No information is transmitted, the particles are merely correlated.
Wrong but sufficient analogy: If two balls bounce off each other in some random way and I take a look at one of them, I can tell what direction the other is going. Or if you like, by knowing the input velocities and masses, you can know the velocity of the other ball by looking at just one. The balls don't communicate, but some properties of both are "entangled".
That doesn't mean it's clear what exactly is going on and why it works, just that we're sure that relativity doesn't need crapping on for it to work.
Physical modelling in sound generation is decades old, there was lots of interest in it in the 90's with commercial hardware, but it has kind of died down. It's computationally intensive for one, which a GPU can help with, but it's also a bitch to actually use well for most real-world instruments. Bell-like sounds are common and can be quite interesting, wind instruments can be done fairly ok, bowed instruments are a bit meh compared to the real thing or samples.
The novelty is doing it on a GPU which means greater processing capacity, and also doing it in real-time which can be tricky with audio, partially because of latency when transferring data, but also because anything over 15ms is simply to be comfortably usable as an actual playable instrument. If you're just playing something back it's different of course, but then there's no real-time requirement in the first place.
I've made a simple and rather crude analog virtual synth running on a GPU using OpenCL, without any shared memory, that can in a pinch go down to a 1024-point buffer (in stereo) which is about 22ms, though not quite reliably. It's obviously much simple calculations, but it can easily do some thousand oscillators in stereo. The article says a 512-point buffer (11ms) is the smallest that they could make usable, which is pretty good.
I can see it being interesting in a game, different objects have different sounds and so on. Music playback is something else though. I always return to the problem of string instruments: how do you actually create the model, and more importantly the inputs? An actual violin has quite a few parameters that govern the sound. Consider the bow: pressure, angle (leaning), speed, position on the string, tension of the hairs (more tension creates slightly smaller contact area), static pressure on the strings (causing the bow and string to stick and then suddenly unsnap), exact time of contact. You'll have to either record all those from the live performance, I would guess a resolution of maybe 10 to 50ms might be good for some of the parameters, more for others. But then you can also pluck the string, and the strings and body resonate with each other, and even with nearby instruments, and you still have the whole left hand yet to be done.
It also doesn't remove the problem of imperfect speakers. Even if you separate out the instruments on their own speakers, each speaker still needs to reproduce the entire spectrum. And also, a speaker is physically a much smaller sound source than a large wooden resonator like a cello, which makes an acoustical difference.
In short, it's very cool but not a revolution. But also don't quote me on that.
I don't think it's anything special. Make a list of people who have friends in common with you, and sort it by the number of such connections. Keep adding new ones at the top, pushing the older ones that you've ignored so far further down. Seems about the right level of accuracy from what I've seen.
I see your point, I too sometimes get swept up in films to the point that merely closing the player window can be a jarring experience!
Now perhaps the polished nature of film is more accessible, but I feel the the reality of theatre is just as good, even though I can clearly see the costuming and all that. It's not that they are "just" actors trying to make me believe, they are people, humans, inviting me to take part in the play. That's part of what makes it so good, the line between stage and audience starts to blur, in the way that a good standup comedian and a good audience can work together.
I think it's just a matter of what you're used to, or maybe a particular "skill" in suspending disbelief, looking past the medium and allowing the action to take place. But I don't want to sound like I'm saying that theatre-goers are better, or that one is a better form than the other, so maybe an analogy to sports works here: watching a game on TV is different from watching it in person. You can see more on TV, being there in person can be more intense. Or another one: having someone tell you a ghost story can be just as creepy as seeing it on film, or moreso, or less so. It depends on the way it's done rather than the medium
However, as for film looking more like a stage play, I don't think I would like it. I would love to see a good play of the whole Ring saga, but do I expect to watch a movie if I'm going to the cinema.
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that some parts of Linux would be in the public domain? If a person contributes today, doesn't that contribution enjoy copyright protection on its own, regardless of the original release by the original author?
Should everyone have calorimeters, spectrometers, drop-test rigs, electron microscopes, and other testing gear in their basement to ensure quality? I don't think he's the idiot.
There are in fact two separate things going on here, the floppy disk is an icon representing exactly that: a floppy disk. But it is also a symbol for "save". It does not matter what the image is as long as we agree on it, because the symbol is going to be distinct from what it refers to anyway. Just like words in a language are symbols, distinct from what they mean: the word "tree" doesn't look or sound anything like an actual tree, but we have no more problem with that than with a floppy disk.
Never mind the level layout in the 4 KB applet: You can't strafe, you can't turn and move at the same time, you can't slide along walls, only one weapon with infinite ammo, slow AI, no running, etc.. It's basically a completely different game.
Yes, there was some sort of hovertank game that came before. Reference: John Carmack plays Wolfenstein 3D, with commentary. The first part is an interview, the second part he actually plays the original (DOS version, it looks like) and dies a couple of times. Worth watching!
I haven't read the book, but what about subitizing, i.e. the ability to "perceive" a small number of items? If a three-week old baby can subitize up to three objects, I'd say that's an inborn ability.
There seems to more to it than transitivity. Alice and Bob make their measurements first, and only then does Victor perform entanglement and measurement (104 meters later, specifically). In other words, the photons that Alice and Bob are measuring are unrelated at the time of measurement, yet correlate depending on Victor's actions.
Wouldn't a newer monitor with smarter backlight usage show a greater difference in power draw? It seems they've tested the worst case and still got a 10% difference.
The street view is actually using the CGA colour palette, rather than being NES-derived. Colours in PC games were pretty psychedelic in those days, though it was OK for the time.
Bet you didn't know even the Gnome's usability experts called Gnome3 a stinking pile of pooh - did ya. And they are right.
I can't immediately find any reference to their usability experts dissing Gnome 3, but maybe they did. In any case, I didn't start using it until 3.2 (because I wanted to avoid any initial crappiness), I read up on the problems, and I immediately put in a whole bunch of extensions to bend the shell -or most of it- to my will (that's why they're there).
So maybe I have an atypical experience of Gnome 3, but it works very well for me. I won't say better than Gnome 2, but there are parts that work much better, and just for those I'm more than willing to put up with the remaining bugs and speed bumps. God knows I hit far too fucking many of those in Gnome 2, with seemingly no hope of ever getting fixed or redesigned.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that loss of coherent multitasking means a loss of productivity. Which in turn means a loss of usability.
That sounds like something that would hinder productivity. Except I'm not sure what sort of multitasking you would call "incoherent", but maybe that's also something I haven't run into.
As for accusations of not being a "power user", that troll goes into the circular file. I'm not entering an e-peen contest for desktop environments, good grief!
Slashdot Mirror
I store my backups in two states. "Outdated" and "accidentally deleted".
Technically no, since the headline is an actual question rather than a rhetorical/defensive one.
Wrong but sufficient analogy: If two balls bounce off each other in some random way and I take a look at one of them, I can tell what direction the other is going. Or if you like, by knowing the input velocities and masses, you can know the velocity of the other ball by looking at just one. The balls don't communicate, but some properties of both are "entangled".
That doesn't mean it's clear what exactly is going on and why it works, just that we're sure that relativity doesn't need crapping on for it to work.
The novelty is doing it on a GPU which means greater processing capacity, and also doing it in real-time which can be tricky with audio, partially because of latency when transferring data, but also because anything over 15ms is simply to be comfortably usable as an actual playable instrument. If you're just playing something back it's different of course, but then there's no real-time requirement in the first place.
I've made a simple and rather crude analog virtual synth running on a GPU using OpenCL, without any shared memory, that can in a pinch go down to a 1024-point buffer (in stereo) which is about 22ms, though not quite reliably. It's obviously much simple calculations, but it can easily do some thousand oscillators in stereo. The article says a 512-point buffer (11ms) is the smallest that they could make usable, which is pretty good.
I can see it being interesting in a game, different objects have different sounds and so on. Music playback is something else though. I always return to the problem of string instruments: how do you actually create the model, and more importantly the inputs? An actual violin has quite a few parameters that govern the sound. Consider the bow: pressure, angle (leaning), speed, position on the string, tension of the hairs (more tension creates slightly smaller contact area), static pressure on the strings (causing the bow and string to stick and then suddenly unsnap), exact time of contact. You'll have to either record all those from the live performance, I would guess a resolution of maybe 10 to 50ms might be good for some of the parameters, more for others. But then you can also pluck the string, and the strings and body resonate with each other, and even with nearby instruments, and you still have the whole left hand yet to be done.
It also doesn't remove the problem of imperfect speakers. Even if you separate out the instruments on their own speakers, each speaker still needs to reproduce the entire spectrum. And also, a speaker is physically a much smaller sound source than a large wooden resonator like a cello, which makes an acoustical difference.
In short, it's very cool but not a revolution. But also don't quote me on that.
Religious teachings don't really affect population growth at all. At least not today. Religions and babies
I don't think it's anything special. Make a list of people who have friends in common with you, and sort it by the number of such connections. Keep adding new ones at the top, pushing the older ones that you've ignored so far further down. Seems about the right level of accuracy from what I've seen.
I see your point, I too sometimes get swept up in films to the point that merely closing the player window can be a jarring experience!
Now perhaps the polished nature of film is more accessible, but I feel the the reality of theatre is just as good, even though I can clearly see the costuming and all that. It's not that they are "just" actors trying to make me believe, they are people, humans, inviting me to take part in the play. That's part of what makes it so good, the line between stage and audience starts to blur, in the way that a good standup comedian and a good audience can work together.
I think it's just a matter of what you're used to, or maybe a particular "skill" in suspending disbelief, looking past the medium and allowing the action to take place. But I don't want to sound like I'm saying that theatre-goers are better, or that one is a better form than the other, so maybe an analogy to sports works here: watching a game on TV is different from watching it in person. You can see more on TV, being there in person can be more intense. Or another one: having someone tell you a ghost story can be just as creepy as seeing it on film, or moreso, or less so. It depends on the way it's done rather than the medium
However, as for film looking more like a stage play, I don't think I would like it. I would love to see a good play of the whole Ring saga, but do I expect to watch a movie if I'm going to the cinema.
Would a forest with conjoined canopies hold up, or is overhang difficult to handle in this process?
Controlling the defaults is a lot of control, even if it is nothing like complete control. Internet Explorer tells the story.
If criminals fear for their life, it means everyone fears for their life, and vice versa.
FLAC is already open and Free, no need to make things inconvenient.
I'd take it further and say that people appreciate a person with style. It may be that women appreciate it more, but that's just a matter of degree.
How do you know if a supplier is trusted?
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that some parts of Linux would be in the public domain? If a person contributes today, doesn't that contribution enjoy copyright protection on its own, regardless of the original release by the original author?
Should everyone have calorimeters, spectrometers, drop-test rigs, electron microscopes, and other testing gear in their basement to ensure quality? I don't think he's the idiot.
There are in fact two separate things going on here, the floppy disk is an icon representing exactly that: a floppy disk. But it is also a symbol for "save". It does not matter what the image is as long as we agree on it, because the symbol is going to be distinct from what it refers to anyway. Just like words in a language are symbols, distinct from what they mean: the word "tree" doesn't look or sound anything like an actual tree, but we have no more problem with that than with a floppy disk.
Never mind the level layout in the 4 KB applet: You can't strafe, you can't turn and move at the same time, you can't slide along walls, only one weapon with infinite ammo, slow AI, no running, etc.. It's basically a completely different game.
Yes, there was some sort of hovertank game that came before. Reference: John Carmack plays Wolfenstein 3D, with commentary. The first part is an interview, the second part he actually plays the original (DOS version, it looks like) and dies a couple of times. Worth watching!
Because GPS gives you the largely useless and confusing ground speed, not the very useful airspeed.
I haven't read the book, but what about subitizing, i.e. the ability to "perceive" a small number of items? If a three-week old baby can subitize up to three objects, I'd say that's an inborn ability.
There seems to more to it than transitivity. Alice and Bob make their measurements first, and only then does Victor perform entanglement and measurement (104 meters later, specifically). In other words, the photons that Alice and Bob are measuring are unrelated at the time of measurement, yet correlate depending on Victor's actions.
Wouldn't a newer monitor with smarter backlight usage show a greater difference in power draw? It seems they've tested the worst case and still got a 10% difference.
As TFA shows, it's apparently not a myth at all, even for backlit screens.
The street view is actually using the CGA colour palette, rather than being NES-derived. Colours in PC games were pretty psychedelic in those days, though it was OK for the time.
Bet you didn't know even the Gnome's usability experts called Gnome3 a stinking pile of pooh - did ya. And they are right.
I can't immediately find any reference to their usability experts dissing Gnome 3, but maybe they did. In any case, I didn't start using it until 3.2 (because I wanted to avoid any initial crappiness), I read up on the problems, and I immediately put in a whole bunch of extensions to bend the shell -or most of it- to my will (that's why they're there).
So maybe I have an atypical experience of Gnome 3, but it works very well for me. I won't say better than Gnome 2, but there are parts that work much better, and just for those I'm more than willing to put up with the remaining bugs and speed bumps. God knows I hit far too fucking many of those in Gnome 2, with seemingly no hope of ever getting fixed or redesigned.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that loss of coherent multitasking means a loss of productivity. Which in turn means a loss of usability.
That sounds like something that would hinder productivity. Except I'm not sure what sort of multitasking you would call "incoherent", but maybe that's also something I haven't run into.
As for accusations of not being a "power user", that troll goes into the circular file. I'm not entering an e-peen contest for desktop environments, good grief!