You're taking the syntax idiom, which was developed from keyboarding.
What if the voice recognition was not syntactic, but rather, you told the device something what design pattern to follow, what objects you want to use, what constraints to apply, and so forth?
Brackets, identifiers, parameter lists, method names, all that is an artifact of the syntax that was developed because a keyboard was used to communicate with a computer. If we're going to have something this novel, why can't we expect a whole new framework for using it that exploits its advantages, instead of simply mapping the old way of doing things awkwardly onto a new representation?
>The only reason these types of games get associated is because the public image of the players has >consistently been that of the outsider/geeky/skinny runt.
Actually, it's the presence of pagan and satanistic religious info that pisses off the thumpers. I wonder how they'd take Call of Cthulu if they knew about it?
You don't have to go very far at all into the AD&D literature to find information about "false gods" and heathen religious practices, even including information about demons -- Information that certain religious groups thought centuries of suppression had wiped out. And they'd prefer it were suppressed!
I don't actually play EvCrack, so I don't know to what extent deity, religion, and alignment affect gameplay, but I imagine it's the typical amount.
We who think with our brains don't see something like the existence of a Druid or a Vampire in a RPG as a problem.
I never even thought about this stuff before it got shoved in my face.
I've seen parents keep their kids home from elementary school because of (very innocent and secular) Halloween activities. Show them the contents of the D&D Deities and Demigods supplement, or some of the Demons in the Monster Manual, and these people go into shock -- and you know what? When you shock them they write their congressmen more compellingly than all the DMCA protesters put together...
Stack up a few corpses for their cause, and you can say goodbye to religious freedom in America.
>These are all representative of the impression regular folks seem to have of the sysadmin
"Regular folks" just have a generic characterization of "the computer guy", they don't neccessarily make a distinction between the various types of system administrator.
Generally speaking, one does not anticipate being *Buried* in Britain. Cremation is vastly more common there, and burial in a conventional cemetary is virtually unheard of for the common person.
>In the USA, the argument goes that guns' primary use is for self-defense and hunting, so >they should be legal.
In the USA, from the very beginning, the argument is that an armed population is one of the few things capable of stopping a rogue government from exceeding the bounds of its authority, and therefore weapons MUST be legal.
>o if I come to your house and steal your TV, >then take it home... I'm 9/10 of the way to >owning it since I now have possesion?
No, you are 9/10ths of the way to prison for stealing it! An some of the IANAL's and IAALBTINLA's please clarify the "possession is nine points of the law" doctrine? Is this an English common law thing, or is it a Hollywood thing?
I found this essay an interesting read...
http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/763.h tm l
The overwhelming majority of sound card users seems to have one or two applications in mind and don't see others. Basically, we want to hear music coming out of speakers or headphones. We'd like to have the encoding for multichannel audio (e.g., theatre sound) but "IP" problems tend to make that goal unattainable. Other than that, though, 16bit 2-channel 44.1khz audio seems to be acceptable. And we should be able to take it for granted. It should NOT take months of study and effort to get that far.
Now, there are other types of users who need a very different feature set from the same system.
Musicians want to use the capability of the computer for multitrack recording. We'd like to be able to use cards with hardware mixers, cards that record 24bit audio, cards that use standard timecode protocols required for video and all other professional recording. We'd like to be able to do every step of a production in a fully digital format, never using an ADC/DAC device.
Some of us would also like to be able to use the computer as a musical instrument. The potential is there for the home computer to outperform and vastly outfeature the expensive samplers, analog modelling synths, and multitrack digital recorders whose pricetags shut out most musicians in the working class.
A feature like "64 simultaneous voices" sounds like overkill, until you're trying to record a piano wavetable on a romantic piece with a sustain pedal. At that point, 64 voices is like CGA compared to SVGA.
>if you don't like their license, don't buy the
>product.
One of the most important things about rights
is that, even if you don't know you have them,
you still have them, except in the cases where
you do something yourself to have them taken away
(or when they're taken away by the force of law).
You can't agree to an illegal contract.
An illegal or invalid clause in a contract does
not invalidate the contract, only that clause.
>Interesting stuff - kinda shows how the current
>patent climate actually causes people to focus
>more on exploiting patents and their lucrative
>pay-offs rather than focus on actually inventing
I wonder if this could have a beneficial effect in a decade or so. We're seeing a heyday of fast-and-loose patent grants right now. Maybe a good
chunk of the low-hanging fruit will be plucked NOW, and when these patents on all these obvious things being patented today expire in 15-20 years
certain industries (esp. software and genetic research) will experience a renaissance!
YES! File as many frivolous and obvious patents NOW as you possibly can! A future generation will
thank you!!!
Comparing an employee::employer relationship
in a bureaucratic organization, even a public corporation, to the relationship of a volunteer
developer to the contact person for a project,
just isn't fair. It's not the same thing. Miguel should ignore Stallman's immature, unprofessional antics and get on with his work.
I mean, the idea that RMS thinks he speaks for
the open source community to the extent that he
can ask someone to explain their decisions on
matters that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with RMS
or the so-called community, and that he actually
expects and answer, seems fairly arrogant on Stallman's part. Best thing Miguel could do at
this point is to ignore Stallman, maybe wait
for him to ASK POLITELY, or maybe respond to the
effect of "I don't have to explain myself to you, and the idea that you expect me to offends me."
Something like that.
Maybe I've misunderstood something, but I don't believe that Miguel works for Stallman, uses any of Stallman's intellecutal or physical assets, or has any real obligation to him. So why does Stallman think Miguel owes anything to him or to anyone else?
The main thing that made US Democracy revolutionary was the idea that there are limits to the government's authority.
No, the US may NOT make any law it wants. There are clear specifications of what kinds of laws NO government may legitimately make. For example, laws respecting the establishment of religion...
>The only things preventing the government from
>taking these rights away are a few pieces of
>paper, the morals of the people in government,
>and an armed populace. (Though I strongly doubt
>the ability of the armed populace to
>successfully prevent the government from doing
>anything, considering how much better the
>military is armed.)
Try to think of the "armed populace" as an intersection of the sets of military personnel and civilians.
When there is an issue big enough to affect people so profoundly that the use of force against the lawful authority becomes justified in the minds of a truly significant portion of the people, the cause should be great enough that military divisions challenge their commanding authority as well.
Fortunately or unfortunately, neither the DMCA nor Prohibition rises to this level. Ultimate
solutions require ultimate problems before they enter the realm of plausibility.
If you're thinking in terms of rogue hordes with handguns and pocketknives against the combined US forces (and police organizations), you haven't considered the historical circumstances of events of a similar scope, such as the Revolution, or the war between the Confederate States and the United States. Consider the possibility of a reasonable balance of power between a standing government and a revolutionary force, and it won't seem such a foregone conclusion that the "Government" will easily defeat any challenge to its authority. We just haven't seen big enough problems with pervasive enough impact to bring about this kind of radical change. And we really should hope not to! A civil war would not be pretty or fun.
Re:Their deaths saved thousands more - and still d
on
Apollo 1
·
· Score: 2
>So they commissioned research to do so.
>And the result was the ionization-type smoke detector.
Today the research would have to be kept secret,
until it was patented. The patent royalties would
have to be high enough that nobody could make a
household smoke detector to be sold at a consumer
price level.
Slashdot Mirror
>Because Palm would be none too eager to provide
>the competition with their ROMs, Sharp or its
>users would have to do it illegally.
Point of information: I the user could do this legally.
>and that is ofcourse what the average user who
>this device is targetting wants. play nethack.
>right.
Does it or doesn't it? I don't know the "average user", but support for this game will truly be a
major deciding factor in whether I buy one.
>I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Palm port.
I would, and I'd own a Palm device if it did.
http://nethack-palm.sourceforge.net/
We need a whole new idiom.
You're taking the syntax idiom, which was developed from keyboarding.
What if the voice recognition was not syntactic,
but rather, you told the device something what design pattern to follow, what objects you want to use, what constraints to apply, and so forth?
Brackets, identifiers, parameter lists, method names, all that is an artifact of the syntax that
was developed because a keyboard was used to communicate with a computer. If we're going to have something this novel, why can't we expect a
whole new framework for using it that exploits its advantages, instead of simply mapping the old way of doing things awkwardly onto a new representation?
>The only reason these types of games get associated is because the public image of the players has
>consistently been that of the outsider/geeky/skinny runt.
Actually, it's the presence of pagan and satanistic religious info that
pisses off the thumpers. I wonder how they'd take Call of Cthulu
if they knew about it?
You don't have to go very far at all into the AD&D literature
to find information about "false gods" and heathen religious practices,
even including information about demons -- Information that
certain religious groups thought centuries of suppression had
wiped out. And they'd prefer it were suppressed!
I don't actually play EvCrack, so I don't know to what extent deity,
religion, and alignment affect gameplay, but I imagine it's
the typical amount.
We who think with our brains don't see something like the existence
of a Druid or a Vampire in a RPG as a problem.
I never even thought about this stuff before it got shoved in my face.
I've seen parents keep their kids home from elementary school because
of (very innocent and secular) Halloween activities. Show them the
contents of the D&D Deities and Demigods supplement, or some
of the Demons in the Monster Manual, and these people go into
shock -- and you know what? When you shock them they write their
congressmen more compellingly than all the DMCA protesters
put together...
Stack up a few corpses for their cause, and you can say goodbye
to religious freedom in America.
>These are all representative of the impression regular folks seem to have of the sysadmin
"Regular folks" just have a generic characterization of
"the computer guy", they don't neccessarily make a distinction
between the various types of system administrator.
Hint: Text is only one representation of an XML object.
>Hate to break this to you kid, but actually the inventor
> of television was Scottish.
Philo T. Farnsworth was all American, thank you.
Generally speaking, one does not anticipate being *Buried* in Britain. Cremation is vastly more common there, and burial in a conventional cemetary is virtually unheard of for the common person.
James Burke mentions this in the Connections tv series. A lot of people tried and failed to make a clock accurate at sea.
I wish I could get that series on DVD.
>In the USA, the argument goes that guns' primary use is for self-defense and hunting, so
>they should be legal.
In the USA, from the very beginning, the argument is that
an armed population is one of the few things capable of
stopping a rogue government from exceeding the bounds of
its authority, and therefore weapons MUST be legal.
>o if I come to your house and steal your TV,
h tm l
>then take it home... I'm 9/10 of the way to
>owning it since I now have possesion?
No, you are 9/10ths of the way to prison for stealing it! An some of the IANAL's and IAALBTINLA's please clarify the "possession is nine points of the law" doctrine? Is this
an English common law thing, or is it a Hollywood
thing?
I found this essay an interesting read...
http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/763.
The overwhelming majority of sound card users seems to have one or two applications in mind and don't see others. Basically, we want to hear music coming out of speakers or headphones. We'd like to have the encoding for multichannel audio (e.g., theatre sound) but "IP" problems tend to make that goal unattainable. Other than that, though, 16bit 2-channel 44.1khz audio seems to be acceptable. And we should be able to take it for granted. It should NOT take months of study and effort to get that far.
Now, there are other types of users who need a very different feature set from the same system.
Musicians want to use the capability of the computer for multitrack recording. We'd like to be able to use cards with hardware mixers, cards that record 24bit audio, cards that use standard timecode protocols required for video and all other professional recording. We'd like to be able to do every step of a production in a fully digital format, never using an ADC/DAC device.
Some of us would also like to be able to use the computer as a musical instrument. The potential is there for the home computer to outperform and vastly outfeature the expensive samplers, analog modelling synths, and multitrack digital recorders whose pricetags shut out most musicians in the working class.
A feature like "64 simultaneous voices" sounds like overkill, until you're trying to record a piano wavetable on a romantic piece with a sustain pedal. At that point, 64 voices is like CGA compared to SVGA.
>if you don't like their license, don't buy the
>product.
One of the most important things about rights
is that, even if you don't know you have them,
you still have them, except in the cases where
you do something yourself to have them taken away
(or when they're taken away by the force of law).
You can't agree to an illegal contract.
An illegal or invalid clause in a contract does
not invalidate the contract, only that clause.
If you have as definite and clear requirements
of the rest of the project as you have for the
tools you must use, then you should be good to
go.
>Interesting stuff - kinda shows how the current
>patent climate actually causes people to focus
>more on exploiting patents and their lucrative
>pay-offs rather than focus on actually inventing
I wonder if this could have a beneficial effect in a decade or so. We're seeing a heyday of fast-and-loose patent grants right now. Maybe a good
chunk of the low-hanging fruit will be plucked NOW, and when these patents on all these obvious things being patented today expire in 15-20 years
certain industries (esp. software and genetic research) will experience a renaissance!
YES! File as many frivolous and obvious patents NOW as you possibly can! A future generation will
thank you!!!
>.. why not tax everyone on the net instead of
>actually finding a business plan that works.
Isn't the UKoGBaNI one of those countries where
a defendent can seek damages against a plaintiff
for bringing a frivolous suit?
>It's as simple as that.
Comparing an employee::employer relationship
in a bureaucratic organization, even a public corporation, to the relationship of a volunteer
developer to the contact person for a project,
just isn't fair. It's not the same thing. Miguel should ignore Stallman's immature, unprofessional antics and get on with his work.
Letter G or no letter G.
>Now, tell us who founded that "G" organization.
It doesn't entitle him to calling out Miguel like he has.
I mean, the idea that RMS thinks he speaks for
the open source community to the extent that he
can ask someone to explain their decisions on
matters that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with RMS
or the so-called community, and that he actually
expects and answer, seems fairly arrogant on Stallman's part. Best thing Miguel could do at
this point is to ignore Stallman, maybe wait
for him to ASK POLITELY, or maybe respond to the
effect of "I don't have to explain myself to you, and the idea that you expect me to offends me."
Something like that.
Maybe I've misunderstood something, but I don't believe that Miguel works for Stallman, uses any of Stallman's intellecutal or physical assets, or has any real obligation to him. So why does Stallman think Miguel owes anything to him or to anyone else?
I did read the article.
Unfortunately for me, there is no version
of Oracle for a Sparc running Linux.
I'm not looking for a freebie, not by a long shot.
My company has about half a million invested in
Oracle licenses.
I want Oracle 9i for UltraSparc Linux,
and I want it now.
Why does your message leave me wondering if you
are aware that Linux runs on the very RISC machines you are praising?
>The U.S. can make any law it wants.
The main thing that made US Democracy revolutionary was the idea that there are limits to the government's authority.
No, the US may NOT make any law it wants. There are clear specifications of what kinds of laws NO government may legitimately make. For example, laws respecting the establishment of religion...
>The only things preventing the government from
>taking these rights away are a few pieces of
>paper, the morals of the people in government,
>and an armed populace. (Though I strongly doubt
>the ability of the armed populace to
>successfully prevent the government from doing
>anything, considering how much better the
>military is armed.)
Try to think of the "armed populace" as an intersection of the sets of military personnel and civilians.
When there is an issue big enough to affect people so profoundly that the use of force against the lawful authority becomes justified in the minds of a truly significant portion of the people, the cause should be great enough that military divisions challenge their commanding authority as well.
Fortunately or unfortunately, neither the DMCA nor Prohibition rises to this level. Ultimate
solutions require ultimate problems before they enter the realm of plausibility.
If you're thinking in terms of rogue hordes with handguns and pocketknives against the combined US forces (and police organizations), you haven't considered the historical circumstances of events of a similar scope, such as the Revolution, or the war between the Confederate States and the United States. Consider the possibility of a reasonable balance of power between a standing government and a revolutionary force, and it won't seem such a foregone conclusion that the "Government" will easily defeat any challenge to its authority. We just haven't seen big enough problems with pervasive enough impact to bring about this kind of radical change. And we really should hope not to! A civil war would not be pretty or fun.
>So they commissioned research to do so.
>And the result was the ionization-type smoke detector.
Today the research would have to be kept secret,
until it was patented. The patent royalties would
have to be high enough that nobody could make a
household smoke detector to be sold at a consumer
price level.