Depending on the angle the machine hit the ground, it could have ended up being a non-issue. I've dropped my iBook twice from about 6 feet. It landed fairly flat both times. The first time, you couldn't tell anything happened. The second time, I broke the hinge, but it still worked so I didn't get it replaced. It's an amazing machine. It took a serious beating and still runs like a champ.
My 12" PB has also taken a fall from about 4 feet, and it never missed a beat. It was running a long process at the time, and compiling The Gimp. There's not even a scratch on the PB, the process never stopped and had no errors, and The Gimp is running just fine.
Either I'm unusually lucky (and clumsy) or your sister has incredibly bad luck. Lucky for her, it's still under warranty and Apple is VERY liberal with their warranty repairs.
The best part of this is the image used on Google Tech News. There was a story credited to TechNewsWorld with what I think should be the new icon/avatar for the SCO news here on slashdot.
It was an image of a business style shoe, likely NOT what most slashdotters wear (I'm thinking sandals or hiking boots...maybe sneakers), and a semi-automatic pistol pointing toward the shoe, with a hand on the pistol obviously ready to squeeze the trigger.
You've apparently never heard an AAC encoded by someone who knows what they're doing. The files I've encoded, the others in the studio have encoded, and the ones available on the iTMS, sound incredible.
If you honestly believe you can hear the difference, then bully for you. I don't believe you. You're just deciding you should be able to hear the difference, and making results to substantiate that end. In our independent tests, we haven't been able to hear a difference.
I'm going to be up in Portland in a few weeks. I'll drop by the gate and have Bob take a listen to them. If you have any idea what I'm talking about, you'll know the ears listening are certainly NOT tin, rather platinum. I'll let you know the results.
Although not double-blind, it's a very good listening test. All the faders are held at cut, then allowed, one by one, to auto-match with a 2 second rise to unity one at a time. There's silence between them, and they are switched in a random, but marked order by the assistant engineer (who is ecstatic at just being able to touch the console). So granted, not double-blind as specified by [insert name of audiophile magazine here], but close enough for me.
As for MP3, I still hear a swirling in the upper range especially with a cheering crowd or ride cymbals. Sometimes a woodwind instrument in the higher registers will get the same anomaly. The rate doesn't seem to matter...even as high as 320. As for the WMA and vorbis, I don't like the sound of them either. WMA is worse than mp3. Vorbis is a lot better, and would be my choice if AAC weren't around. However, even with vorbis, I can still hear the "thinness" of the representation not present in PCM files.
Rupert!!! I haven't talked to you in months. Give me a call at home (Amy says "Hi!") so we can set up a time for you to come listen to the console bearing your name, but from a company you no longer have anything to do with. There is an Amek Angela down the road at that basement home recording studio if you want to drop in and take a comparison listen. However, you'll have to use the NS-10 monitors instead of the Meyers.
Moderator, please moderate the parent as funny. Those of us in "The Biz" would find it to be just that.
Sitting in a recording studio, I ripped a track from a CD, using iTunes, and set it to AAC 128. After matching the levels, I set up one stereo fader to have the AAC, the other the CD. They both started at about the same time. Switching between them, the audio quality was indistinguishable.
This method was further used on several different CDs which were all different types of music. We went through alternative, big band, contemporary jazz, disco, electronica, and pretty much the rest of the alphabet through zydeco, and found the same result. The three distinguished engineers in the room couldn't tell the difference.
However, when we took a piece being played directly from the sequencer in the other control room, ripped it to AAC, SD2, and AIFF, then switched between them, we could hear the "live" performance over the other two.
The playback was done through a Neve Capricorn from a Mac playing through Apogee converters for Pro Tools. The monitors used were Meyer HD-1 and X-10. This closely mirrors a test I did back when the AACs first started showing up and we found similar results.
I'm starting to get what you mean, but in general, patents can't be issued for something as simple as what you describe. It's part of the basic function of something. I can't patent blinking my eyes. I can patent a way to get an idea to the masses. If I come up with a novel idea on how to, to use your example, "display information greater than the screen size...", it doesn't necessarily preclude someone else from making software which does basically the same thing since I can't patent just the idea. I have to show how. If someone else comes up with a way to get the same result, but uses a different method to get there, there's no patent infringement. (But you can always argue either side in court.)
I have a friend who's a patent attorney, and another friend who works at the USPTO. I'm going to ask them about the intricacies of this and get back on this thread. We'll get a perspective from both sides!
Someone please explain to me why patents on software are bad. I'm not confusing it with copyright...that's something I'm for if the author desires. But seriously, I don't understand that bad thing about patenting a piece of software.
I'm serious, this is not a troll. I really want to understand.
I hate to respond to a troll, but I feel in this case, I must.
If you had any idea of the protocol in the cockpit, you wouldn't have posted such an obviously under-informed opinion. I can see how, if he were the only person in the cockpit, it would be a problem. However, except during take off and landing, there is basically one person doing everything...that person is the autopilot. Then, there's one person monitoring. They take turns. It's really not that difficult to figure out, is it?
How exactly would you recommend the people in the cockpit "improve passenger safety and service"? They're operating under the guidelines of the aviation industry and applicable governments. Safety isn't going to be a problem I'd hope. After all, _most_ pilots are responsible people. Did you think he was listening to Britney WHILE he was actually piloting the plane? Unless there up there doing crystal meth, I don't expect they'd do anything which might endanger the passengers or their jobs. As for service, they're flying the plane. What else do you want from the cockpit crew? Blow jobs?
Personally, I'm really not that dim. Most would consider me bright. However, I have left my wifi card running, packed the laptop away (after putting it to sleep), and then opened it at my destination (or before) to no signal. This really is not an unusual event. I see people doing it all the time. Fairly smart people who didn't realize they could turn off their card do it just about every day.
As far as the pilots of the hijacked aircraft on 9-11, I think the consensus was that they were engaged in a circle jerk. Nothing like getting caught with your pants down, eh?
Please don't troll like that...and anonymously to boot. If you're going to be a troll, at least let your identity be known.
One of my good friends is a pilot for a major airline. He flies the transatlantic route to several points. Recently, we went to the Apple store near my home and he bought an iPod for him to be able to listen to his music on the flight.
I asked him if it would interfere at all with the electronics of the aircraft since it was a fly-by-wire. He said there would be no problem and that he routinely used his laptop in the cockpit without realizing the WiFi card was in and on...transmitting and receiving (nothing since no WAP was available). The reason he wanted the iPod was so he could leave the big bulky laptop packed away and have only the "deck of cards" sized music player to listen to his tunes.
He did note that his aircraft is fairly new and they were built with the thought of the possible interference and that if he were to be flying an old 737 from waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when, it was possible it might somehow interfere, but that cases like that were very rare. He said anything built since the late 70s should be able to handle the typical interference which might show up in the electronics.
You might get a 747 or 777 up to the mid 30K range, but not much higher than that considering fuel, passengers, and cargo. It's just not going that high. Ask any pilot of an Airbus A330. They'll jump to 39K and stay there to be out of traffic since the Boeings can't make it up there.
This makes those of us running *BSD happy we made the decision we did. At least until next week when they decide the 4.4 Lite wasn't really as "lite" as we thought it was.
In that I live in Virginia, it's nice to know there's an option that I can simply hack the records, vote 117 times, and totally skew the results.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a person elected by a majority of more than the entire population of the state? Just consider the implications! I could have my cat vote as well. I know there are a few thousand felons in the state (we DO border Washington DC ya know) who currently can't vote who might pay big money to be able to have 20 or 30 votes.
OK, so this is going to get an off topic moderation, but...
I talked to a friend who's a great Tango follow. She helped me to figure out the hurting right arm. I had my right hand turned too far down.
To bring this back on topic...
The robot couldn't help with things just like that. I got a simple instruction in two minutes which the robot wouldn't have been able to determine. Some things, you just need a human to tell you. She was easily able to tell me that my right hand was at the wrong angle, and was quickly able to change the bad habit.
Then, as a fair trade, I showed her a quick improvement on her Lindy. =-)
The lead differences between Lindy and Tango are quite different. Whenever I try to Tango (very poor...I need some remedial instruction), my right arm feels like it's going to fall off the next morning. =-)
However, in Lindy, most of the movement portion of the lead comes from the center point of balance (CPB) near the diaphragm. The CPB for women is slightly lower. The lead shouldn't use his arm to "move" the follow. A similar concept to the squared shoulders is used. If the lead tries to move his partner with his arm, he will likely hurt her or himself.
Usually, once the motion is started, then the arm is used to make minor directional changes. Basically, the CPB or body is the sail, and the arm is the rudder. Although you CAN move a sailboat with the rudder, using the sail is a lot more efficient. And although you CAN steer the boat with the sail, using the rudder is a lot easier. The same applies to leading techniques.
I can completely appreciate the reference to binary. Leading a dance, any dance, is about taking the simple language of only a few letters, and communicating volumes of information in a very short amount of time. This is exactly why I tell my students they should keep the lead arm/hand very still. It's like static in your modem line. The more noise, the less signal, and the better the chance for lost packets (he said bringing the discussion back to something the average/.er could relate).
This use of the CPB becomes even more evident when you move into more "advanced" forms of Lindy like Collegiate Shag and one of my personal favorites, Balboa.
I understand your point, but also, understanding that mistakes on either side can be a valuable teaching tool, makes this robot less attractive as a teaching tool.
In the classes I teach, I quietly encourage mistakes. I know they'll be made, but they're also a tool for teaching. Understanding where either you or your partner went wrong is extremely valuable in learning how to dance. Being able to identify which of you (or both in some cases) made the mistake, helps you to understand better the dynamic of the motions. Instead of having a perfect follow the entire time, I'd rather have someone who might make a mistake. This will help you to understand if your lead is lacking, or her follow needs work. Assuming the robot follow will always do the right thing is wrong. The subtle differences in the leads, even for beginners, can be the difference between two moves/steps/whatever-you-prefer-to-call-them.
In one case, a tuck turn, you could release the follow with your left hand and let her freely spin to re-acquire contact after the first spin. Or, you could, at the very last moment, reverse her direction to have her spin in the opposite direction. During the reverse, you could either let her continue the reversed spin, or stop her half way through to enter a tandem charleston. I use this example in every beginner series I teach, as a way to improve lead and follow skills. I think a robot would have a difficult time noting the subtle difference, and would likely have already committed to the tuck turn instead of allowing for the possibility of the reverse. Even if it had been programmed for it, I doubt the robot could understand and be able to react in time without pulling the lead's arm off.
As I've discovered in developing my own competition routines, there's glory in a great mistake.
For example, I've been working on a new (to me) trick which starts off looking and feeling like a "quickstop" (where the follow comes out of a whip/swingout and stops on the 7 count with a sassy crossover type of deep seated position) but, before she commits to the quickstop, I over-rotate her and tilt her body to her left to take her slightly off balance, keeping her from being able to stop, when I return my right arm to her shoulder blade and sort of swoop out of it.
This started as a mistake...I was off balance, and because the partner I was with at the time was incredibly sensitive to my movements, we ended up with a brand new cool looking flash'n'trash. I was just trying to keep her from falling on her ass and making the two of us looking foolish. Instead, we looked pretty cool and several people came up who had been watching and asked how we did it.
The answer was something along the lines of, "it's a move still in development but expect to see it in competition soon."
I can't believe I'm having an in-depth discussion of the dynamics of Lindy Hop on a/. forum. *GRIN*
I know you posted as Anonymous Coward, but are you David Flynn in real life?
Those who live in the Washington DC area and are part of the dance scene, will probably start to chuckle, which will lead to crying, then hysterical laughter will break out.
Your explanation is very mechanical and although this really isn't a good place to try to write about the subtle nuances of lead and follow technique, you wrote this like you're a robot. There's so much more to leading and following than the simple "if I push here, you go there". I personally have several portions of my dance vocabulary which are led quite similarly, but only at a certain point in the lead is the follow able to understand what it is I'm trying to do (or get her to do). This subtle change half way through, completely changes the result of what we're doing.
To be clear, I don't "ballroom", rather "Lindy Hop". We try to stay more to the original styles portrayed by the likes of Frankie Manning and Dean Collins for the cats, and Jewel MacGowan and Jean Veloz for the twirls. In the intensely geeky analysis of video/film clips of their dancing we've noticed subtle differences in their styles and motions which I really don't think a robot could, using present technology, understand quickly enough to follow at say 230 bpm in a "jam" (when the better dancers get out into the impromptu circle and show off their best stuff).
And what about style, counterbalance, flash'n'trash, etc? What I lead next depends largely on what the follow is doing as she comes out of whatever I just did. Learning over the years with world class instructors like Erik and Sylvia, Nathalie and Yuval, and Marcus and Bärbl, I've found there's so much more than just the "when the hand goes here you go there" to it. There's a synergy (oh crap...not that word) between the dancers. Part of what makes a good dancer is not that they lead or follow the moves/steps/figures perfectly, but that they exhibit good timing, teamwork, choreography, projection, and execution, all together in a package. I don't think a robot can teach that at this point in the evolution of technology.
What about the mistakes of the follow? Last night, I was dancing with a beginner dancer and found that although I was leading one thing, she was doing something completely different. It wasn't so much my lead as it was her anticipation. What I did next, wasn't what I had originally planned, but something new based on the follow's mistake. I couldn't teach that to someone if the robot was going to do exactly a certain move when certain movements were made.
Being an advanced dancer, I wouldn't want a literal follow. I want someone who is as perceptive to what's going on in the music as I am, and who is willing to take that occasional chance to back-lead. The best lesson I ever learned came from the incredible Hand Dancer BJ Jones. She explained that the lead's role was 90/10 as in leading 90% of the time, and following 10%. My current dance partners will take full advantage of that 10%.
If the developers of the robot are willing to part with it for a few days, I'd love to see how the technology works with a group of "real" dancers. Then, after we break it *GRIN*, let them go back to the drawing board and update the robot's software/hardware to handle us.
BTW, my nick on this forum comes from the two major styles of Lindy Hop. The "original" as done in the Savoy Ballroom in Harlem, appropriately called "Savoy", and the evolution from that style as done by Dean Collins as he travelled out west from NYC to Hollywood, also appropriately titled "Hollywood". "Hollywood" is also what you're more likely to see in the old movie clips excepting a few films like Hellzapoppin'. Frankie Manning is in that film as part of Whitey's Lindy Hoppers, and Dean Collins is also in it, but not part of the group.
I started reading the article, and found the summation of why I prefer BSD.
...the BSDs have always been the choice of system administrators who cared more about integrity, security, and reliability, than sizzle and flash.
Re:mac problem
on
OS X Hacks
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
I saw this same post a few months ago. It might have even been just a paste of the previous time. When I first read this, I thought it was a Slashdot problem, but I'm not so sure.
People seem to think the recording industry is all done on a computer. It's not...there are many computers involved. There's the console automation and the one that controls the High Volume Low Velocity cooling system, and the one for editing the tracks, and the one used to master it all, and so on and so on...
The microphones aren't cheap. Sure, I can run down to Radio Shack and get a microphone, but usually, it sounds like crap when compared to my Neumann U47 or AKG C12 (around $5-10K a piece). Or if I want to go for a budget, I might use a little AKG 414 which is basically a modern version of the C12 (a little under a grand). I'll go cheap on the snare drum and use a Shure SM57 (about $100), but micing the rest of the drum kit can really drive up the costs. The bass we'll take direct but a direct box costs around $250. The guitars can work with a Sennheiser 421 but double it since we need a stereo track ($200 each). Then, I need some outboard processing. I can get one of those cheap Lexicon units, but that really doesn't cut it for the voice. So I'll go bargain shopping for the 480L and hopefully come in around $8K. And a rack full of compressors...gee, that could get expensive depending on how esoteric we go.
Speaking of rack, I need some place to record all this stuff. The basement's too noisy with all the noise from the people walking around upstairs, and the air conditioning. Constructing a small studio and control room can easily get into some serious cash...no parallel walls and all (flutter echo is usually a bad thing). Of course we'll need an iso-booth for the lead singer, and we need to hire some background singers since the rest of the band can't sing a note on key.
So now I can buy a nice multitrack recorder for $50K. If I want a good Pro Tools setup with nice A/D converters, I'm going to need to spend about the same amount of money. Then, I need a console to take the tracks and mix them. Geez...I could easily get a nice SSL or Neve at few hundred K a pop, but I need to go budget here and spend as little as possible and still get a good clean sound. I can get an Amek, designed by Rupert Neve, and spend only around $100K.
Oh CRAP! I forgot I have to have people to run these things. A semi-talented recording engineer will cost me a few hundred bucks a day plus a point or two on the gross. I suppose I could try to produce it myself and get the engineer to throw in a few comments...maybe for an extra point on the back end. hmmmmm...that might work.
Now, let's get it mastered, do some cover art and liner notes (gotta thank family, friends, and fans), get the distribution going and promos for the radio stations to play.
Let's see how much we've spent...holy crap that's a lot of money!!
I guess there is some justification in the cost. Gosh...my limited view kept me from seeing how much money is spent and realizing that it's not just the medium the tracks get recorded on. I suppose I could pull my head out of my ass and realize things like this, but it's so much more fun to get everyone on/. in an uproar.
Taking the bass guitar as an example, depending on the mic, the pickups, the amp, and the cabinet, you're going to have a lot of different possibilities on the sound. I've recorded bass with a "woof" sound and with a "Seinfeld" sound, and everything in between. Regardless, if the HF driver was on the opposite side of the room in any of those cases, I'd be able to tell where the LF unit was.
From that LF unit, the waves (depending of course on the frequency) radiate in basically a circular pattern. Yes, I know there are lobes and a slight reduction at the rear portion of the cone and all that jazz. However, the location of the reproducing LF cabinet is easily located using psychoacoustic principles illustrated by the kunstkopf and the various implementations and understandings of the Haas effect.
Did you work on Fritz?
The project would have probably been the predecessor. We went to a lot of cathedrals around Germany and one in Holland to record some really funky sounds using various prototypes of the kustkopf.
As for a reverberant chamber, I used the illustration of materials I did to make it more clear for the less knowledgeable people on the forum who wouldn't have a difficult time understanding the concept using something they can easily demostrate has a low absorbtion and transmission factor and a high reflection factor. As you're probably aware, sheetrock will reflect enough at 12k to produce the phenomenon I described (although not as well as glass *GRIN*).
These problems aren't specific to satellite systems, but all current sound reproduction systems. When you take the drivers and remove them from a single source point, you begin to introduce major timing issues which the average Joe can perceive. Look at the Tannoy web site and the Meyer web site about dual-concentric technologies. When you move the drivers away from each other, you introduce timing differences. I've illustrated this to friends and strangers in the local Circuit City or Best Buy. It's not hard to hear when you stop listening to the marketing hype from Bose. (BTW, "böse" in German means "evil"...just another reason to stay away from that company. heheheh)
When I said "non-directional" I meant in regards to perception, not source characteristics. You can obviously create beam-forming implementations as you describe, and one would be able to hear the difference if one stepped in and out of the main lobe(s). But it doesn't follow that once a person is in the lobe that they would be able to identify the source direction based solely on audio cues.
If you were standing on a forward or downward firing sinlge driver cabinet, you would have basically an equal radiation all around you. However, you'd still be able to tell the cabinet was below you through means other than the fact your feet are vibrating. The studies leading up to and since the naming of the Haas effect will be able to explain to you what I mean.
If you take those same LF cabinets, put them 100 meters away on a giant turntable with you standing in the middle, you'll be able to locate it as it moves around you. You will be able to do the same at 10m and even 1m. So, although the sound coming from the cabinet is for sake of argument, omnidirectional, the source point can still be located. Your brain is still able to determine the location of it in the field around you.
The Haas effect I believe is the ruling factor here. I'd read up a bit on the Meyer site as John Meyer (along with his brilliant staff) has done some amazing studies in their anechoic chamber and in real life situations (Speech Intelligibility Papers) using systems like SIM II where you could acually measure the effect I'm trying to illustrate here.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the angle the machine hit the ground, it could have ended up being a non-issue. I've dropped my iBook twice from about 6 feet. It landed fairly flat both times. The first time, you couldn't tell anything happened. The second time, I broke the hinge, but it still worked so I didn't get it replaced. It's an amazing machine. It took a serious beating and still runs like a champ.
My 12" PB has also taken a fall from about 4 feet, and it never missed a beat. It was running a long process at the time, and compiling The Gimp. There's not even a scratch on the PB, the process never stopped and had no errors, and The Gimp is running just fine.
Either I'm unusually lucky (and clumsy) or your sister has incredibly bad luck. Lucky for her, it's still under warranty and Apple is VERY liberal with their warranty repairs.
The best part of this is the image used on Google Tech News. There was a story credited to TechNewsWorld with what I think should be the new icon/avatar for the SCO news here on slashdot.
It was an image of a business style shoe, likely NOT what most slashdotters wear (I'm thinking sandals or hiking boots...maybe sneakers), and a semi-automatic pistol pointing toward the shoe, with a hand on the pistol obviously ready to squeeze the trigger.
Classic!
You sound like the kind of person who wouldn't pay a shareware fee since according to your personal pet peeve, it should be free.
M$'s service packs patch hundreds of holes. Panther offers 150 new *features*. I'd pay for features.
AAC is *NOT* a proprietary Apple format. It is an open format.
You've apparently never heard an AAC encoded by someone who knows what they're doing. The files I've encoded, the others in the studio have encoded, and the ones available on the iTMS, sound incredible.
If you honestly believe you can hear the difference, then bully for you. I don't believe you. You're just deciding you should be able to hear the difference, and making results to substantiate that end. In our independent tests, we haven't been able to hear a difference.
I'm going to be up in Portland in a few weeks. I'll drop by the gate and have Bob take a listen to them. If you have any idea what I'm talking about, you'll know the ears listening are certainly NOT tin, rather platinum. I'll let you know the results.
Although not double-blind, it's a very good listening test. All the faders are held at cut, then allowed, one by one, to auto-match with a 2 second rise to unity one at a time. There's silence between them, and they are switched in a random, but marked order by the assistant engineer (who is ecstatic at just being able to touch the console). So granted, not double-blind as specified by [insert name of audiophile magazine here], but close enough for me.
As for MP3, I still hear a swirling in the upper range especially with a cheering crowd or ride cymbals. Sometimes a woodwind instrument in the higher registers will get the same anomaly. The rate doesn't seem to matter...even as high as 320. As for the WMA and vorbis, I don't like the sound of them either. WMA is worse than mp3. Vorbis is a lot better, and would be my choice if AAC weren't around. However, even with vorbis, I can still hear the "thinness" of the representation not present in PCM files.
Rupert!!! I haven't talked to you in months. Give me a call at home (Amy says "Hi!") so we can set up a time for you to come listen to the console bearing your name, but from a company you no longer have anything to do with. There is an Amek Angela down the road at that basement home recording studio if you want to drop in and take a comparison listen. However, you'll have to use the NS-10 monitors instead of the Meyers.
Moderator, please moderate the parent as funny. Those of us in "The Biz" would find it to be just that.
Sitting in a recording studio, I ripped a track from a CD, using iTunes, and set it to AAC 128. After matching the levels, I set up one stereo fader to have the AAC, the other the CD. They both started at about the same time. Switching between them, the audio quality was indistinguishable.
This method was further used on several different CDs which were all different types of music. We went through alternative, big band, contemporary jazz, disco, electronica, and pretty much the rest of the alphabet through zydeco, and found the same result. The three distinguished engineers in the room couldn't tell the difference.
However, when we took a piece being played directly from the sequencer in the other control room, ripped it to AAC, SD2, and AIFF, then switched between them, we could hear the "live" performance over the other two.
The playback was done through a Neve Capricorn from a Mac playing through Apogee converters for Pro Tools. The monitors used were Meyer HD-1 and X-10. This closely mirrors a test I did back when the AACs first started showing up and we found similar results.
I'm starting to get what you mean, but in general, patents can't be issued for something as simple as what you describe. It's part of the basic function of something. I can't patent blinking my eyes. I can patent a way to get an idea to the masses. If I come up with a novel idea on how to, to use your example, "display information greater than the screen size...", it doesn't necessarily preclude someone else from making software which does basically the same thing since I can't patent just the idea. I have to show how. If someone else comes up with a way to get the same result, but uses a different method to get there, there's no patent infringement. (But you can always argue either side in court.)
I have a friend who's a patent attorney, and another friend who works at the USPTO. I'm going to ask them about the intricacies of this and get back on this thread. We'll get a perspective from both sides!
...but I just don't get it.
Someone please explain to me why patents on software are bad. I'm not confusing it with copyright...that's something I'm for if the author desires. But seriously, I don't understand that bad thing about patenting a piece of software.
I'm serious, this is not a troll. I really want to understand.
I hate to respond to a troll, but I feel in this case, I must.
If you had any idea of the protocol in the cockpit, you wouldn't have posted such an obviously under-informed opinion. I can see how, if he were the only person in the cockpit, it would be a problem. However, except during take off and landing, there is basically one person doing everything...that person is the autopilot. Then, there's one person monitoring. They take turns. It's really not that difficult to figure out, is it?
How exactly would you recommend the people in the cockpit "improve passenger safety and service"? They're operating under the guidelines of the aviation industry and applicable governments. Safety isn't going to be a problem I'd hope. After all, _most_ pilots are responsible people. Did you think he was listening to Britney WHILE he was actually piloting the plane? Unless there up there doing crystal meth, I don't expect they'd do anything which might endanger the passengers or their jobs. As for service, they're flying the plane. What else do you want from the cockpit crew? Blow jobs?
Personally, I'm really not that dim. Most would consider me bright. However, I have left my wifi card running, packed the laptop away (after putting it to sleep), and then opened it at my destination (or before) to no signal. This really is not an unusual event. I see people doing it all the time. Fairly smart people who didn't realize they could turn off their card do it just about every day.
As far as the pilots of the hijacked aircraft on 9-11, I think the consensus was that they were engaged in a circle jerk. Nothing like getting caught with your pants down, eh?
Please don't troll like that...and anonymously to boot. If you're going to be a troll, at least let your identity be known.
One of my good friends is a pilot for a major airline. He flies the transatlantic route to several points. Recently, we went to the Apple store near my home and he bought an iPod for him to be able to listen to his music on the flight.
I asked him if it would interfere at all with the electronics of the aircraft since it was a fly-by-wire. He said there would be no problem and that he routinely used his laptop in the cockpit without realizing the WiFi card was in and on...transmitting and receiving (nothing since no WAP was available). The reason he wanted the iPod was so he could leave the big bulky laptop packed away and have only the "deck of cards" sized music player to listen to his tunes.
He did note that his aircraft is fairly new and they were built with the thought of the possible interference and that if he were to be flying an old 737 from waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when, it was possible it might somehow interfere, but that cases like that were very rare. He said anything built since the late 70s should be able to handle the typical interference which might show up in the electronics.
You might get a 747 or 777 up to the mid 30K range, but not much higher than that considering fuel, passengers, and cargo. It's just not going that high. Ask any pilot of an Airbus A330. They'll jump to 39K and stay there to be out of traffic since the Boeings can't make it up there.
This makes those of us running *BSD happy we made the decision we did. At least until next week when they decide the 4.4 Lite wasn't really as "lite" as we thought it was.
In that I live in Virginia, it's nice to know there's an option that I can simply hack the records, vote 117 times, and totally skew the results.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a person elected by a majority of more than the entire population of the state? Just consider the implications! I could have my cat vote as well. I know there are a few thousand felons in the state (we DO border Washington DC ya know) who currently can't vote who might pay big money to be able to have 20 or 30 votes.
I think I've found the next economic boom!!!
OK, so this is going to get an off topic moderation, but...
I talked to a friend who's a great Tango follow. She helped me to figure out the hurting right arm. I had my right hand turned too far down.
To bring this back on topic...
The robot couldn't help with things just like that. I got a simple instruction in two minutes which the robot wouldn't have been able to determine. Some things, you just need a human to tell you. She was easily able to tell me that my right hand was at the wrong angle, and was quickly able to change the bad habit.
Then, as a fair trade, I showed her a quick improvement on her Lindy. =-)
The lead differences between Lindy and Tango are quite different. Whenever I try to Tango (very poor...I need some remedial instruction), my right arm feels like it's going to fall off the next morning. =-)
However, in Lindy, most of the movement portion of the lead comes from the center point of balance (CPB) near the diaphragm. The CPB for women is slightly lower. The lead shouldn't use his arm to "move" the follow. A similar concept to the squared shoulders is used. If the lead tries to move his partner with his arm, he will likely hurt her or himself.
Usually, once the motion is started, then the arm is used to make minor directional changes. Basically, the CPB or body is the sail, and the arm is the rudder. Although you CAN move a sailboat with the rudder, using the sail is a lot more efficient. And although you CAN steer the boat with the sail, using the rudder is a lot easier. The same applies to leading techniques.
I can completely appreciate the reference to binary. Leading a dance, any dance, is about taking the simple language of only a few letters, and communicating volumes of information in a very short amount of time. This is exactly why I tell my students they should keep the lead arm/hand very still. It's like static in your modem line. The more noise, the less signal, and the better the chance for lost packets (he said bringing the discussion back to something the average /.er could relate).
This use of the CPB becomes even more evident when you move into more "advanced" forms of Lindy like Collegiate Shag and one of my personal favorites, Balboa.
I understand your point, but also, understanding that mistakes on either side can be a valuable teaching tool, makes this robot less attractive as a teaching tool.
In the classes I teach, I quietly encourage mistakes. I know they'll be made, but they're also a tool for teaching. Understanding where either you or your partner went wrong is extremely valuable in learning how to dance. Being able to identify which of you (or both in some cases) made the mistake, helps you to understand better the dynamic of the motions. Instead of having a perfect follow the entire time, I'd rather have someone who might make a mistake. This will help you to understand if your lead is lacking, or her follow needs work. Assuming the robot follow will always do the right thing is wrong. The subtle differences in the leads, even for beginners, can be the difference between two moves/steps/whatever-you-prefer-to-call-them.
In one case, a tuck turn, you could release the follow with your left hand and let her freely spin to re-acquire contact after the first spin. Or, you could, at the very last moment, reverse her direction to have her spin in the opposite direction. During the reverse, you could either let her continue the reversed spin, or stop her half way through to enter a tandem charleston. I use this example in every beginner series I teach, as a way to improve lead and follow skills. I think a robot would have a difficult time noting the subtle difference, and would likely have already committed to the tuck turn instead of allowing for the possibility of the reverse. Even if it had been programmed for it, I doubt the robot could understand and be able to react in time without pulling the lead's arm off.
As I've discovered in developing my own competition routines, there's glory in a great mistake.
For example, I've been working on a new (to me) trick which starts off looking and feeling like a "quickstop" (where the follow comes out of a whip/swingout and stops on the 7 count with a sassy crossover type of deep seated position) but, before she commits to the quickstop, I over-rotate her and tilt her body to her left to take her slightly off balance, keeping her from being able to stop, when I return my right arm to her shoulder blade and sort of swoop out of it.
This started as a mistake...I was off balance, and because the partner I was with at the time was incredibly sensitive to my movements, we ended up with a brand new cool looking flash'n'trash. I was just trying to keep her from falling on her ass and making the two of us looking foolish. Instead, we looked pretty cool and several people came up who had been watching and asked how we did it.
The answer was something along the lines of, "it's a move still in development but expect to see it in competition soon."
I can't believe I'm having an in-depth discussion of the dynamics of Lindy Hop on a /. forum. *GRIN*
I know you posted as Anonymous Coward, but are you David Flynn in real life?
Those who live in the Washington DC area and are part of the dance scene, will probably start to chuckle, which will lead to crying, then hysterical laughter will break out.
Your explanation is very mechanical and although this really isn't a good place to try to write about the subtle nuances of lead and follow technique, you wrote this like you're a robot. There's so much more to leading and following than the simple "if I push here, you go there". I personally have several portions of my dance vocabulary which are led quite similarly, but only at a certain point in the lead is the follow able to understand what it is I'm trying to do (or get her to do). This subtle change half way through, completely changes the result of what we're doing.
To be clear, I don't "ballroom", rather "Lindy Hop". We try to stay more to the original styles portrayed by the likes of Frankie Manning and Dean Collins for the cats, and Jewel MacGowan and Jean Veloz for the twirls. In the intensely geeky analysis of video/film clips of their dancing we've noticed subtle differences in their styles and motions which I really don't think a robot could, using present technology, understand quickly enough to follow at say 230 bpm in a "jam" (when the better dancers get out into the impromptu circle and show off their best stuff).
And what about style, counterbalance, flash'n'trash, etc? What I lead next depends largely on what the follow is doing as she comes out of whatever I just did. Learning over the years with world class instructors like Erik and Sylvia, Nathalie and Yuval, and Marcus and Bärbl, I've found there's so much more than just the "when the hand goes here you go there" to it. There's a synergy (oh crap...not that word) between the dancers. Part of what makes a good dancer is not that they lead or follow the moves/steps/figures perfectly, but that they exhibit good timing, teamwork, choreography, projection, and execution, all together in a package. I don't think a robot can teach that at this point in the evolution of technology.
What about the mistakes of the follow? Last night, I was dancing with a beginner dancer and found that although I was leading one thing, she was doing something completely different. It wasn't so much my lead as it was her anticipation. What I did next, wasn't what I had originally planned, but something new based on the follow's mistake. I couldn't teach that to someone if the robot was going to do exactly a certain move when certain movements were made.
Being an advanced dancer, I wouldn't want a literal follow. I want someone who is as perceptive to what's going on in the music as I am, and who is willing to take that occasional chance to back-lead. The best lesson I ever learned came from the incredible Hand Dancer BJ Jones. She explained that the lead's role was 90/10 as in leading 90% of the time, and following 10%. My current dance partners will take full advantage of that 10%.
If the developers of the robot are willing to part with it for a few days, I'd love to see how the technology works with a group of "real" dancers. Then, after we break it *GRIN*, let them go back to the drawing board and update the robot's software/hardware to handle us.
BTW, my nick on this forum comes from the two major styles of Lindy Hop. The "original" as done in the Savoy Ballroom in Harlem, appropriately called "Savoy", and the evolution from that style as done by Dean Collins as he travelled out west from NYC to Hollywood, also appropriately titled "Hollywood". "Hollywood" is also what you're more likely to see in the old movie clips excepting a few films like Hellzapoppin'. Frankie Manning is in that film as part of Whitey's Lindy Hoppers, and Dean Collins is also in it, but not part of the group.
I started reading the article, and found the summation of why I prefer BSD.
I saw this same post a few months ago. It might have even been just a paste of the previous time. When I first read this, I thought it was a Slashdot problem, but I'm not so sure.
Please quit posting this troll.
Junky
But
Loud
You can't polish a turd.
People seem to think the recording industry is all done on a computer. It's not...there are many computers involved. There's the console automation and the one that controls the High Volume Low Velocity cooling system, and the one for editing the tracks, and the one used to master it all, and so on and so on...
The microphones aren't cheap. Sure, I can run down to Radio Shack and get a microphone, but usually, it sounds like crap when compared to my Neumann U47 or AKG C12 (around $5-10K a piece). Or if I want to go for a budget, I might use a little AKG 414 which is basically a modern version of the C12 (a little under a grand). I'll go cheap on the snare drum and use a Shure SM57 (about $100), but micing the rest of the drum kit can really drive up the costs. The bass we'll take direct but a direct box costs around $250. The guitars can work with a Sennheiser 421 but double it since we need a stereo track ($200 each). Then, I need some outboard processing. I can get one of those cheap Lexicon units, but that really doesn't cut it for the voice. So I'll go bargain shopping for the 480L and hopefully come in around $8K. And a rack full of compressors...gee, that could get expensive depending on how esoteric we go.
Speaking of rack, I need some place to record all this stuff. The basement's too noisy with all the noise from the people walking around upstairs, and the air conditioning. Constructing a small studio and control room can easily get into some serious cash...no parallel walls and all (flutter echo is usually a bad thing). Of course we'll need an iso-booth for the lead singer, and we need to hire some background singers since the rest of the band can't sing a note on key.
So now I can buy a nice multitrack recorder for $50K. If I want a good Pro Tools setup with nice A/D converters, I'm going to need to spend about the same amount of money. Then, I need a console to take the tracks and mix them. Geez...I could easily get a nice SSL or Neve at few hundred K a pop, but I need to go budget here and spend as little as possible and still get a good clean sound. I can get an Amek, designed by Rupert Neve, and spend only around $100K.Oh CRAP! I forgot I have to have people to run these things. A semi-talented recording engineer will cost me a few hundred bucks a day plus a point or two on the gross. I suppose I could try to produce it myself and get the engineer to throw in a few comments...maybe for an extra point on the back end. hmmmmm...that might work.
Now, let's get it mastered, do some cover art and liner notes (gotta thank family, friends, and fans), get the distribution going and promos for the radio stations to play.
Let's see how much we've spent...holy crap that's a lot of money!!
I guess there is some justification in the cost. Gosh...my limited view kept me from seeing how much money is spent and realizing that it's not just the medium the tracks get recorded on. I suppose I could pull my head out of my ass and realize things like this, but it's so much more fun to get everyone on /. in an uproar.
Taking the bass guitar as an example, depending on the mic, the pickups, the amp, and the cabinet, you're going to have a lot of different possibilities on the sound. I've recorded bass with a "woof" sound and with a "Seinfeld" sound, and everything in between. Regardless, if the HF driver was on the opposite side of the room in any of those cases, I'd be able to tell where the LF unit was.
From that LF unit, the waves (depending of course on the frequency) radiate in basically a circular pattern. Yes, I know there are lobes and a slight reduction at the rear portion of the cone and all that jazz. However, the location of the reproducing LF cabinet is easily located using psychoacoustic principles illustrated by the kunstkopf and the various implementations and understandings of the Haas effect.
The project would have probably been the predecessor. We went to a lot of cathedrals around Germany and one in Holland to record some really funky sounds using various prototypes of the kustkopf.
As for a reverberant chamber, I used the illustration of materials I did to make it more clear for the less knowledgeable people on the forum who wouldn't have a difficult time understanding the concept using something they can easily demostrate has a low absorbtion and transmission factor and a high reflection factor. As you're probably aware, sheetrock will reflect enough at 12k to produce the phenomenon I described (although not as well as glass *GRIN*).
These problems aren't specific to satellite systems, but all current sound reproduction systems. When you take the drivers and remove them from a single source point, you begin to introduce major timing issues which the average Joe can perceive. Look at the Tannoy web site and the Meyer web site about dual-concentric technologies. When you move the drivers away from each other, you introduce timing differences. I've illustrated this to friends and strangers in the local Circuit City or Best Buy. It's not hard to hear when you stop listening to the marketing hype from Bose. (BTW, "böse" in German means "evil"...just another reason to stay away from that company. heheheh)
If you were standing on a forward or downward firing sinlge driver cabinet, you would have basically an equal radiation all around you. However, you'd still be able to tell the cabinet was below you through means other than the fact your feet are vibrating. The studies leading up to and since the naming of the Haas effect will be able to explain to you what I mean.
If you take those same LF cabinets, put them 100 meters away on a giant turntable with you standing in the middle, you'll be able to locate it as it moves around you. You will be able to do the same at 10m and even 1m. So, although the sound coming from the cabinet is for sake of argument, omnidirectional, the source point can still be located. Your brain is still able to determine the location of it in the field around you.
The Haas effect I believe is the ruling factor here. I'd read up a bit on the Meyer site as John Meyer (along with his brilliant staff) has done some amazing studies in their anechoic chamber and in real life situations (Speech Intelligibility Papers) using systems like SIM II where you could acually measure the effect I'm trying to illustrate here.