Well actually, his job originally consisted of sitting behind a desk and making sure burglars don't come in through the windows at Redmond, but he learnt some C in his spare time so he's been tinkering around in Longhorn as well now:P
For recorded pop 'music', this shouldn't be that big of a problem (hint: there's a lot of repetition).
Even still, there's definitely the in$entive there to throw in that extra <whisper/> or <sigh/>
If you could program your computer to be the next Britney Spears (and live with that on your conscience), you probably wouldn't mind typing up an XML song if you knew it would net you several grand.
Which brings us back to the "hitability" (read: marketability) algorithm.
The circular nature as pointed out in the grandparent post can be shown as follows:
First generation of 3 original hit songs:
AAAAAA
BBBBBB
CCCCCC
Second generation of hits chosen due to their similarity to generation 1:
AABBCC
BBCCAA
CCAABB
Third genearation of hits chosen due to thier similarity to generation 2:
AAAAAA
BBBBBB
CCCCCC
Although it is highly unlikely, the fact that it is possible to loop back to the original songs should be sufficient to prove that this is not an inductive process.
This 'hitability algorithm' is nothing more than a mathematical formula for ripping off the styles of real original musicians.
While you could argue that some timely copy-catting did net the "boy band" manufacturers some decent cash, you have to realize that that was marketing and not talent that made it prifitable. This algorithm would be much better classified as a "marketability algorithm", then again, for *IAA execs that's probably synonymous with "hit".
All creativity is based somewhat on improving on the works of others, but its not what you copied that makes it creative, its what you add.
I also find it pretty hypocritical that even though they obviously value the opinions of these music 'thieves' they still try to put them down as horrible people who are purposely trying to destroy musicians lives.
Come on guys! Either you reward us for our music opinions or you prove why we're criminals, but you can't have it both ways.
I don't think you can classify the hacker mentality as generally good or generally bad. It's about a knowledge and problem solving, which can be either good or bad.
You're much better off using the black|grey|white hacker classes, although even that can be fuzzy at times.
As far as I know, the quickest and most efficient method of creating a 2D animation in CG is to model it in 3D and then let the rendering package give it a "2D animation" look. So most CG animations are in fact 3D under the suface, even if the result is a 2D looking image.
While I agree with what you're saying, I think that these six projects are projects the people want to present as examples of how successful OSS can be.
If COMDEX were only about OSS, then I think the focus would be more on up-and-coming projects. However, open-source is still very much in the up-and-coming catagory itself and I think that this is a necessary step in order to bring OSS even more into the mainstream.
Although I see where you're going with this, I think a lot of people might ask whether this shows vulnerability in OSS instead. Sure, you and I appreciate this as a validation of the system but is that really how the media is going to portray it?
All I'm saying is that I certainly won't be surprised when closed source vendors start using this in their anti-OSS campaigns.
Just because it's flammable, doesn't make it useless. Considering the low cost of such a product, I would think it would be feasible to make electonic wallpaper that can tell fire fighters which walls are on fire and which ones are still able to pass current through them.
Of course, most uses of this technology wouldn't use regular printer paper. I'm sure it prints on sheets of plastic or cloth as well.
The problem with using is like a conventional display is that it's no longer subconscious. You would be purposely focusing on what's sceen and not what you should be looking at through the glasses.
For example, imagine using these glasses to give you directions while driving. If you have to focus your eyes on a little screen and read the directions, you're not looking at the road and probably endangering everyone else. If you just "seem to know" which way to turn when you get to the intersection, then you can actually pay attention to the road and avoid running people over.
So how do you propose that they sart their space program? Should they have just started with a manned mission to Mars?
I don't think its very practical to suggest that just because a couple of countries have already done it, that anyone who now wishes to start a space program of their own are obliged to break new ground on their very first manned mission.
You could also ask why the world is so concerned about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction when the US undoubtably has far greater Weapons of Mass Destruction at their disposal.
It's not just a matter of who has what, it's about which company has shown more respect for the concerns of their customers and in this case that is Google.
I am a 21 year old studying Software Engineering and in my experience the internet has been the single most important source of information to me since I first got into programming back in high school. Since my high school library only had a couple of books on "Programming in Pascal" etc. I learned Web Design, Perl and C++ on my own entirely off the web.
Books can't even compare to the flexibility of the internet, especially in areas like Computer Science which are rapidly changing every day.
But the internet is much more than that, its my source of news, shopping and reviews for just about anything. I can compare various weather reports, check out the radar images or click onto a web-cam anywhere in the world to see for myself.
The parent post brings up the issue of realiability. Now, while I will admit that there is a large ammount of usless, misleading and just plain false information out there, I have to remind you that this is because ANYONE can post ANYTHING THEY WANT on the web. This means that if you look around and compare sources, the internet will provide you with exponentially more viewpoints than any book or newspaper ever could. Just look at what's happened with the SCO thing on Slashdot.
I can't even count the number of times I've seen stuff on the news and said "Oh yeah, I remember reading about that on Slashdot a WEEK ago!".
This film was very impressive. They really did a great job of focusing in on what made the first film such a success and using it to showcase their talents.
Great job guys (and girl)! Now when can we expect the sequel...
Actually, I was thinking there might be some serious applications for this type of thing.
Imagine being able to give someone your source code without giving them a compilable version of your application.
They would be free to read through your algoithms but unable to steal your implementation, forcing them to write their own code (or spend the better part of a year doing search and replace for all the varying permutations of your variable names).
If you think of the human body as a computer. This would be equivalent to discovering a new port through which we can recieve additional information.
It means that we might be able to absorb more information faster and easier.
Why don't the RIAA members start distributing their music on DVD's then? They could put the music videos lyrics and artist interviews on there. Then the albums might start to be worth the prices their asking (Britney Spears & co. excepted).
While I agree with you that this war of words seems somewhat unprofessional, you must realize that the only threat that SCO poses at this point is that they are frantically trying to destroy the reputation of Linux and no one can stop their FUD so far. Unfortunately the media often just listens to whomever does the most press realeases and whomever provides the most controversial/entertaining quotes so even though IBM has an extremely solid case, a lot of damage could still be done if SCO was left unchallenged.
This is why I think that it's crucial that Linus & co. continue true make media friendly responses in order to maintain a positive Linux perspective in the media.
Slashdot Mirror
Well actually, his job originally consisted of sitting behind a desk and making sure burglars don't come in through the windows at Redmond, but he learnt some C in his spare time so he's been tinkering around in Longhorn as well now :P
Please for the love of God, somebody patent this before "endless pop music" becomes a reality. We have enough noise pollution as it is.
For recorded pop 'music', this shouldn't be that big of a problem (hint: there's a lot of repetition).
Even still, there's definitely the in$entive there to throw in that extra <whisper/> or <sigh/>
If you could program your computer to be the next Britney Spears (and live with that on your conscience), you probably wouldn't mind typing up an XML song if you knew it would net you several grand.
Which brings us back to the "hitability" (read: marketability) algorithm.
The circular nature as pointed out in the grandparent post can be shown as follows:
Although it is highly unlikely, the fact that it is possible to loop back to the original songs should be sufficient to prove that this is not an inductive process.
This 'hitability algorithm' is nothing more than a mathematical formula for ripping off the styles of real original musicians.
While you could argue that some timely copy-catting did net the "boy band" manufacturers some decent cash, you have to realize that that was marketing and not talent that made it prifitable. This algorithm would be much better classified as a "marketability algorithm", then again, for *IAA execs that's probably synonymous with "hit".
All creativity is based somewhat on improving on the works of others, but its not what you copied that makes it creative, its what you add.
I also find it pretty hypocritical that even though they obviously value the opinions of these music 'thieves' they still try to put them down as horrible people who are purposely trying to destroy musicians lives.
Come on guys! Either you reward us for our music opinions or you prove why we're criminals, but you can't have it both ways.
You're much better off using the black|grey|white hacker classes, although even that can be fuzzy at times.
As far as I know, the quickest and most efficient method of creating a 2D animation in CG is to model it in 3D and then let the rendering package give it a "2D animation" look. So most CG animations are in fact 3D under the suface, even if the result is a 2D looking image.
If COMDEX were only about OSS, then I think the focus would be more on up-and-coming projects. However, open-source is still very much in the up-and-coming catagory itself and I think that this is a necessary step in order to bring OSS even more into the mainstream.
All I'm saying is that I certainly won't be surprised when closed source vendors start using this in their anti-OSS campaigns.
Of course, most uses of this technology wouldn't use regular printer paper. I'm sure it prints on sheets of plastic or cloth as well.
For example, imagine using these glasses to give you directions while driving. If you have to focus your eyes on a little screen and read the directions, you're not looking at the road and probably endangering everyone else. If you just "seem to know" which way to turn when you get to the intersection, then you can actually pay attention to the road and avoid running people over.
Senario A:
One of the RIAA members crashed their Benz, so they figured they'de need another 4 settlements to put them back on track.
Scenario B:
The original target was to sue 200 evil-doers, but then they found 4 crippled orphanes with macs and the couldn't resist.
Scenario C:
They switched over to the same crack dealer that SCO is using.
So how do you propose that they sart their space program? Should they have just started with a manned mission to Mars?
I don't think its very practical to suggest that just because a couple of countries have already done it, that anyone who now wishes to start a space program of their own are obliged to break new ground on their very first manned mission.
You could also ask why the world is so concerned about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction when the US undoubtably has far greater Weapons of Mass Destruction at their disposal.
It's not just a matter of who has what, it's about which company has shown more respect for the concerns of their customers and in this case that is Google.
Books can't even compare to the flexibility of the internet, especially in areas like Computer Science which are rapidly changing every day.
But the internet is much more than that, its my source of news, shopping and reviews for just about anything. I can compare various weather reports, check out the radar images or click onto a web-cam anywhere in the world to see for myself.
The parent post brings up the issue of realiability. Now, while I will admit that there is a large ammount of usless, misleading and just plain false information out there, I have to remind you that this is because ANYONE can post ANYTHING THEY WANT on the web. This means that if you look around and compare sources, the internet will provide you with exponentially more viewpoints than any book or newspaper ever could. Just look at what's happened with the SCO thing on Slashdot.
I can't even count the number of times I've seen stuff on the news and said "Oh yeah, I remember reading about that on Slashdot a WEEK ago!".
Great job guys (and girl)! Now when can we expect the sequel...
do not welcome our censorship promoting Symantec overloards.
Imagine being able to give someone your source code without giving them a compilable version of your application.
They would be free to read through your algoithms but unable to steal your implementation, forcing them to write their own code (or spend the better part of a year doing search and replace for all the varying permutations of your variable names).
Just a thought anyways.
If you think of the human body as a computer. This would be equivalent to discovering a new port through which we can recieve additional information.
It means that we might be able to absorb more information faster and easier.
Why don't the RIAA members start distributing their music on DVD's then? They could put the music videos lyrics and artist interviews on there. Then the albums might start to be worth the prices their asking (Britney Spears & co. excepted).
LOL, I know that if I saw a bunch of loosers in camoflage kilts walking around looking for Bigfoots I'd be tempted to throw rocks at them.
That's just about all there is to it.
That's about one animation frame every 4.8 days. I'm sure that's still faster than Dali on a good day :)
While I agree with you that this war of words seems somewhat unprofessional, you must realize that the only threat that SCO poses at this point is that they are frantically trying to destroy the reputation of Linux and no one can stop their FUD so far.
Unfortunately the media often just listens to whomever does the most press realeases and whomever provides the most controversial/entertaining quotes so even though IBM has an extremely solid case, a lot of damage could still be done if SCO was left unchallenged.
This is why I think that it's crucial that Linus & co. continue true make media friendly responses in order to maintain a positive Linux perspective in the media.
Why does the page repeatedly reload when viewed in Mozilla Firebird? Is it trying to slashdot itself?