Will this really be faster or will it just be bigger chunks? Also, will this spec require more cpu overhead? My interest is not for SLR and video cams, but for live audio and instruments where speed, or latency is an issue. USB usually requires more cpu, is prone to more contention and overall offers lower quality for realtime audio processing. And why do people say its faster or higher speed? Maybe your transfers don't take as long, but I am willing to bet that small chunks won't see any benefit.
Biological Rhythms suggest another interpretation for some validity in an 'astrological' system. Pretty much all life above single celled organisms contain some kind of clock, or possess some means of synchronizing with external periodicities. The availability of resources in most environments penetrated by multicellular organisms is not constant. As a single cell living in a soup, there is very little it can do to exploit remote or periodic energy sources. The choice is reduced practically to opportunism. Compare a euglena which has some mobility to a thermophile which does not and you can see a tradeoff. What is the different between these guys and multicellulars? Information. Euglena has no way to store information it has collected in its own generation - that we know of. It has no experience and can only respond based on its DNA for the most part.
More complex organisms evolved nervous systems which seemed to also include internal clocks allowing them some mild predictive power in relation to their surroundings which in the long run is a great advantage. Further up the chain you can find so many ways this information can be used.
The most dominant rhythm is the circadian or diurnal which comes from daylength or photoperiod. Beyond this are seasonal and infradian rhythms. Besides this there are lunar rhythms that affect all the tidal zones and the species dwelling there. All these things I just mentioned are not theories, but behaviours well established for the vast majority of observable life and whose evolutionary origins reach very very far back and are common through so much of diversity.
All the rhythms I just mentioned involve information about resources beyond our atmosphere, and are directly involving 'heavenly bodies'. Quantum. All the masses in our solar system are coupled and are in balance with each other but with some repeating asymmetries. This coupling expands to a larger context within our galaxy. The extent that the information of these motions is useful in our context is difficult to determine. Certainly we can see the relationship we have with our nearest and most massive neighbors.
I would never suggest that planetary motions or phases determine what we do or how we make decisions. Most of our recent history shows a very intentional separation from the natural world as part of our own proof of dominance superiority and control over nature. But whether we like it or not, the mechanisms of reception to this information are there and the separation is as much a fiction as our superiority.
Astrology is quakery because like any religious or persuasive text begins with an absolute infallible position. It cannot be tested or improved as I normally see it. But I think it can be improved, that it should be improved rather than discarded. The suggestion that our lives are tied to things happening beyond our planet is in fact a very sane and verified phenomena. I might be more cautious in the conclusions I would draw or advice given than your usual highly ambiguous newspaper horoscope.
The fact that women are more drawn to horoscopes and that they appear in gender biased publications is only because they have to manage more periodicities than men and it makes more sense to them since their rhythms can have such a drastic affect on their lives.
A scientist should not engage in any discrimination or avoid ANY opportunity to reproduce based on a potential mates' cultural or spiritual composition.
In reality, science itself is a fiction that is like a cultural artifact possible only in the best of times where surplus is amazing. The same conditions allow for music, arts and a general amount of intellectual hedonism that include such activities as scientific pursuits.
Scientists are no different than anyone else and most I have worked with do absolutely nothing to reconcile the principles that dictate their research and discovery methods with how they interact and engage the world on a personal level. Rather, most successful scientists are marvelous manipulators of social order and perspective hence their ability to sequester funding in such financially homogenous environments as the United States with NIH, NASA etc.
The poster who has taco breath asking the question is not a scientist nor understands scientific culture. A scientist would not ask a question like this. Remember eugenics? Try and imagine any rational basis for who should reproduce with whom and you end up with bullshit. None of it ever makes sense in the long run because the algorithms and lessoned learned we all have in our DNA are more robust than any single generation could ever hope to appreciate.
I know general burrito didn't ask about reproducing, but dating, the definition of which in most casual discussions is a very tedious predictable and circular rhetoric. Again, if you want to sound like a scientist you don't float in that kind of ambiguity but go for the throat and ask a more essential question, or find one. I, masquerading as a scientist might approach the question with an answer fashioned toward reproduction.
Since scientists don't really exist, instead expressing conditions that select for this activity; the answer is overwhelmingly YES. Given the challenges and limits scientific acitivity have on socialization in general if a scientist can reproduce it is their obligation on many levels to make the attempt. The attempt I 'trust' being dating.
If countries do this sort of thing, then they deserve to become targets of terrorism of some sort. Certainly they are becoming as antagonistic to my personal liberty as any other infallible and fundamental group in the human world. As I understand it, personal liberty is not very important within the commonwealth and clearly this is evident on occasions like this. As long as there is a queen and bangers for breakfast everything must be ok.
Admittedly terrorism is bad if it targets the host nation that protects your own borders and life. But at some point people say wait a minute, its just the landlord right? Does them getting some flack back for once really matter to me? They don't represent me, they tax me, they wiretap my phonesex, and can take anything from me they want.
So what is worse? Having some pussy towelheads con some ignorant kids into jihad that blow stuff up, or having Big Mother take away your freedom? To me, they are looking very much the same.
How is this considered Science? Why is this in the science section?
Answer: We don't know what science is anymore and think anything technological is scientific.
Example: Look at the Sci/Tech section of google news. It does not contain any science, but is entirely geek garbage tech that is mostly M$ coverage. From Google this is not surprising, but could not be further from science. This confusion between science and technology is very common and in my opinion comes from a collective preference for entertainment over reality. Slashdot is no different.
I doubt the heatsink is contributing anything to the patients ability to regulate cranial temperature. More likely, its providing an electrical ground that helps alleviate the conditions that lead to a seizure.
I always wondered if the invisibility trick would involve a mesh of cameras and light sources. If you could map an arriving photon on one side, and transfer, or emit it somewhere else, you could do basic invisibility. If you combined emmiters and detectors in the orthagonal way they mention, with a strict backview angle; invisibility is easy. The limit would be resolution and cpu speed for updates. Your interlacing would have to be 2x above your acceptable tolerance. Under strict conditions is one case. But I always wondered in that scenario, how you could possibly adaptively map a smooth spherical exploration around the subject that is 'veiled'. Maybe it is Helmholtz reciprocity. But in the application of invisibility, perhaps involving many more dimensions.
Maybe someone will invent a dual photon gate/sensor combining emitter and sensor.
You could base it on a system id, or some set of things that make the site unique. Software protection for example using a system ID, or system fingerprint could be used to tell if a system is a node, or a site. But I guess it is also connected to people. We can't make machines pay money. People pay us money, so the license is really connected to how many people you are providing a service for. Since most companies won't institute biometric authorizations, you have to ignore the genetic identity and just make sure only one beast can use the service at once.
For example with bloomberg's licensing, they do it by seat. How many traders, portfolio managers and assistants can sit in front of this bloomberg terminal and watch this stock price with a delay of 15 minutes? Physically, maybe only a couple but usually only one. If an assistant needs a factor to ammortize a bond they have to call and ask or walk over and look it up. Or someone installs VNC and the freaks fight over who gets to use the mouse.
Advertizing uses the notion of 'impressions'. Broadcast uses the notion 'plays'. A prostitute may ask, how may friends you got? It will make a difference, like with bloomberg if they just sit and watch.
Somehow these bastards convince you that you can't have a competitive advantage in your business without 'their' software. And regardless of the EULA, you in your vanity are convinced you deserve that success, not knowing that information asymmetry is really behind any advantage. But the fact is if you can't do your business without the same software that everyone else in your industry is using - WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU OFFERING? If a site audit will shut you down and leave you stranded, then you deserve to be screwed. Thats what you get for having so much 'exposure' to that companies product. You would do well to 'diversify' with open source tools and roll your own.
I guess my response to the above posters question is what do you base your business on? The warmth and pert pliance of a youth's backside? The steamy sweet smell of a krispy kreme? With a feather in our cap and a quiver oer shoulder do we harrass the dwellers of yon ivory tower? What kind of business is that? Will we really give back everything we steal...back? If your crimes are limited to the corrupt, are you in your vanity clean? If you can't talk about your accomplishments, I would venture not.
I don't think they have any right to license based on cores. Thats stupid. But not as dumb as someone who would enter into such bondage.
Great question...I am in the instrumentation business where its all about latency. Reading through the pdf, bionicFX very much claims REALTIME processing, which one may take as meaning SMALL BUFFERS...hopefully right?
Also, "which is unfortunate as reverb is the greatest reason to use a card like this, and it is a bus effect typically, and the extra delay incurred acts to set a huge, usually inappropriate predelay."
Which is why their first stated proof of concept algorithm will be a convolution based verb...says they don't even have to enter frequency domain.
Regarding your protools comments: yeah! Still Envogue, and much better integration all around. But it comes down to chip cost and supply for that system to remain viable. This whole topic has arisen because of asymmetry between cpu and gpu efficiences...and most software instrument companies exist because CPU's themselves are cheaper than DSP if you count development and fabrication costs...There will always be a need for protools like integration, but given their very proprietary approach, it will suffer those characteristic inefficiencies having to do with information and standards propagation.
Its definitely all about latency...and YES 20 ms absolutely matters!!!! Especially when you start chaining things!!! And something I always remind people: the number is not lowest latency, but lowest average ARTIFACT FREE buffer size at HIGH CPU LOADS. The only company that can reliably deliver sub 5ms latency is RME...
Electronic Instruments Volume 2 for Reaktor on Sept. 17th. Fuckin Intense!!! Intelligent Randomization, Fast FX, and a gorgeous hybrid synth called Photone. If I could run this on an Nvidia GPU, I would pee myself because snapshot morphing is SO intensive...but sounds incredible!!!!!
Nash Equilibrium......n person game equilibrium + irrationality + incomplete information = nobel prize.
This is the only solid work on predicting the predictors. Yes, feedback exists. But so do things like deception, and misinformation. Consider things like the prisoners dillema, individual vs group incentives; and you may guess why Mandelbrot will NEVER see a real attempt to make economics a real science.
John Nash is still hard at work considering things like coalition formation, and gravity.
If there is a game you cannot fathom or whose rules keep changing...WHY would you decide to play?
This is called the efficient markets hypothesis. Not everyone agrees. The idea that every opportunity is fully exploited by an infinite # of eyeballs is empirically cute, but not descriptively accurate.
Will anyone ask here, what is a pattern? THe field of behavioral finance makes its objective to show how systematic flaws can be exploited due to the particpation of human investors that exhibit irrationality, overconfidence and inconsistency in the use of information sources, and those sources are weighted. Human participants give rise to patterns that have systemic effects. But to acknowledge and exploit this is to rebuff the fundamental philosophy of the SEC and modern economic theory...that somehow everyone pursuing competition by fullfilling inidividual incentives will have a group enhancing effect. It doesn't. And thats why the people who make money will always be acting on irrational or insider information.
But overall I agree that anything remotely patternistic to a human bean will immediately be cancelled out. The markets are at least that 'efficient'.
Its not just the death of cds, but recorded music that is coming. Lets face it, there is nothing special about buying a protools rig, some microphones and cruising the highschools for some talent. The recorded medium is already dead. The emphasis will shift away from automatic music generators, autotune, and all the dj's masquerading as talent.
Music was, and is still a PROCESS, not a file, in the system.
More and more musicians, even the electronic ones are adopting the discipline of creating as opposed to REPAIRING music.
For superior event driven acoustic phenomena, I recommend these tools
They maintain a very well organized and qualified sightings database, many of which have been followed up on by BFRO staff.
I found the site because I was looking for some explanation of my own experience.
They address many common misconceptions and questions surrounding bigfoot such as: "What is a bigfoot, or sasquatch? Where is the physical evidence? Why aren't there more photos? How many are there? Are they dangerous?"
I would suggest starting there because they very clearly state their purpose, are not sensational, and they are the only organization to employ scientific methodology in characterizing this undiscovered species.
Gigantopithecus is not indigenous to only North America, though most sightings have happened here.
If any of you know anything about criminology, or interviewing techniques or collecting forensic evidence, you will know why it is dangerous to contaminate potential witnesses with an abundance of bad information.
I also want to point out, taking a look at even the responses here, how arrogant a species Homosapiens is.
You people have NO CLUE. And honestly, they might be better off that way.
The problem here is that the protocols simply don't work as well as they should. We don't have a way to know who is behaving honestly and who is not. That is a protocol bug. It is fixable but only if we face up to the fact that we need to fix it and get the email providers to deploy whatever changes are necessary.
Well it might be a natural consequence and trade off for such a promiscuous system.
In my free hotmail inbox, I routinely get salacious emails whose subjects are obviously random walks with spaces in between the letters. If a random process can send me spam, then no amount of client side filtering will ever work completely.
The real problem is not email, or politics, or being rude, but the fact that the internet as a product of our collective choice; is not authentic. Its a big haze and its a turing test with every fricken email you get.
Everyone jumps at the thought of internet citizenship. That our privacy and individuality is at stake. The fact is, the most vociferous privacy advocates are really closet sex freaks who just want to pick up little kids in public forums.;) Kidding.
But seriously, in meat space we have entrusted public agencies at various levels to enforce social canon to provide and protect our liberty but no further before liberty is diminished. Its a little recursive and confusing, but there is no way to apply that to the internet. Right now.
We elect to participate in an untrusted system with little enforcement.
If Dean were really smart, he would propose something as balanced as our bill of rights pertaining to a public network. It would blend well with environmentalism and the whole supernational mindset that is in character with politically neutral intellectual forums.
So why doesn't slashdot do an `Ask the candidates' and open the discourse to some moderation?
It would be interesting to see Dean and Bush come by and debate the issues.
Because we are so sure it would be their voice and their answers.
I don't think protecting political speech can protect political spam. If the candidates have something to say, they should do it with respect and decency.
Also remember that Dean is the only one really operating in the internet. If he had competition (more spam), his spam wouldn't look so bad.
Exactly. Political solicitation is spam. And in our society the most aggressive spammer wins.
I think the itch here is how email systems get mucked up.
The Dean campaign is lean and mean so we should expect their auditing to be lackluster. Its not surprising that in the course of pulling favors they end up enlisting some information mercenaries.
But as a heads up they should probably keep things simple and clean. Participate in respected forums and maybe court some intelligent folks from around here to help them out.
What I never understood is why nanotech is actually refered to as a real science, with real products, and real consequences. As of this writing, there is no TECH in Nanotech, just theorizing, a few experiments at angstrom dimensions, but thats it.
Maybe thats why its called Nanotech, because so little of it actually exists.
I couldn't finish Diamond Age because it was so ridiculously silly.
I don't think they will get much out of the drosophila model.
They should study amoebas instead. The question is how to create an adaptive system that can seek a goal while dealing with the changing environment. The fly development example is not adaptive, or not plastic in development. Reproduction in Amoebas is adaptive and starts with a similar signaling mechanism: Cyclic AMP, CAMP.
During conditions of nutritional stress, which could affect whole yards of soil, amoebas start releasing CAMP, but they also release a molecule that eats it up. This creates an event/dampener pair that allows for a signal to be propagated as a CAMP gradient...that expands away from the amoeba. These perishing spherical (bearing in mind the complexity of interstitial spaces between dirt grains) signals overlap, interfere additively etc....
Somehow a chemical consensus is made from the local population, or a center determined, and the amoebas move together. Then they bond together forming a new organism from individuals. After some time, the reproductive stalk/spore forms and bursts out all these new little guys. Then everyone dissassembles and goes back to phagocytizing other unicellular microbes.
Slashdot Mirror
Will this really be faster or will it just be bigger chunks? Also, will this spec require more cpu overhead? My interest is not for SLR and video cams, but for live audio and instruments where speed, or latency is an issue. USB usually requires more cpu, is prone to more contention and overall offers lower quality for realtime audio processing. And why do people say its faster or higher speed? Maybe your transfers don't take as long, but I am willing to bet that small chunks won't see any benefit.
Biological Rhythms suggest another interpretation for some validity in an 'astrological' system. Pretty much all life above single celled organisms contain some kind of clock, or possess some means of synchronizing with external periodicities. The availability of resources in most environments penetrated by multicellular organisms is not constant. As a single cell living in a soup, there is very little it can do to exploit remote or periodic energy sources. The choice is reduced practically to opportunism. Compare a euglena which has some mobility to a thermophile which does not and you can see a tradeoff. What is the different between these guys and multicellulars? Information. Euglena has no way to store information it has collected in its own generation - that we know of. It has no experience and can only respond based on its DNA for the most part.
More complex organisms evolved nervous systems which seemed to also include internal clocks allowing them some mild predictive power in relation to their surroundings which in the long run is a great advantage. Further up the chain you can find so many ways this information can be used.
The most dominant rhythm is the circadian or diurnal which comes from daylength or photoperiod. Beyond this are seasonal and infradian rhythms. Besides this there are lunar rhythms that affect all the tidal zones and the species dwelling there. All these things I just mentioned are not theories, but behaviours well established for the vast majority of observable life and whose evolutionary origins reach very very far back and are common through so much of diversity.
All the rhythms I just mentioned involve information about resources beyond our atmosphere, and are directly involving 'heavenly bodies'. Quantum. All the masses in our solar system are coupled and are in balance with each other but with some repeating asymmetries. This coupling expands to a larger context within our galaxy. The extent that the information of these motions is useful in our context is difficult to determine. Certainly we can see the relationship we have with our nearest and most massive neighbors.
I would never suggest that planetary motions or phases determine what we do or how we make decisions. Most of our recent history shows a very intentional separation from the natural world as part of our own proof of dominance superiority and control over nature. But whether we like it or not, the mechanisms of reception to this information are there and the separation is as much a fiction as our superiority.
Astrology is quakery because like any religious or persuasive text begins with an absolute infallible position. It cannot be tested or improved as I normally see it. But I think it can be improved, that it should be improved rather than discarded. The suggestion that our lives are tied to things happening beyond our planet is in fact a very sane and verified phenomena. I might be more cautious in the conclusions I would draw or advice given than your usual highly ambiguous newspaper horoscope.
The fact that women are more drawn to horoscopes and that they appear in gender biased publications is only because they have to manage more periodicities than men and it makes more sense to them since their rhythms can have such a drastic affect on their lives.
A scientist should not engage in any discrimination or avoid ANY opportunity to reproduce based on a potential mates' cultural or spiritual composition.
In reality, science itself is a fiction that is like a cultural artifact possible only in the best of times where surplus is amazing. The same conditions allow for music, arts and a general amount of intellectual hedonism that include such activities as scientific pursuits.
Scientists are no different than anyone else and most I have worked with do absolutely nothing to reconcile the principles that dictate their research and discovery methods with how they interact and engage the world on a personal level. Rather, most successful scientists are marvelous manipulators of social order and perspective hence their ability to sequester funding in such financially homogenous environments as the United States with NIH, NASA etc.
The poster who has taco breath asking the question is not a scientist nor understands scientific culture. A scientist would not ask a question like this. Remember eugenics? Try and imagine any rational basis for who should reproduce with whom and you end up with bullshit. None of it ever makes sense in the long run because the algorithms and lessoned learned we all have in our DNA are more robust than any single generation could ever hope to appreciate.
I know general burrito didn't ask about reproducing, but dating, the definition of which in most casual discussions is a very tedious predictable and circular rhetoric. Again, if you want to sound like a scientist you don't float in that kind of ambiguity but go for the throat and ask a more essential question, or find one. I, masquerading as a scientist might approach the question with an answer fashioned toward reproduction.
Since scientists don't really exist, instead expressing conditions that select for this activity; the answer is overwhelmingly YES. Given the challenges and limits scientific acitivity have on socialization in general if a scientist can reproduce it is their obligation on many levels to make the attempt. The attempt I 'trust' being dating.
If countries do this sort of thing, then they deserve to become targets of terrorism of some sort. Certainly they are becoming as antagonistic to my personal liberty as any other infallible and fundamental group in the human world. As I understand it, personal liberty is not very important within the commonwealth and clearly this is evident on occasions like this. As long as there is a queen and bangers for breakfast everything must be ok.
Admittedly terrorism is bad if it targets the host nation that protects your own borders and life. But at some point people say wait a minute, its just the landlord right? Does them getting some flack back for once really matter to me? They don't represent me, they tax me, they wiretap my phonesex, and can take anything from me they want.
So what is worse? Having some pussy towelheads con some ignorant kids into jihad that blow stuff up, or having Big Mother take away your freedom? To me, they are looking very much the same.
How is this considered Science? Why is this in the science section?
Answer: We don't know what science is anymore and think anything technological is scientific.
Example: Look at the Sci/Tech section of google news. It does not contain any science, but is entirely geek garbage tech that is mostly M$ coverage. From Google this is not surprising, but could not be further from science. This confusion between science and technology is very common and in my opinion comes from a collective preference for entertainment over reality. Slashdot is no different.
Not very impressive, Timothy.
I doubt the heatsink is contributing anything to the patients ability to regulate cranial temperature. More likely, its providing an electrical ground that helps alleviate the conditions that lead to a seizure.
Yes, but where did they go? I tried convincing my gf this existed but when I looked - goatse.x was no more....bummer ;P
I always wondered if the invisibility trick would involve a mesh of cameras and light sources. If you could map an arriving photon on one side, and transfer, or emit it somewhere else, you could do basic invisibility. If you combined emmiters and detectors in the orthagonal way they mention, with a strict backview angle; invisibility is easy. The limit would be resolution and cpu speed for updates. Your interlacing would have to be 2x above your acceptable tolerance. Under strict conditions is one case. But I always wondered in that scenario, how you could possibly adaptively map a smooth spherical exploration around the subject that is 'veiled'. Maybe it is Helmholtz reciprocity. But in the application of invisibility, perhaps involving many more dimensions.
Maybe someone will invent a dual photon gate/sensor combining emitter and sensor.
You could base it on a system id, or some set of things that make the site unique. Software protection for example using a system ID, or system fingerprint could be used to tell if a system is a node, or a site. But I guess it is also connected to people. We can't make machines pay money. People pay us money, so the license is really connected to how many people you are providing a service for. Since most companies won't institute biometric authorizations, you have to ignore the genetic identity and just make sure only one beast can use the service at once.
For example with bloomberg's licensing, they do it by seat. How many traders, portfolio managers and assistants can sit in front of this bloomberg terminal and watch this stock price with a delay of 15 minutes? Physically, maybe only a couple but usually only one. If an assistant needs a factor to ammortize a bond they have to call and ask or walk over and look it up. Or someone installs VNC and the freaks fight over who gets to use the mouse.
Advertizing uses the notion of 'impressions'. Broadcast uses the notion 'plays'. A prostitute may ask, how may friends you got? It will make a difference, like with bloomberg if they just sit and watch.
Somehow these bastards convince you that you can't have a competitive advantage in your business without 'their' software. And regardless of the EULA, you in your vanity are convinced you deserve that success, not knowing that information asymmetry is really behind any advantage. But the fact is if you can't do your business without the same software that everyone else in your industry is using - WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU OFFERING? If a site audit will shut you down and leave you stranded, then you deserve to be screwed. Thats what you get for having so much 'exposure' to that companies product. You would do well to 'diversify' with open source tools and roll your own.
I guess my response to the above posters question is what do you base your business on? The warmth and pert pliance of a youth's backside? The steamy sweet smell of a krispy kreme? With a feather in our cap and a quiver oer shoulder do we harrass the dwellers of yon ivory tower? What kind of business is that? Will we really give back everything we steal...back? If your crimes are limited to the corrupt, are you in your vanity clean? If you can't talk about your accomplishments, I would venture not.
I don't think they have any right to license based on cores. Thats stupid. But not as dumb as someone who would enter into such bondage.
Gould vs. Jarret, who wins?
Rabbit Season!
Duck Season!
Rabbit Season!
Duck Season!
Rabbit Season!
Rabbit Season!
Duck Season fire now!!! Pow!!
Pulls beak back around...
Great question...I am in the instrumentation business where its all about latency. Reading through the pdf, bionicFX very much claims REALTIME processing, which one may take as meaning SMALL BUFFERS...hopefully right?
Also, "which is unfortunate as reverb is the greatest reason to use a card like this, and it is a bus effect typically, and the extra delay incurred acts to set a huge, usually inappropriate predelay."
Which is why their first stated proof of concept algorithm will be a convolution based verb...says they don't even have to enter frequency domain.
Regarding your protools comments: yeah! Still Envogue, and much better integration all around. But it comes down to chip cost and supply for that system to remain viable. This whole topic has arisen because of asymmetry between cpu and gpu efficiences...and most software instrument companies exist because CPU's themselves are cheaper than DSP if you count development and fabrication costs...There will always be a need for protools like integration, but given their very proprietary approach, it will suffer those characteristic inefficiencies having to do with information and standards propagation.
Its definitely all about latency...and YES 20 ms absolutely matters!!!! Especially when you start chaining things!!! And something I always remind people: the number is not lowest latency, but lowest average ARTIFACT FREE buffer size at HIGH CPU LOADS. The only company that can reliably deliver sub 5ms latency is RME...
Electronic Instruments Volume 2 for Reaktor on Sept. 17th. Fuckin Intense!!! Intelligent Randomization, Fast FX, and a gorgeous hybrid synth called Photone. If I could run this on an Nvidia GPU, I would pee myself because snapshot morphing is SO intensive...but sounds incredible!!!!!
ta,
sleen
Nash Equilibrium... ...n person game equilibrium + irrationality + incomplete information = nobel prize.
This is the only solid work on predicting the predictors. Yes, feedback exists. But so do things like deception, and misinformation. Consider things like the prisoners dillema, individual vs group incentives; and you may guess why Mandelbrot will NEVER see a real attempt to make economics a real science.
John Nash is still hard at work considering things like coalition formation, and gravity.
If there is a game you cannot fathom or whose rules keep changing...WHY would you decide to play?
I am the game. You are the game...
This is called the efficient markets hypothesis. Not everyone agrees. The idea that every opportunity is fully exploited by an infinite # of eyeballs is empirically cute, but not descriptively accurate.
Will anyone ask here, what is a pattern? THe field of behavioral finance makes its objective to show how systematic flaws can be exploited due to the particpation of human investors that exhibit irrationality, overconfidence and inconsistency in the use of information sources, and those sources are weighted. Human participants give rise to patterns that have systemic effects. But to acknowledge and exploit this is to rebuff the fundamental philosophy of the SEC and modern economic theory...that somehow everyone pursuing competition by fullfilling inidividual incentives will have a group enhancing effect. It doesn't. And thats why the people who make money will always be acting on irrational or insider information.
But overall I agree that anything remotely patternistic to a human bean will immediately be cancelled out. The markets are at least that 'efficient'.
Its not just the death of cds, but recorded music that is coming. Lets face it, there is nothing special about buying a protools rig, some microphones and cruising the highschools for some talent. The recorded medium is already dead. The emphasis will shift away from automatic music generators, autotune, and all the dj's masquerading as talent.
Music was, and is still a PROCESS, not a file, in the system.
More and more musicians, even the electronic ones are adopting the discipline of creating as opposed to REPAIRING music.
For superior event driven acoustic phenomena, I recommend these tools
It means you are trying to sell videos. That article you linked doesn't say anything. Lame.
Anyone interested in Bigfoot, or Sasquatch should start at the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization.
They maintain a very well organized and qualified sightings database, many of which have been followed up on by BFRO staff.
I found the site because I was looking for some explanation of my own experience.
They address many common misconceptions and questions surrounding bigfoot such as:
"What is a bigfoot, or sasquatch?
Where is the physical evidence?
Why aren't there more photos?
How many are there?
Are they dangerous?"
I would suggest starting there because they very clearly state their purpose, are not sensational, and they are the only organization to employ scientific methodology in characterizing this undiscovered species.
Gigantopithecus is not indigenous to only North America, though most sightings have happened here.
If any of you know anything about criminology, or interviewing techniques or collecting forensic evidence, you will know why it is dangerous to contaminate potential witnesses with an abundance of bad information.
I also want to point out, taking a look at even the responses here, how arrogant a species Homosapiens is.
You people have NO CLUE. And honestly, they might be better off that way.
Ha! When I saw this post, I knew Clifyt would be in here... He is the expert in this field!
The problem here is that the protocols simply don't work as well as they should. We don't have a way to know who is behaving honestly and who is not. That is a protocol bug. It is fixable but only if we face up to the fact that we need to fix it and get the email providers to deploy whatever changes are necessary.
;) Kidding.
;)
Well it might be a natural consequence and trade off for such a promiscuous system.
In my free hotmail inbox, I routinely get salacious emails whose subjects are obviously random walks with spaces in between the letters. If a random process can send me spam, then no amount of client side filtering will ever work completely.
The real problem is not email, or politics, or being rude, but the fact that the internet as a product of our collective choice; is not authentic. Its a big haze and its a turing test with every fricken email you get.
Everyone jumps at the thought of internet citizenship. That our privacy and individuality is at stake. The fact is, the most vociferous privacy advocates are really closet sex freaks who just want to pick up little kids in public forums.
But seriously, in meat space we have entrusted public agencies at various levels to enforce social canon to provide and protect our liberty but no further before liberty is diminished. Its a little recursive and confusing, but there is no way to apply that to the internet. Right now.
We elect to participate in an untrusted system with little enforcement.
If Dean were really smart, he would propose something as balanced as our bill of rights pertaining to a public network. It would blend well with environmentalism and the whole supernational mindset that is in character with politically neutral intellectual forums.
Like slashdot.
So why doesn't slashdot do an `Ask the candidates' and open the discourse to some moderation?
It would be interesting to see Dean and Bush come by and debate the issues.
Because we are so sure it would be their voice and their answers.
I don't think protecting political speech can protect political spam. If the candidates have something to say, they should do it with respect and decency.
Also remember that Dean is the only one really operating in the internet. If he had competition (more spam), his spam wouldn't look so bad.
Exactly. Political solicitation is spam. And in our society the most aggressive spammer wins.
I think the itch here is how email systems get mucked up.
The Dean campaign is lean and mean so we should expect their auditing to be lackluster. Its not surprising that in the course of pulling favors they end up enlisting some information mercenaries.
But as a heads up they should probably keep things simple and clean. Participate in respected forums and maybe court some intelligent folks from around here to help them out.
...so I guess that means someone is actually paying for /.?
...Supply or demand?
What I never understood is why nanotech is actually refered to as a real science, with real products, and real consequences. As of this writing, there is no TECH in Nanotech, just theorizing, a few experiments at angstrom dimensions, but thats it.
Maybe thats why its called Nanotech, because so little of it actually exists.
I couldn't finish Diamond Age because it was so ridiculously silly.
I don't think they will get much out of the drosophila model.
They should study amoebas instead. The question is how to create an adaptive system that can seek a goal while dealing with the changing environment. The fly development example is not adaptive, or not plastic in development. Reproduction in Amoebas is adaptive and starts with a similar signaling mechanism: Cyclic AMP, CAMP.
During conditions of nutritional stress, which could affect whole yards of soil, amoebas start releasing CAMP, but they also release a molecule that eats it up. This creates an event/dampener pair that allows for a signal to be propagated as a CAMP gradient...that expands away from the amoeba. These perishing spherical (bearing in mind the complexity of interstitial spaces between dirt grains) signals overlap, interfere additively etc....
Somehow a chemical consensus is made from the local population, or a center determined, and the amoebas move together. Then they bond together forming a new organism from individuals. After some time, the reproductive stalk/spore forms and bursts out all these new little guys. Then everyone dissassembles and goes back to phagocytizing other unicellular microbes.
There are two petitions there...its confusing.
I think they should just have Jerry Goldsmith do the theme.