Oh...that restriction on the second number fell at the same time (so that exchange prefixes could look like the former area codes). Misread the original post, my bad.
My favorite method to defeat "security" screws: Use a Dremel cutting wheel to cut a slot in the head, then use an ordinary blade screwdriver. Literally less than 10 seconds.
Instant-runoff voting is fine for smaller elecions, it seems, but I have to wonder how well the concept scales. The US first-past-the-post system has the effect of pushing most of the candidate selection process into party primaries & caucuses. The general election is really an audit of the parties' candidates. Hence the rather dilute ideology of the US two major parties compared to the more ideologically pure parties inhabiting the proportionally-represented legislatures of Europe. Instant run-off, proportional representation, etc. seem less effective at vetting cadidates from ideological extremism, tyranny-of-the majority, charlatans on a hot streak, and so on.
First-past-the-post also has the effect of making party activists disproportionally influential, which is not necessarily a bad thing when you consider that their gain is Joe Sixpack's loss, and Joe Sixpack doesn't care anyway (otherwise he would be an activist, right?).
I suspect this also shifts power from young people to older people of the type that are more prevalent in the intra-party candidate selection process. Witness drinking-age laws: The states, being smaller and therefore less eltitist in intra-party politics, had lower drinking ages, and generally, the smaller the state, the lower the age. Then in 1987 the federal government, coming from its more elitist & less youth-firendly canididate selection process, basically imposes an age limit of 21. All the while Europe & Cananda have no problem with drinking ages that are much lower.
This is also the reason why I think Libertarians are wasting their time fielding national-level candidates. Best of luck to 'em, but they are not effective participating on that level. Local candidates can do ok, a Liberty Caucus in the major parties can make a difference, and the Cato think-tank does a bang-up job most of the time. But running national level candidates is like attempting anti-submarine warfare by boiling the ocean.
if there was a way of sanely giving the US some proportional representation in thier senate
Not gonna happen. That is a prohibited amendment. The other type of prohibited amendment, in oblique language, permits importation of slaves until 1808, which is of course long obsolete. From Article 5:
"...Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
There have been some court precedents on this (yeah, too lazy to look them up). Judges have basically said that if a transaction had the appearance and nature of a sale, then it is a sale. So, EULA notwithstanding, you *do* own the software. Judges tend to look at contracts of adhesion (such as what you get when you buy an airline ticket...it is more than a pretty piece of paper) through the prism of the "reasonable man" standard. Being able to copy software onto a hard drive is emminently reasonable, copyright notwithstanding, because a shiny CD is rather useless otherwise. Copying onto 100 hard drives is another matter. Click through licences are suggestive of price gouging. Consider this: the ferry onto the island is $10, but the ferry off is $5000 or you have to swim 3 miles. Shoulda negotiated the return before you left; sux to be you. No court is going to enforce that.
Resonable man standards don't work as well for new fields of endeavor (like software) because consnensus and traditional ways of doing things haven't been established. And you can get statutory law (UCITA, DMCA) usurping the natural development of reasonable expectations.
In principle, perhaps, but not necessarily in practice. A maker of encryption-breaking tools would not be able to market its wares if there is a single valid copyright in existence that uses the same decryption method as The Bard's. So by continuing to publish new material, however trivial, using the same, weak encryption, a publisher effectively gets perpetual copyright.
That was done as early in 1996 with UAE, the Amiga emulator. Win-95 running UAE, running a PC emulator, running Win-95. It took two hours to boot up. The pull-quote from the Amazing Computing article was classic (from memory as best I can):
After considering the philsophical implications of a PC emulating an Amiga emulating a PC, I decided that I need to get a life!
Traditionally, the pound is a unit of force. The pound today is defined in terms of metric units: 1 lb = 453.59237 g, exactly. The pound-force is the same fraction of the Kg-force (1 Kg-f = 9.80605 N, exactly) as the pound-mass is to Kg-mass.
In a certain sense, the US has been completely metric since the 1860's, we just have strange multipliers. Instead of centi- (.01) we have " or inch (0.0254), etc.
The US has fairly comprehensive GSM cell coverage (by North Amercian standards, anyhow), but the frequencies are different. The US couldn't use 880-960 MHz because those frequencies were allocated for public safety (fire, police, etc) use, with an unlicensed band in there, too. If you take a 900 MHz cordless phone (which uses that unlicensed 902-908 MHz band) from the US to Europe, it will step all over some of the European cell channels. They don't like that.
The the US 1850-1990 MHz PCS band doesn't match the Euro 1710-1880 DCS band either, but they are close enough to make tri-band phones (like the Nokia 6310). Or you can stick your SIM card into a cheapo made-for-US GSM phone.
I don't know if you are serious in suggesting that conversion to metric costs less than losing space probes, but the notion is rather implausbible, considering the cost of, for example, razing Detroit to the ground so that 8-mile road can be rebuilt on the 13-km mark. And the savings of the one, holy & catholic measurement system may not be so apparent when someone conflates, say, newtons with kilogram-force and crashes some other space probe. (I would claim that the savings of a complete conversion to metric, from now to forever, would not recover the conversion costs, once everything is adjusted to present value.)
The real problem with the Mars probe was not the use of traditional units, but the failure to specify & check the units. You should always specify units: always, always, always. A metric world cannot change that.
One way to look at it is to take the "macoeconomic" view. Investors put money into stocks (aggregate investment) and corporate profits get funneled back to the investors (aggregate returns). The aggregate returns can take the form of either (a)dividends or (b)corporations buying stock with their profits. The latter can take the form of corporations buying their own stock (buybacks) or some other stock (mergers/buyouts). Well, theoretically you can add proceeds from bankruptcy liquidation but that is insignificant.
So stock is worth money to investors because of:
The promise of future dividends
The promise of buybacks at a future higher price
The promise of a merger/buyout at a higher price
"Growth" companies put all their profits back into growing the business, so they are playing on the belief that future dividends/buybacks/buyouts are worth more then present profits, because the company will soon be much bigger. Microsoft, already huge, cannot credibly make the case that it will soon be 20 times as huge, hence the pressure to pay dividends (or stock buybacks).
That usually works, but not always. Sometimes the loans are just simple interest (which means you can pay off early without any wierd costs). Other times the interest payments are front-loaded, so you get stuck paying the interest even if you pay off early. The old way banks did that was the "rule of seven" which mimicks the IRS' sum-of-the-digits rule to accelerated depreciation, but truth-in-lending laws in the US seem to have put an end to that. Nowadays you are more likely to see stuff like points or origination fees but those are easy to spot on the truth-in-lending disclosure summary. Sometimes you will see early payment fees (yep, that's right, early fees) if you pay more than, say, a year ahead.
Sales agents will do pathological math (conflating present value with the sum of the payments, etc.) to make it look like you can turn a profit on your car loan. An offense against the sacred purity of mathematics, I say!
...because you know the exact distance between the units, your overall precision is improved.
That only works when the error in the various receivers is statistically independent, which is not the case for GPS. GPS error in nearby receivers is correlated, because the error sources (timing & postition errors in the satellites, plus atmospherics) are similar for the received signals. Besides, if you wanted orientation & tilt, a magnetic compass and tilt sensor can do the job much more simply, and--more importantly--faster for real-time control.
Re:I thought of this years ago-- same HERE :)
on
Broadband Blimps
·
· Score: 1
That was during the time OSC/Orbcomm's venture flopped,/
The fact Orbital couldn't do something profitably doesn't necessarily mean that the technology is unworkable though. They definitely had problems with execution. Mission-critical hinges are not the best targets for component cost reductions. Large value inductors should be characterized over frequency before you stick them in a feedback control loop, especially when the component supplier tells you that. Oh, and when you burn a non-eraseable antifuse FPGA, it helps to debug the timing before you launch the thing into outer space.
Fermat's Last is a theorem that is easy to state, and apparently looks easy to prove when you start out. Then you get caught up in exceptions & special cases & the proof falls apart (much like the divergence theorem, though those problems are not fatal to the proof if you narrow the hypothesis). Proofs had been done up to n=50 (I think); apparently the exceptions can be handled for a given finite n, but that didn't seem to lead the way to a proof for all n>2. Wiles's proof uses whole branches of mathematics (modular functions and so on) that didn't exist until the 20th century so it was most definitely not the proof Fermat had in mind.
Given all that, I think that it is safe to conclude that Fermat had some simple, but erroneous, proof in his mind. Perhaps the note about it not fitting in the margin is a realization that his approach had to work around some (fatal, we now know) problems with exception cases, etc.
They should just close up shop and go retire, buy an island country someplace, stock it with babes and margaritas, and enjoy it.
This was probably intended as a joke or exaggeration, but I would claim that it is essentially true. Warren Buffet has what he calls the one dollar rule. For every dollar retained (not paid in dividends) the company should create one dollar in market value. I don't think those $billions being blown on XBox & WinCE are creating billions in market value, and the MS core businesses--the profitable ones, Windows & Office y'know--cannot grow that much in a mature market. The only financially responsible thing is to either buy up some huge companies and become a conglomerate (GM for sale? Plus maybe an energy company, and an investment bank) or pay out dividends.
Instead, MS top management sit on a mountain of cash and tinker with world-domination schemes, and that is fiscal malfeasance on a colossal scale.
There is more to it than that. Early in his career, Eisenhower participated in a transcontinental trek that was intended to test out the mobility of military road vehicles. The expedition was a logistical disaster, not surprising given the state of the American road system in 1919.
The experience left an impression on him of the military significance of efficient mechanized transportation and may very well have contributed to his rise through the ranks as the man who could counter the highly-mobile German blitzkrieg.
Why can't I get paid in Microcredits to fold Protien Molecules for some Research Lab...
That's a real missed opportunity by the micropayment promoters. By offering a downloadable compute server that paid you money when you ran it, that could bring back the days of give-people-stuff-to-promote-a-new-business of the tech-boom. But this time around, it won't be investor money being gvien away, but an actual business. Larger payouts can be a check or whatever, but smaller amounts can be barcoded cents-off coupons, e-stamps, credit to e-gold (whose minimum fee is $0.002), or donations to a charity. A pioneering micropayment provider can then go to merchants touting thousands of consumers with money in their accounts ready to spend, enticing merchants to sign up. With more places to spend more consumers will sign up, and so on up the path to critical mass.
All this assumes, of course, that compute serving is worth more than $1 a month, or no one would bother.
When you start having to audit the transactions, you can't do them for less than about $.06 each
Sure you can. If you had an e-gold acount, I could send you 5 cents and the fee would be less then half a cent. They can do that because e-gold payments are non-repudiable so they don't have to worry about following paper trails to resolve disputes.
But that same feature (non-repudiable) slows acceptance of the e-gold system. Anyone who takes credit cards to sell e-gold will quickly go out of business from fraudulent cards. The card network will chargeback but the e-gold is long gone.
Yeah, yeah. The arguments agianst the feasability of micropayments are fairly familiar by now, and basically boil down to nullifying the arguments for micropayments, those arguments basically being the extension of money (itself an abstraction) to some perfectly divisible abstract fluid.
Clearly there are barriers to adoption, but I don't think they are the same ones that Shirky & Odlyzko are citing.
Mental transaction costs: are less than meet the eye. They didn't factor much in my decision at the vending machine to buy a 50c bag of Wheat Thins. They do factor, however, at the flea market when you are trying to judge the value of random objects. The real problem is not mental transaction cost, but the lack of reputable trademarks. (Still a big problem, though)
Competition favors free content providers: For some kind of content, yes. What kind of content? The kind of content currently on the web, because nothing else is possible in the absence of a workable micropayment system. So that argument is sort of circular, and it doesn't rule out heretofore unavailble sevrives (e.g. a signature verifying that an email is not spam).
In my view the real barriers to micropayments are these:
Incompatibility & fractured standards: My 50c for Wheat Thins is coinage I got from commerce elsewhere; I didn't have to sign up to some vending machine network or install coin-bank software in my desk.
Lack of compelling products: seems to come from the money-as-fluid fallacy. It is not sufficient to simply take some service and divide it into a million pieces. It is also related to the lack of reputable trademarks.
Poor consumer understanding: None of the micropayment schemes has had the necessary publicity to be understood by Grandma or Joe 6-Pack
These all have solutions. Fractured standards can be reconciled by government central banks, in much the same way the Federal Reserve System smoothed out regional burps in American banking. Micropayments can follow either the check-clearing model, where the Fed acts as a broker and specifies standard paper dimensions, etc. Or the currency model, where the Fed issues tokens used as money; in this case the treasury in in the unique position to issue coins that reveal digital codes (that destructively peel apart, for example), usable in both ordinary and e-commerce. The other factors are surmountable by people who are willing to go out & do the nuts & bolts work. Quick-buck artists of the Bay Area need not apply.
Witness gas station air pumps. It used to be common to have free air for your tires, which simply tapped off the compressor used by the repair shop. When gas stations stopped hosting repair shops and shifted to convienience stores, free air was often provided, but then this free air hose often fell into disrepair. The solution: coin-op air hoses.
As for myself, I would rather pay a quarter to get an air hose that works than hunt around for a free one.
Does anyone at slashdot actually use a Celeron, rather than, say, some variant of an Athalon XP?
In my case, it was simply a matter of what they had in stock at the store. The small-form motherboard/case took either Celeron or P4, and the P4 was a pure waste of electricity for the intended use. Would've preferred a Duron, but not enough to wait for a special order.
they're focusing on tritone intervals that already reside within the key
...or, for melodic dissonance, banging on that augmented 2nd between the 6th & 7th tone in melodic minor, still technically within key, though the major 7th has to marked with a natural or sharp sign.
And I have to agree: Whatever it is, in improvised jazz it is on purpose, almost by definition. The skill is a controlled amount of messing up the consonance (on purpose), then resolving it in real-time.
Slashdot Mirror
Wan't a smilar virs targete at slashcoe?
Oh...that restriction on the second number fell at the same time (so that exchange prefixes could look like the former area codes). Misread the original post, my bad.
My favorite method to defeat "security" screws: Use a Dremel cutting wheel to cut a slot in the head, then use an ordinary blade screwdriver. Literally less than 10 seconds.
First-past-the-post also has the effect of making party activists disproportionally influential, which is not necessarily a bad thing when you consider that their gain is Joe Sixpack's loss, and Joe Sixpack doesn't care anyway (otherwise he would be an activist, right?).
I suspect this also shifts power from young people to older people of the type that are more prevalent in the intra-party candidate selection process. Witness drinking-age laws: The states, being smaller and therefore less eltitist in intra-party politics, had lower drinking ages, and generally, the smaller the state, the lower the age. Then in 1987 the federal government, coming from its more elitist & less youth-firendly canididate selection process, basically imposes an age limit of 21. All the while Europe & Cananda have no problem with drinking ages that are much lower.
This is also the reason why I think Libertarians are wasting their time fielding national-level candidates. Best of luck to 'em, but they are not effective participating on that level. Local candidates can do ok, a Liberty Caucus in the major parties can make a difference, and the Cato think-tank does a bang-up job most of the time. But running national level candidates is like attempting anti-submarine warfare by boiling the ocean.
if there was a way of sanely giving the US some proportional representation in thier senate
Not gonna happen. That is a prohibited amendment. The other type of prohibited amendment, in oblique language, permits importation of slaves until 1808, which is of course long obsolete. From Article 5:
Resonable man standards don't work as well for new fields of endeavor (like software) because consnensus and traditional ways of doing things haven't been established. And you can get statutory law (UCITA, DMCA) usurping the natural development of reasonable expectations.
In principle, perhaps, but not necessarily in practice. A maker of encryption-breaking tools would not be able to market its wares if there is a single valid copyright in existence that uses the same decryption method as The Bard's. So by continuing to publish new material, however trivial, using the same, weak encryption, a publisher effectively gets perpetual copyright.
Traditionally, the pound is a unit of force. The pound today is defined in terms of metric units: 1 lb = 453.59237 g, exactly. The pound-force is the same fraction of the Kg-force (1 Kg-f = 9.80605 N, exactly) as the pound-mass is to Kg-mass.
In a certain sense, the US has been completely metric since the 1860's, we just have strange multipliers. Instead of centi- (.01) we have " or inch (0.0254), etc.
the restriction that the first digit of an exchange (the yyy part) cannot be a 0 or 1 can go away
That restriction fell at the same time (1995 thereabouts). I have had phone numbers, 714-3098 for a cellphone for example, of that form.
The US has fairly comprehensive GSM cell coverage (by North Amercian standards, anyhow), but the frequencies are different. The US couldn't use 880-960 MHz because those frequencies were allocated for public safety (fire, police, etc) use, with an unlicensed band in there, too. If you take a 900 MHz cordless phone (which uses that unlicensed 902-908 MHz band) from the US to Europe, it will step all over some of the European cell channels. They don't like that.
The the US 1850-1990 MHz PCS band doesn't match the Euro 1710-1880 DCS band either, but they are close enough to make tri-band phones (like the Nokia 6310). Or you can stick your SIM card into a cheapo made-for-US GSM phone.
I don't know if you are serious in suggesting that conversion to metric costs less than losing space probes, but the notion is rather implausbible, considering the cost of, for example, razing Detroit to the ground so that 8-mile road can be rebuilt on the 13-km mark. And the savings of the one, holy & catholic measurement system may not be so apparent when someone conflates, say, newtons with kilogram-force and crashes some other space probe. (I would claim that the savings of a complete conversion to metric, from now to forever, would not recover the conversion costs, once everything is adjusted to present value.)
The real problem with the Mars probe was not the use of traditional units, but the failure to specify & check the units. You should always specify units: always, always, always. A metric world cannot change that.
How do people make money from the stock market?
One way to look at it is to take the "macoeconomic" view. Investors put money into stocks (aggregate investment) and corporate profits get funneled back to the investors (aggregate returns). The aggregate returns can take the form of either (a)dividends or (b)corporations buying stock with their profits. The latter can take the form of corporations buying their own stock (buybacks) or some other stock (mergers/buyouts). Well, theoretically you can add proceeds from bankruptcy liquidation but that is insignificant.
So stock is worth money to investors because of:
"Growth" companies put all their profits back into growing the business, so they are playing on the belief that future dividends/buybacks/buyouts are worth more then present profits, because the company will soon be much bigger. Microsoft, already huge, cannot credibly make the case that it will soon be 20 times as huge, hence the pressure to pay dividends (or stock buybacks).
That usually works, but not always. Sometimes the loans are just simple interest (which means you can pay off early without any wierd costs). Other times the interest payments are front-loaded, so you get stuck paying the interest even if you pay off early. The old way banks did that was the "rule of seven" which mimicks the IRS' sum-of-the-digits rule to accelerated depreciation, but truth-in-lending laws in the US seem to have put an end to that. Nowadays you are more likely to see stuff like points or origination fees but those are easy to spot on the truth-in-lending disclosure summary. Sometimes you will see early payment fees (yep, that's right, early fees) if you pay more than, say, a year ahead.
Sales agents will do pathological math (conflating present value with the sum of the payments, etc.) to make it look like you can turn a profit on your car loan. An offense against the sacred purity of mathematics, I say!
That only works when the error in the various receivers is statistically independent, which is not the case for GPS. GPS error in nearby receivers is correlated, because the error sources (timing & postition errors in the satellites, plus atmospherics) are similar for the received signals. Besides, if you wanted orientation & tilt, a magnetic compass and tilt sensor can do the job much more simply, and--more importantly--faster for real-time control.
That was during the time OSC/Orbcomm's venture flopped,/
The fact Orbital couldn't do something profitably doesn't necessarily mean that the technology is unworkable though. They definitely had problems with execution. Mission-critical hinges are not the best targets for component cost reductions. Large value inductors should be characterized over frequency before you stick them in a feedback control loop, especially when the component supplier tells you that. Oh, and when you burn a non-eraseable antifuse FPGA, it helps to debug the timing before you launch the thing into outer space.
Fermat's Last is a theorem that is easy to state, and apparently looks easy to prove when you start out. Then you get caught up in exceptions & special cases & the proof falls apart (much like the divergence theorem, though those problems are not fatal to the proof if you narrow the hypothesis). Proofs had been done up to n=50 (I think); apparently the exceptions can be handled for a given finite n, but that didn't seem to lead the way to a proof for all n>2. Wiles's proof uses whole branches of mathematics (modular functions and so on) that didn't exist until the 20th century so it was most definitely not the proof Fermat had in mind.
Given all that, I think that it is safe to conclude that Fermat had some simple, but erroneous, proof in his mind. Perhaps the note about it not fitting in the margin is a realization that his approach had to work around some (fatal, we now know) problems with exception cases, etc.
They should just close up shop and go retire, buy an island country someplace, stock it with babes and margaritas, and enjoy it.
This was probably intended as a joke or exaggeration, but I would claim that it is essentially true. Warren Buffet has what he calls the one dollar rule. For every dollar retained (not paid in dividends) the company should create one dollar in market value. I don't think those $billions being blown on XBox & WinCE are creating billions in market value, and the MS core businesses--the profitable ones, Windows & Office y'know--cannot grow that much in a mature market. The only financially responsible thing is to either buy up some huge companies and become a conglomerate (GM for sale? Plus maybe an energy company, and an investment bank) or pay out dividends.
Instead, MS top management sit on a mountain of cash and tinker with world-domination schemes, and that is fiscal malfeasance on a colossal scale.
There is more to it than that. Early in his career, Eisenhower participated in a transcontinental trek that was intended to test out the mobility of military road vehicles. The expedition was a logistical disaster, not surprising given the state of the American road system in 1919.
The experience left an impression on him of the military significance of efficient mechanized transportation and may very well have contributed to his rise through the ranks as the man who could counter the highly-mobile German blitzkrieg.
Why can't I get paid in Microcredits to fold Protien Molecules for some Research Lab...
That's a real missed opportunity by the micropayment promoters. By offering a downloadable compute server that paid you money when you ran it, that could bring back the days of give-people-stuff-to-promote-a-new-business of the tech-boom. But this time around, it won't be investor money being gvien away, but an actual business. Larger payouts can be a check or whatever, but smaller amounts can be barcoded cents-off coupons, e-stamps, credit to e-gold (whose minimum fee is $0.002), or donations to a charity. A pioneering micropayment provider can then go to merchants touting thousands of consumers with money in their accounts ready to spend, enticing merchants to sign up. With more places to spend more consumers will sign up, and so on up the path to critical mass.
All this assumes, of course, that compute serving is worth more than $1 a month, or no one would bother.
When you start having to audit the transactions, you can't do them for less than about $.06 each
Sure you can. If you had an e-gold acount, I could send you 5 cents and the fee would be less then half a cent. They can do that because e-gold payments are non-repudiable so they don't have to worry about following paper trails to resolve disputes.
But that same feature (non-repudiable) slows acceptance of the e-gold system. Anyone who takes credit cards to sell e-gold will quickly go out of business from fraudulent cards. The card network will chargeback but the e-gold is long gone.
Yeah, yeah. The arguments agianst the feasability of micropayments are fairly familiar by now, and basically boil down to nullifying the arguments for micropayments, those arguments basically being the extension of money (itself an abstraction) to some perfectly divisible abstract fluid.
Clearly there are barriers to adoption, but I don't think they are the same ones that Shirky & Odlyzko are citing.
In my view the real barriers to micropayments are these:
These all have solutions. Fractured standards can be reconciled by government central banks, in much the same way the Federal Reserve System smoothed out regional burps in American banking. Micropayments can follow either the check-clearing model, where the Fed acts as a broker and specifies standard paper dimensions, etc. Or the currency model, where the Fed issues tokens used as money; in this case the treasury in in the unique position to issue coins that reveal digital codes (that destructively peel apart, for example), usable in both ordinary and e-commerce. The other factors are surmountable by people who are willing to go out & do the nuts & bolts work. Quick-buck artists of the Bay Area need not apply.
Witness gas station air pumps. It used to be common to have free air for your tires, which simply tapped off the compressor used by the repair shop. When gas stations stopped hosting repair shops and shifted to convienience stores, free air was often provided, but then this free air hose often fell into disrepair. The solution: coin-op air hoses.
As for myself, I would rather pay a quarter to get an air hose that works than hunt around for a free one.
Does anyone at slashdot actually use a Celeron, rather than, say, some variant of an Athalon XP?
In my case, it was simply a matter of what they had in stock at the store. The small-form motherboard/case took either Celeron or P4, and the P4 was a pure waste of electricity for the intended use. Would've preferred a Duron, but not enough to wait for a special order.
they're focusing on tritone intervals that already reside within the key
...or, for melodic dissonance, banging on that augmented 2nd between the 6th & 7th tone in melodic minor, still technically within key, though the major 7th has to marked with a natural or sharp sign.
And I have to agree: Whatever it is, in improvised jazz it is on purpose, almost by definition. The skill is a controlled amount of messing up the consonance (on purpose), then resolving it in real-time.