steps. User interface interface research is a complex science.
...is people who love the site of their own opinions.
I happen to know Andy and he's an excellent scientist. At least year's CHI, he gave an outstanding presentation on 2D, 2.5D and 3D interfaces. It was one of the best received papers of the show. How familiar are you with his work? And for that matter, what the hell are you talking about?
Dr. Cockburn is outstanding at usability studies and testing his hypotheses. He excels at accounting for confounding variables and maintaining internal and construct validity in his experiments. He also takes criticism quite well.
The funny thing is that the back button stuff is the least of his HCI research.
All that being said, yes. There are social scientists who are full of shit. And you're worse than the lot, as you don't have a fucking clue who or what you're talking about. Not that it stops you.
Slashdot Mirror
This comment thread (thus far) is why I rarely go to Slashdot any more. It's like the admins here aren't even pretending to try any more.
Reading the article, all I see being described is the idea of going back to local processing and computation. Which, by definition, is not new. And definitely not edgy. Then again, how will I promote myself as an expert unless I make shit up?
You mean by inhaling?
This is much easier to understand if you don't think of it as sound. Sound only exists inside the brain, and the word has numerous connotations that obfuscate what's going on here. Outside of the brain, you have simple waves of air pressure. At the simplest level, if you blow on anything hard enough, you can levitate it. But perhaps there is a more efficient way to encode the energy in the moving air, and one that allows more flexibility in how the object can be moved, and balance. That's all that's at work here. The devil is in the details of aligning the frequencies, vectors, etc. [Source: was PhD candidate in audio research at Glasgow University.]
More than anything else, it sounds like someone knew it was his last day at RED.
How can it drop below zero?
Finally.
now we just need "a form of fusion"
I suppose you are right, and perhaps being the grown-up in all of this. As a scientist, the situation is very, very frustrating to me for so many reasons, though.
Without Sci-Hub and Libgen, I literally could not have completed my PhD thesis. My University's system's to access papers was broken, and so time-consuming to use, that it made accessing papers nearly impossible. I'm as anti-piracy as they get, but in this case, Elsevier does not create anything, and adds very little value. As someone who publishers papers, I do not want a company selling them. I am not compensated. My university is not compensated. The editors of the publication are not compensated. There are some a few cases where journals have legitimate expenses. And in this case, those people should be paid. But generally, there are no costs to review and publish academic papers. And it goes against the spirit of science to impose them on readers. As a music producer, the situation is very different—we all want (and need) to be paid for our work—the artists, engineers, producers, record labels—everyone involved in the process of creating and delivering music. But as a scientist, this is bullshit.
Quite interestingI wonder what the German news wires would have been? I was actually referring to a cultural habit of giving feel-good names to things that already have names. Instead of "propaganda", we have "fake news." Instead of "genocide", we have "ethnic cleansing". The feel-good names remove all mention of intention, rendering the terms impotent.
Can't we just call it what it is: propaganda?
It's so interesting to see these threads in virgin form, before the Russian trolls assigned to Slashdot descend.
A paid user of what? That doesn't even make sense. The rest of your response is copypasta - it doesn't warrant a response. As I said, they're here on Slashdot, too. Enjoy the weather in Kiev.
It was very interesting to watch Reddit's administrators actively support Russian interference in the US elections through their support of bots, trolls, and repeated Reddit policy violations. It was here on Slashdot, too — but Reddit actively supported it — Slashdot merely tolerated it. And these are forums where we'd expect the audience to be the least tolerant of such behavior—and indeed there was much anger. But not enough to change anything.
not to mention being stuck with Thunderbolt 2
I hear you and appreciate your points. Respectfully, I think you have partially mischaracterised the memory problems on the MacBooks. According to Schiller, it came down not being able to use 32GB of low-power RAM, in order to save battery life. Although he didn't mention it, he means LPDDR RAM. Yes, the current standards are limited to 16GB. http://bgr.com/2016/11/21/macb... https://macdaddy.io/macbook-pr... Mobile Skylake does support 64GB: http://ark.intel.com/compare/8... But it depends on what kind of memory you use - with Apple's new battery technology, memory compression, app nap and other technologies - they could have made that work if thinness was more important to them than performance. You're absolutely right that later Intel chips do support more than 16GB for LPDDR. Likewise, yes - Xeon chips have not gotten faster. But graphics cards have! And I've currently got more solid state storage in my Mac Mini than the Mac Pro supports. Agreed on the chip development, as well, but their operating systems run very slowly on older devices - which is not necessary - it's a design decision. If they used better specs in their devices, this wouldn't be as much of a problem. I have an original iPadit had 256MB of RAM. What were they thinking? (Battery life, mostly.) You couldn't even have two tabs open in a web browser without reloading the whole page. Soyes, their developments DO increase performance, but they USE them to increase profitnot making high-performance, long-term investments for consumers. Just my $0.02.
Yeah - I kinda feel like that bar is yet another thing that everyone says is useless - and then five years later, everyone said Apple didn't innovate it because obviously it's a good idea. But because of clumsy engineering on the battery, they had to use low power ram in those computers that didn't support 32GB. I think we're all saying the same thing - though I'd add that their lack of support for their workstation-class machine is borderline criminal.
To me, the salient question is whether they are investing to increase profits, or to make better products. The lack of updates in most of the mac line, along with battery and memory issues that crippled the new Macbooks, are decisions about resource allocation - Apple simply isn't interested. This is especially strange, since they still have strong development on OSX. On the mobile side, there is a lot of criticism about a lack of innovation to drive new product sales—but what I see is Apple simply looking to R&D to stabilise cost and production, based on the goal of meeting market expectations more consistently. All of this is very Tim Cook, and not very Steve Jobs. For all his faults, Steve did seem genuine about his passion to make "insanely great" products. Tim seems committed to demonstrable returns stability.
Well, now we know what happened to the MacBook's development resources.
The things you list are not nearly as simple as you make them out to be - there's not "one thing" that generated these ideas. Each of these "ideas" is, fact, hundreds of different ideas, refined, combined, and cross-influenced. Look up some peer-reviewed papers on these topics—you'll find hundreds of papers on even very specific topics, usually representing small, evolutionary steps. User interface interface research is a complex science.
Large touchscreen phone idea -- stolen from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You are delusional, unless you're being sarcastic, in which case, well-played.
Unregulated self-driving cars. What could go wrong?
...is people who love the site of their own opinions.
I happen to know Andy and he's an excellent scientist. At least year's CHI, he gave an outstanding presentation on 2D, 2.5D and 3D interfaces. It was one of the best received papers of the show. How familiar are you with his work? And for that matter, what the hell are you talking about?
Dr. Cockburn is outstanding at usability studies and testing his hypotheses. He excels at accounting for confounding variables and maintaining internal and construct validity in his experiments. He also takes criticism quite well.
The funny thing is that the back button stuff is the least of his HCI research.
All that being said, yes. There are social scientists who are full of shit. And you're worse than the lot, as you don't have a fucking clue who or what you're talking about. Not that it stops you.