However (from the website), "The Darwin Awards honor those who improve our gene pool... by removing themselves from it." (www.darwinawards.com). I suppose it gets into whether you think 'being virtuous or smart' are improvements to the gene pool.
The Darwin Awards are, I think, fairly silly humor only nominally based upon Darwin's theory of evolution. If we were discussing evolution itself, an organism 'being virtuous or smart' might indeed decrease it's chances of survival and procreating and they might hence be 'bad' traits.
Under your set of assumptions, this is quite literally the ideal solution. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean it's the ideal solution. Then again, it might be worth trying.
In short, words mean different things to different people. Furthermore, from any text you can construct *infinitely many plausible yet contradictory interpretations* (this is standard literary theory and accepted throughout academia). Therefore, speaking of "The text-meaning representation (TMR)" is very suspect. You may (given that Wittgenstein's later work doesn't spell doom for *any* rigorous universal meaning system, which the concept of a rigorous TMR depends upon, though I believe it's likely that it does) speak of "A TMR" or "The most useful TMR given X". Defining X in the case of building a TMR-based semantic web would be a PhD Dissertation-level exercise.
So, yes, I agree that 'Text-meaning representation' is a viable path to trying to make sense of this messed up 'web that we live in. But it has deep theoretical problems- some of which can be mitigated, some of which cannot be.
Mike
"Darwin Awards" editorial comment
on
NYT On Flying Cars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think I know what the editor was trying to say by commenting that several of these inventors have "achieved Darwin Awards" but... c'mon, it's the wrong usage of the term.
Far from removing the bad from the gene pool, the deaths of the people who've tried this and failed (well, *really* failed) have removed physicists who were inventive enough to try something new, were financially successful enough to purchase the needed equipment, and cared enough to try it. Maybe their *idea* achieved a Darwin Award but, people like these?
I'd suggest just using "died" next time if in doubt.
As someone who thinks you come across as a good human being in spite of being in the public eye, congratulations on your kid, John. I know you read slashdot on occasion- hopefully this will get to you.
Secondly... most really creative, innovative, and grand things are done by folks who don't have kids- not something that's talked about a lot, but this is a *general* fact certainly supported by history. I (selfishly) hope this happy event doesn't foreshadow a slowdown of Carmack's cutting-edge technology work.
He deserves spending time with his kids rather than coding if he wants, though. Meh. Who knows.:)
RD
Article Summary is a bit incomplete.
on
Spectrum as Property
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Thankfully, this article also covers not only the idea of 'spectrum privatization' or letting the free market allocate spectrum instead of the FCC's (rather arbitrary allocations) but also the idea of 'open spectrum'; letting anyone use spectrum in various ways (subject to non-interference regulations, of course- if your device uses spectrum it needs to play nice).
I believe the article supports this thought, that basically it works out that *either* spectrum privatization or open spectrum would be a much better way to allocate spectrum, but the FCC is an organization in search of a purpose and of funding, hence tries to regulate what need not be regulated. Not regulate for any real purpose either, merely regulate.
If we want progress in technology, a good first step would be to get rid of, or radically change, the FCC.
First of all, the concept of a community-built encyclopedia, open to submissions and revisions from users, is wonderful. It's much like open-source, in fact, and Wikipedia certainly exemplifies how to reapply the OS model to other contexts.
However, the contexts of encyclopedias and software are different. Significantly so. I'm interested specifically in quality control- you know when code doesn't work when it doesn't compile or results in unexpected behavior.
In what ways can a Wiki article be bad, and how can one tell? Do you think QC is a large issue for Wikipedia, and do you have any plans to further integrate the community in the QC process (perhaps akin to the slashdot moderation/metamoderation system)?
The point is not that we're just "judg[ing] the MPAA based on what they took in."
The point is that we're judging what the MPAA has showcased as the fundamental argument against filesharing- that filesharing cripples it's ability to do business.
This is evidence that this central argument and all the rhetoric that surrounds it is *false*. The MPAA has a right to conduct business, but not to whine to moviegoers (through their pre-movie advertisements from the 'working stiffs') and lawgoers over something that *isn't happening*, just to change (some would say, not without reason, pervert) the laws governing copyright and enforcement.
Sure, there might be reasons that said changes make sense. But if the biggest reason showcased for making these changes is *false* perhaps we should hold off making them (and look at repealing what's been done so far).
1. The Nyquist Theorem states the maximum possible encoded frequency in a digitized waveform. It says nothing about how the waveform may or may not suffer aliasing as the frequency approaches half the sample rate. I.e. a rate of 44.1khz is necessary (but may not be sufficient) to encode a 22.05khz tone. I'm not sure this was clear in your reply.
2. "Human ears listen up to about 16kHz." Leaving aside the variance between ears (which is huge- some can hear above 20khz), nigh-subconscious overtones depend on these frequencies. Even if you can't hear these high frequencies alone very well, they do (measurably, and meaningfully) add something to music. Just crop everything above 16khz on a song and listen critically.
3. "A CD delivers audio at 1411.2kbps. The CD audio format was created to conform to what is the best that human ears need." Yes, based on 1980s research. We've come a long way in audio theory, though. Also, all bits are not created equal- I guarantee you that a DVD-A stream compressed into 1411.2kbps would sound better than a CD.
First of all, "320kbps variable bitrate" isn't a real bitrate. The MP3 spec goes up to 320kbps so you can't have meant "320kbps average bitrate (vbr)" either. I'm guessing you use constant bitrate.
Secondly, who knows- Apple has the originals, and might offer, once bandwidth gets cheaper, downloads of the music you've bought, at lossless quality.
Of course, the original recording and mastering probably risk more quality loss than the difference between a well-done VBR encoding and the original. Lossless downloads are a bit pointless.
It's also important to note that Apple's AAC files are encoded at 48khz (from the original DAT tapes, in many cases) instead of the normal 44.1khz cd-mix, which potentially significantly improves the quality. In some rare cases it might even produce something that's "better" than cd-quality.
Yes, it's still a tradeoff, but going from the original DATs means no frequency aliasing, which is a Good Thing.
I followed the concepts just fine, but the guy's clearly a statesman, and experienced at phrasing things just how we wants them. The translation mangled that rather badly.
It'd be like running the U.S. Declaration of Independence through babelfish a few times then trying to get at the nuances of what the framers were saying.
There's something to be said for reading good translations of elegant writings instead of bad ones.
Anyone have a better translation of that fellow's response? It sounded like he's saying really cool things but the translation offered on this slashback is a bit mangled, to say the least.
I think this is interesting, but the analogy drawn between MP3s and this 3d-object compression is a bit strained.
The MP3 compression routine revolves around 'frequency masking' much more than it does "remov[ing] high frequencies we can't hear". Most of the work in MP3 is done through 'frequency masking'. That is, imagine a graph of the frequencies being played at any given time- find the high points, then draw sloping lines down to either side of those points. Humans can't hear anything under those lines- they're 'masked' by the nearby strong frequency.
Nothing very much like that goes on in this algorithm. There might be some other mesh-compression-analogous process that goes on in MP3 that's like this, but that ain't it.
Sorry to nitpick, but I figured it's important that 1. MP3 compression is not just simply throwing out high frequencies (a lot of these are actually retained) and 2. This isn't anything analogous to that, anyway.
Looking over my post, I'd have been fine if the submitter had said "Just as MP3s remove frequencies we can't hear, this algorithm removes..." but that's not very descriptive anyway.
I don't believe the FCC is 'necessary' and "it's purpose is well defined and one not easily replaced [sic]".
Many modern theorists (Lessig, et all) have said that we should either let the market handle spectrum or we 'free' spectrum; you could see it as a liberal vs conservative issue, whatever. *However*, the FCC is following neither plan- it's essentially taking bribes from large corporations of the past to *selectively* assign or sell spectrum.
The FCC is basically a mixed-up, directionless entity, as either of the two best ways of allocating spectrum allow only a very minor regulatory agency compared to the current situation. It'll do whatever it can to keep its power. And that's pretty bad.
Depending on what I want to do with my HTPC, I access it wirelessly through either RDC or VNC with the tiny iBook I normally keep sleeping under the couch.
Absolute control, and it's smaller than most wireless keyboards. The only real downsides are price (if you wouldn't buy a tiny laptop anyway) and that establishing control takes about 2-3 seconds.
Current limitations seem to include lack of DirectX support but, as Pocket Quake was ported, perhaps there's some OpenGL framework for the Pocket PC that wouldn't be too difficult to link up with this Windows 98 emulation.
So, it's not perfect for 'playing any PC game' yet, but there's hope.
From a bit of internet sleuthing on fan sites and the DVD petition, I can state with reasonable certainty that the nameless THX-1138 fan site is here, with associations to here.
If not, we'll get some other poor sap. Slashdot away!;)
This installation was done with PearPC 1.0. A newer version (1.1 I believe) is already out.
Things should get interesting as this active OSS project develops. I'd imagine they could improve speed by at least 20x on the CPU emulation, for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
Point.
However (from the website), "The Darwin Awards honor those who improve our gene pool... by removing themselves from it." (www.darwinawards.com). I suppose it gets into whether you think 'being virtuous or smart' are improvements to the gene pool.
The Darwin Awards are, I think, fairly silly humor only nominally based upon Darwin's theory of evolution. If we were discussing evolution itself, an organism 'being virtuous or smart' might indeed decrease it's chances of survival and procreating and they might hence be 'bad' traits.
Mike
Under your set of assumptions, this is quite literally the ideal solution. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean it's the ideal solution. Then again, it might be worth trying.
In short, words mean different things to different people. Furthermore, from any text you can construct *infinitely many plausible yet contradictory interpretations* (this is standard literary theory and accepted throughout academia). Therefore, speaking of "The text-meaning representation (TMR)" is very suspect. You may (given that Wittgenstein's later work doesn't spell doom for *any* rigorous universal meaning system, which the concept of a rigorous TMR depends upon, though I believe it's likely that it does) speak of "A TMR" or "The most useful TMR given X". Defining X in the case of building a TMR-based semantic web would be a PhD Dissertation-level exercise.
So, yes, I agree that 'Text-meaning representation' is a viable path to trying to make sense of this messed up 'web that we live in. But it has deep theoretical problems- some of which can be mitigated, some of which cannot be.
Mike
I think I know what the editor was trying to say by commenting that several of these inventors have "achieved Darwin Awards" but... c'mon, it's the wrong usage of the term.
Far from removing the bad from the gene pool, the deaths of the people who've tried this and failed (well, *really* failed) have removed physicists who were inventive enough to try something new, were financially successful enough to purchase the needed equipment, and cared enough to try it. Maybe their *idea* achieved a Darwin Award but, people like these?
I'd suggest just using "died" next time if in doubt.
As someone who thinks you come across as a good human being in spite of being in the public eye, congratulations on your kid, John. I know you read slashdot on occasion- hopefully this will get to you.
:)
Secondly... most really creative, innovative, and grand things are done by folks who don't have kids- not something that's talked about a lot, but this is a *general* fact certainly supported by history. I (selfishly) hope this happy event doesn't foreshadow a slowdown of Carmack's cutting-edge technology work.
He deserves spending time with his kids rather than coding if he wants, though. Meh. Who knows.
RD
Thankfully, this article also covers not only the idea of 'spectrum privatization' or letting the free market allocate spectrum instead of the FCC's (rather arbitrary allocations) but also the idea of 'open spectrum'; letting anyone use spectrum in various ways (subject to non-interference regulations, of course- if your device uses spectrum it needs to play nice).
I believe the article supports this thought, that basically it works out that *either* spectrum privatization or open spectrum would be a much better way to allocate spectrum, but the FCC is an organization in search of a purpose and of funding, hence tries to regulate what need not be regulated. Not regulate for any real purpose either, merely regulate.
If we want progress in technology, a good first step would be to get rid of, or radically change, the FCC.
RD
Hi,
First of all, the concept of a community-built encyclopedia, open to submissions and revisions from users, is wonderful. It's much like open-source, in fact, and Wikipedia certainly exemplifies how to reapply the OS model to other contexts.
However, the contexts of encyclopedias and software are different. Significantly so. I'm interested specifically in quality control- you know when code doesn't work when it doesn't compile or results in unexpected behavior.
In what ways can a Wiki article be bad, and how can one tell? Do you think QC is a large issue for Wikipedia, and do you have any plans to further integrate the community in the QC process (perhaps akin to the slashdot moderation/metamoderation system)?
Best,
Raindance
The point is not that we're just "judg[ing] the MPAA based on what they took in."
The point is that we're judging what the MPAA has showcased as the fundamental argument against filesharing- that filesharing cripples it's ability to do business.
This is evidence that this central argument and all the rhetoric that surrounds it is *false*. The MPAA has a right to conduct business, but not to whine to moviegoers (through their pre-movie advertisements from the 'working stiffs') and lawgoers over something that *isn't happening*, just to change (some would say, not without reason, pervert) the laws governing copyright and enforcement.
Sure, there might be reasons that said changes make sense. But if the biggest reason showcased for making these changes is *false* perhaps we should hold off making them (and look at repealing what's been done so far).
RD
"[the topic of the hour] does not give you the freedom to break ... other peoples' business models."
This is a horrendously dangerous way to think.
A business model is not a right.
Again for emphasis, a business model is not a right.
You're right. Pardon my ambiguity.
RD
A few points:
1. The Nyquist Theorem states the maximum possible encoded frequency in a digitized waveform. It says nothing about how the waveform may or may not suffer aliasing as the frequency approaches half the sample rate. I.e. a rate of 44.1khz is necessary (but may not be sufficient) to encode a 22.05khz tone. I'm not sure this was clear in your reply.
2. "Human ears listen up to about 16kHz." Leaving aside the variance between ears (which is huge- some can hear above 20khz), nigh-subconscious overtones depend on these frequencies. Even if you can't hear these high frequencies alone very well, they do (measurably, and meaningfully) add something to music. Just crop everything above 16khz on a song and listen critically.
3. "A CD delivers audio at 1411.2kbps. The CD audio format was created to conform to what is the best that human ears need." Yes, based on 1980s research. We've come a long way in audio theory, though. Also, all bits are not created equal- I guarantee you that a DVD-A stream compressed into 1411.2kbps would sound better than a CD.
I think my points still stand.
Best,
RD
First of all, "320kbps variable bitrate" isn't a real bitrate. The MP3 spec goes up to 320kbps so you can't have meant "320kbps average bitrate (vbr)" either. I'm guessing you use constant bitrate.
Secondly, who knows- Apple has the originals, and might offer, once bandwidth gets cheaper, downloads of the music you've bought, at lossless quality.
Of course, the original recording and mastering probably risk more quality loss than the difference between a well-done VBR encoding and the original. Lossless downloads are a bit pointless.
RD
It's also important to note that Apple's AAC files are encoded at 48khz (from the original DAT tapes, in many cases) instead of the normal 44.1khz cd-mix, which potentially significantly improves the quality. In some rare cases it might even produce something that's "better" than cd-quality.
Yes, it's still a tradeoff, but going from the original DATs means no frequency aliasing, which is a Good Thing.
RD
Thanks to both of you. That was much better than the Slashback one. :)
I followed the concepts just fine, but the guy's clearly a statesman, and experienced at phrasing things just how we wants them. The translation mangled that rather badly.
It'd be like running the U.S. Declaration of Independence through babelfish a few times then trying to get at the nuances of what the framers were saying.
There's something to be said for reading good translations of elegant writings instead of bad ones.
Anyone have a better translation of that fellow's response? It sounded like he's saying really cool things but the translation offered on this slashback is a bit mangled, to say the least.
I think this is interesting, but the analogy drawn between MP3s and this 3d-object compression is a bit strained.
The MP3 compression routine revolves around 'frequency masking' much more than it does "remov[ing] high frequencies we can't hear". Most of the work in MP3 is done through 'frequency masking'. That is, imagine a graph of the frequencies being played at any given time- find the high points, then draw sloping lines down to either side of those points. Humans can't hear anything under those lines- they're 'masked' by the nearby strong frequency.
Nothing very much like that goes on in this algorithm. There might be some other mesh-compression-analogous process that goes on in MP3 that's like this, but that ain't it.
Sorry to nitpick, but I figured it's important that
1. MP3 compression is not just simply throwing out high frequencies (a lot of these are actually retained) and
2. This isn't anything analogous to that, anyway.
Looking over my post, I'd have been fine if the submitter had said "Just as MP3s remove frequencies we can't hear, this algorithm removes..." but that's not very descriptive anyway.
RD
I don't believe the FCC is 'necessary' and "it's purpose is well defined and one not easily replaced [sic]".
Many modern theorists (Lessig, et all) have said that we should either let the market handle spectrum or we 'free' spectrum; you could see it as a liberal vs conservative issue, whatever. *However*, the FCC is following neither plan- it's essentially taking bribes from large corporations of the past to *selectively* assign or sell spectrum.
The FCC is basically a mixed-up, directionless entity, as either of the two best ways of allocating spectrum allow only a very minor regulatory agency compared to the current situation. It'll do whatever it can to keep its power. And that's pretty bad.
RD
Those are the situations where I use VNC.
SP2 for XP supposedly has concurrent multiple users and would hence support what you're saying, though.
RD
Depending on what I want to do with my HTPC, I access it wirelessly through either RDC or VNC with the tiny iBook I normally keep sleeping under the couch.
Absolute control, and it's smaller than most wireless keyboards. The only real downsides are price (if you wouldn't buy a tiny laptop anyway) and that establishing control takes about 2-3 seconds.
RD
This is a very cool project.
Current limitations seem to include lack of DirectX support but, as Pocket Quake was ported, perhaps there's some OpenGL framework for the Pocket PC that wouldn't be too difficult to link up with this Windows 98 emulation.
So, it's not perfect for 'playing any PC game' yet, but there's hope.
RD
From a bit of internet sleuthing on fan sites and the DVD petition, I can state with reasonable certainty that the nameless THX-1138 fan site is here, with associations to here.
;)
If not, we'll get some other poor sap. Slashdot away!
He *was* way off... it was the bytes getting stuck, not the bits!
Frankly, I think it's great that the game industry (at least Nintendo) is trying to innovate itself out of this potential problem.
Yay free market.
I'd like it even more if certain other industries could be made to feel this same pressure.
This installation was done with PearPC 1.0. A newer version (1.1 I believe) is already out.
Things should get interesting as this active OSS project develops. I'd imagine they could improve speed by at least 20x on the CPU emulation, for instance.
Salon is talking about networks open by design, not insecure networks.
There's a huge difference in implimentation, and also when speaking of liability and your situation in the eyes of the law.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll hold off from saying more.
RD