That's never bothered me, but personally I suppose it's partly offset by how much more terse Matlab code can be than, say, C. Can you do this in R, or Octave? Like I said I have no experience with those.
To me, this seems like more of a personal workflow/environment preference, rather than a problem with the language itself. Of course there are a few changes I would like to be made in the Matlab environment (and having this option would be a good thing), and the speed and memory issues certainly prevent using Matlab for any kind of serious production system. But I don't see how the language itself can be called cumbersome in comparison to lower level languages.
You don't lose any vertical space going from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200, but you DO have to spend more money on a larger display. I want a display with at least X vertical pixels, and I want it to be as cheap as possible. Widescreens make this way of buying displays more expensive (just because of the larger area). And worse, it pushes 1200-pixel-tall displays even higher along the bell curve, which makes them disproportionately more expensive.
Can you elaborate on how Matlab is cumbersome (or give a link)? I started using Matlab after using C for a few years and "cumbersome" is the last word I would use to describe Matlab. I haven't really used any of the other scientific computing packages, though.
That post mentions the exact same paper... I wonder why the blog post focuses on light, and the discovery article focuses on sound, when the actual paper is just about general wave phenomena?
I believe one-way mirrors are completely dependent on highly disparate levels of light between the two regions. This paper describes a totally different physical mechanism.
That's active noise cancellation. This is a proposed mechanism that uses materials with nonlinear acoustic properties to accomplish a similar effect passively. Both methods might be suitable for different situations.
The article describes the proposed theoretical mechanism as a "wave diode" - I wonder if the same principle is applicable to light? I don't know if "light diodes" already exist in some sense, but that seems like a possibly useful component for optical computing...?
I'm guessing he meant that experimenting with pixel-addressable displays would have made the concept of the character generator somewhat more apparent.
OK, you "chart the results", and then what? To compare ride quality between two different vehicles, you need to be able to measure it first. You need a way to take the position vs time data, and produce a "ride quality" value from it. How did they do that? The article provides zero information about that.
He was able to do that because of the (apparently timeless) irrational fear of technology - soldering a loose wire was usually all it took. Entrepreneurial prodigy maybe, but not scientific.
I think this functionality has to be implemented in the plugin itself first, but yes, this missing feature has been aggravating me for ~10 years as well.
You have a valid point, but "easiest to learn in general" is not equivalent to "most appropriate for the task", and I think the distinction is important.
OCR on a clean image (like the Jeopardy screens) is a solved problem. A physical button can be pressed with a trivial actuator, which could be almost as fast as the direct digital connection. How would adding either of those features to the machine make it any more impressive? Should it be crippled by inserting an artificial processing delay before it is allowed to buzz? Why would that be fair?
If you really want to be able to say that the machine "competed fairly" with humans in the game, I think there should be two simple requirements: the machine must occupy no more physical volume than a human skull, and consume no more electrical power than the equivalent of a human metabolism.
Slashdot Mirror
That's never bothered me, but personally I suppose it's partly offset by how much more terse Matlab code can be than, say, C. Can you do this in R, or Octave? Like I said I have no experience with those.
To me, this seems like more of a personal workflow/environment preference, rather than a problem with the language itself. Of course there are a few changes I would like to be made in the Matlab environment (and having this option would be a good thing), and the speed and memory issues certainly prevent using Matlab for any kind of serious production system. But I don't see how the language itself can be called cumbersome in comparison to lower level languages.
I think his point is that iPads are 4:3.
You don't lose any vertical space going from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200, but you DO have to spend more money on a larger display. I want a display with at least X vertical pixels, and I want it to be as cheap as possible. Widescreens make this way of buying displays more expensive (just because of the larger area). And worse, it pushes 1200-pixel-tall displays even higher along the bell curve, which makes them disproportionately more expensive.
Can you elaborate on how Matlab is cumbersome (or give a link)? I started using Matlab after using C for a few years and "cumbersome" is the last word I would use to describe Matlab. I haven't really used any of the other scientific computing packages, though.
High speed rail without expensive high powered magnets, maybe?
No tracks.
That post mentions the exact same paper... I wonder why the blog post focuses on light, and the discovery article focuses on sound, when the actual paper is just about general wave phenomena?
I believe one-way mirrors are completely dependent on highly disparate levels of light between the two regions. This paper describes a totally different physical mechanism.
That's active noise cancellation. This is a proposed mechanism that uses materials with nonlinear acoustic properties to accomplish a similar effect passively. Both methods might be suitable for different situations.
The article describes the proposed theoretical mechanism as a "wave diode" - I wonder if the same principle is applicable to light? I don't know if "light diodes" already exist in some sense, but that seems like a possibly useful component for optical computing...?
Time division multiplexing.
I'm guessing he meant that experimenting with pixel-addressable displays would have made the concept of the character generator somewhat more apparent.
You can't read an ipad in the dark?
Just curious - how did you acquire enough experience to decide not to go to school based on that reasoning, if you never wen in the first place?
OK, you "chart the results", and then what? To compare ride quality between two different vehicles, you need to be able to measure it first. You need a way to take the position vs time data, and produce a "ride quality" value from it. How did they do that? The article provides zero information about that.
What the hell is the difference between algebra and "precalculus"?
+1 concise
1. make it compile
2. make it work
3. make it fast
He was able to do that because of the (apparently timeless) irrational fear of technology - soldering a loose wire was usually all it took. Entrepreneurial prodigy maybe, but not scientific.
Pushing one wrong pedal in my car can cause thousands of dollars of property damage, if I'm parked in front of a store. Is my car broken?
Um... April 2009 was 8 months before December 2009? Certainly enough time to develop a flash game. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I think this functionality has to be implemented in the plugin itself first, but yes, this missing feature has been aggravating me for ~10 years as well.
I agree entirely! Maybe after we set up time zones like this on the moon and/or Mars, people on Earth will realize how much simpler it is...
You have a valid point, but "easiest to learn in general" is not equivalent to "most appropriate for the task", and I think the distinction is important.
OCR on a clean image (like the Jeopardy screens) is a solved problem. A physical button can be pressed with a trivial actuator, which could be almost as fast as the direct digital connection. How would adding either of those features to the machine make it any more impressive? Should it be crippled by inserting an artificial processing delay before it is allowed to buzz? Why would that be fair?
If you really want to be able to say that the machine "competed fairly" with humans in the game, I think there should be two simple requirements: the machine must occupy no more physical volume than a human skull, and consume no more electrical power than the equivalent of a human metabolism.