Last I checked, Musicbrainz wouldn't allow this sort of thing either. Mind you, specifically I was asking about bittorrent 'compiliations' of pre-existing material where, arguably, the set and ordering chosen results in a new work. I'm not sure if they would allow a torrent-only album under 'other' under the current practices:
But at least Musicbrainz is rather 'open' and allows dissent among the community on such topics--this leads to the obvious question, then: why isn't there a centralized 'open' metadata database like this for *all* forms of media: music, scores, movies, television, books, magazines, journal articles, encyclopedias, video games,etc...
Since you're interested in Neuroscience and AI a masters in Cognitive Science is a relevant option. Every school's cogsci program is different,but they're all *very* flexible. Check out UCSD, Indiana, MIT, Carleton, Arizona, etc.
Both the Kindle and the iPad are a joke when it comes to academic work. At the very least, they need to duplicate the kind of functionality you can get from bluebeam and onenote running on a convertible tablet PC:
- freehand inking on pdfs - the ability to TYPE pop-up notes - audio recordings you can sync with notes a la onenote - hotkeys for various highlighter colors (I use a 9-color system which would be impractical with physical highlighters) - hierarchical bookmarks allowing you to make clickable outlines of an articlegreat for reviewing! (ideally they would improve this by making a more freely formatted 'notes' pane that can be hyperlinked to the bookideally with audio support like onenote's) - insert lined paper into a book (i.e. for doing math problems in a math textbook) - the ability to very quickly pull up paper for rough work (i.e. win+N for onenote) - something like zotero for unified management of pdf and html references (i.e not mendely)
This depends on the strings: you can handwrite many mathematical expressions more quickly than you can type them in most setups. This is especially true for things with a lot of super/sub scripts. It's *especially* true for symbols not in the character sets available to you.
Also, sometimes the same *content* can be recorded more quickly as handwritten math/logic than as typed strings.
Sometimes handwriting is faster, sometimes typing is faster.
Therefore, the fastest setup is one where you can switch between handwriting and typing seamlessly, such as on a tablet PC on some sort of stand situated like an easel with an external keyboard at elbow height, or at a desktop with a keyboard and graphics tabletin which case, for the monitor position, you don't have to compromise between what's good for your hands/arms and what's good for your eyes/neck/back.
I think that part of the reason that cursive is so 'illegible' to us nowadays is that we are surrounded by print, probably much more so than our forefathers--and handwriting just doesn't look enough like Times New Roman. Somehow I doubt it's any intrinsic property of cursive scripts--in one study of reading speed for various fonts, there was one guy who was an outlier in that he read fastest in some weird Fraktur font--turns out that's what his school books were in...
Steven Pinker is how I found Psychology, Cognitive Science, and Linguistics. Best popular writer on the subjects, even if you dislike his theories. His writing on Philosophy is a little weaker, but still engaging.
"It's not a hardware breakthrough that'll create a true AI - it's an algorithm breakthrough that's required. Faster computers might be nice - but it'll always comes down to the algorithm. "
If you mean *strong* AI, a better algorithm may, in fact, create strong AI, but we'd never know it, until we can learn under what conditions a system would be conscious.
You're right that the GP is misusing the word 'harmonics', but the NYT article is probably not talking about combinations of tones produced by two flues when they say 'harmonic' either--they probably just mean that the scale itself sounds 'nice', which actually follows the more ancient sense of the word 'harmonics' which, for the ancient Greeks, was the study of tunings, temperaments, and scale designs. In other words, the scale sounds like modern music because it's a pentatonic scale.
Which brings me to what you were saying about music universals--there is, indeed, much cultural variation, but there are a number of commonalities--the pentatonic scale, is actually supposed to have been arrived at independently in many cultures, which isn't that surprising because it's what you get if you iterate the 'simplest' interval other than the octave, and the diatonic scales come from iterating that twice more.
There are also lots of universals about interval choice--melodically or harmonically, simple ratio intervals like 5ths are usually preferred, and you aren't going to find a culture that prefers minor 9th leaps to perfect 5th leaps, except Webern et al., of course.
There are also general cognitive constraints--for instance, most cultures have 5-7 note scales, which is supposedly tied to the size of working memory.
The reality is this: it is already a difficult compromise choosing audio software to work with on PC or Mac platforms. Only people who aren't serious about their work really have time to worry about linux solutions here. Composers are only just now beginning to see anything like a move towards a merger of sequencers and notation programs, with Sibelius and Finale adding limited audio support and Cubase adding better support for orchestral articulations and some improved notation capabilities. Protools added some code taken from Sibelius but it's still rudimentary. Competition in terms of features is very tight between these various alternatives, and it's not like OpenOfficeâ'it can't just do 'more or less, the main tasks we need'. The open source software has to actually be *better* than the existing options. Whenever I wonder again about this I just compare the 'new' features in the most recent version of Cubase or Sibelius to the most recent features in the open source alternatives and I can only laugh...
You've left out one very important strategy for doing comparisons:
say i want to compare mp3 playing software--i know winamp is a big one so i search for winamp and look for other mp3 players mentioned.
once i have 2 or 3 names, i put them all in a search string--# of resutls goes down a lot. Now i'm findinf pages which mentions several programs in one breath--every time i find another important program named i add it to the search query.
IF there is a page comparing all of them, this WILL find it.
you can easily get 0 hits this way, when that happens, experiment with removing a single word from the query. of all the possibile removals (i.e. removing the first, removing the 2nd instead, etc.), see which one gets the greatest # of hits.
by playing with the strings in this way you can get feel for the space of pages mentioning many items in the category you're concerned with.
I quickly found, for instance, that iMarkup and enLighter (two competing products for web-page annotation) are not mentioned on a single page together (this has since changed since someone made a maxthon forum post, lol), but that each of them is mentioned on the same page as some other related tools.
If you studied philosophy you would know that the sentence "studying X is worth if you love it" is a tautology.
Good God! "S loves x entails it's worth it for S to study x" is NOT a tautology--it's just some claim you believe. A tautology would have to be true by the definitions of the words in it, and it's not true *by definition* that the things one loves are worth studying. To give the most extreme counterexample to the conditional, it's logically possible that *nothing* is 'worth studying', i.e. values do not exist, but that S still loves things--this would not violate the definitions of the words.
"Well, if what the article submitter says is all factually correct, then there has been a large conspiracy to misinform and lie to the public about what is actually happening."
I agree. However, I reason somewhat like this,
A: What the submitter says is correct
B: There has been a conspiracy.
A -> B
!B (I don't believe in large conspiracies involving the UN and the vast majority of all natural scientists)
---
!A
This article is BS, and the "wow, this was pretty convincing" is just a seller line. I've seen a lot more convincing articles. I've also seen this article aggressively sold elsewhere in a similar manner. You know, I never heard of any successful global conspiracies on the scale that would be needed to conceal that global warming isn't happening/isn't mostly increasing due to C02/isn't increasing mostly due to our emissions... but I've heard of many successful astroturf jobs. I've fought for attention with press releases myself, but some people take it ten steps longer, without necessarily being open about it.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost." God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said no..no...no , You Get Your Own Dirt!
yes, but of course the speed of the compression is important for AI--if the compression would take longer than the lifetime of an organism it's not a reasonable model of how that organism thinks. We probably perform fast compression in real-time as we 'understand' things, but other, slower, forms over our lifetimes.
Re:I'm surprised I haven't...
on
A GUI For Books
·
· Score: 1
And another time at work -- again after too little sleep -- I ctrl-c'd something on one computer, then walked into another room and tried to paste it onto that computer. Twice. Then I actually stopped to think about what I was doing.
That actually *works* if you use Synergy over a network!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Nicotine is very addictive, although I've never heard of it being ranked as more addictive than Coke or Heroin:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
That being said, there's no shortage of controversy about the extent to which the substance itself is the main factor in addiction:
http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.12-health-rat-trap/
Many of those people might 'binge' sleep here and there to catch up--what the small range of values might show is that sleep debt is very linear..
1. http://www.sharpics.com/tabletop-monopod-p-28.html
2. Digital camera with a remote switch option (i.e. Poweshot G10)
3. Black Surface
4. Bright Lights
5. http://www.i2s-bookscanner.com/produits.asp?gamme=1011&sX_Menu_selectedID=path_1011_GEN (To 3d deskew text)
6. http://finereader.abbyy.com/ (to straighten up text a bit more in the 2d realm, and OCR the book)
Via this method it's about as fast as you can flip the pages. (Use the remote switch with your foot.)
Unfortunately you can't buy this convenient device any more:
http://hughsung.com/blog/index.php?itemid=61
What are the tools?
It's not the size, it's how you sue it.
Yes. Clearly Netflix will 'destroy the internet'.
Last I checked, Musicbrainz wouldn't allow this sort of thing either. Mind you, specifically I was asking about bittorrent 'compiliations' of pre-existing material where, arguably, the set and ordering chosen results in a new work. I'm not sure if they would allow a torrent-only album under 'other' under the current practices:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseType [musicbrainz.org]
But at least Musicbrainz is rather 'open' and allows dissent among the community on such topics--this leads to the obvious question, then: why isn't there a centralized 'open' metadata database like this for *all* forms of media: music, scores, movies, television, books, magazines, journal articles, encyclopedias, video games,etc...
I don't know much about programming, so I'm wondering:
To what extent does Rhomobile solve this question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomobile
It claims you can write something that compiles for all devices. What are the limitations to this approach?
Since you're interested in Neuroscience and AI a masters in Cognitive Science is a relevant option. Every school's cogsci program is different,but they're all *very* flexible. Check out UCSD, Indiana, MIT, Carleton, Arizona, etc.
Both the Kindle and the iPad are a joke when it comes to academic work. At the very least, they need to duplicate the kind of functionality you can get from bluebeam and onenote running on a convertible tablet PC:
- freehand inking on pdfs
- the ability to TYPE pop-up notes
- audio recordings you can sync with notes a la onenote
- hotkeys for various highlighter colors (I use a 9-color system which would be impractical with physical highlighters)
- hierarchical bookmarks allowing you to make clickable outlines of an articlegreat for reviewing! (ideally they would improve this by making a more freely formatted 'notes' pane that can be hyperlinked to the bookideally with audio support like onenote's)
- insert lined paper into a book (i.e. for doing math problems in a math textbook)
- the ability to very quickly pull up paper for rough work (i.e. win+N for onenote)
- something like zotero for unified management of pdf and html references (i.e not mendely)
This depends on the strings: you can handwrite many mathematical expressions more quickly than you can type them in most setups. This is especially true for things with a lot of super/sub scripts. It's *especially* true for symbols not in the character sets available to you.
Also, sometimes the same *content* can be recorded more quickly as handwritten math/logic than as typed strings.
Sometimes handwriting is faster, sometimes typing is faster.
Therefore, the fastest setup is one where you can switch between handwriting and typing seamlessly, such as on a tablet PC on some sort of stand situated like an easel with an external keyboard at elbow height, or at a desktop with a keyboard and graphics tabletin which case, for the monitor position, you don't have to compromise between what's good for your hands/arms and what's good for your eyes/neck/back.
I think that part of the reason that cursive is so 'illegible' to us nowadays is that we are surrounded by print, probably much more so than our forefathers--and handwriting just doesn't look enough like Times New Roman. Somehow I doubt it's any intrinsic property of cursive scripts--in one study of reading speed for various fonts, there was one guy who was an outlier in that he read fastest in some weird Fraktur font--turns out that's what his school books were in...
Steven Pinker is how I found Psychology, Cognitive Science, and Linguistics. Best popular writer on the subjects, even if you dislike his theories. His writing on Philosophy is a little weaker, but still engaging.
"It's not a hardware breakthrough that'll create a true AI - it's an algorithm breakthrough that's required. Faster computers might be nice - but it'll always comes down to the algorithm. "
If you mean *strong* AI, a better algorithm may, in fact, create strong AI, but we'd never know it, until we can learn under what conditions a system would be conscious.
You're right that the GP is misusing the word 'harmonics', but the NYT article is probably not talking about combinations of tones produced by two flues when they say 'harmonic' either--they probably just mean that the scale itself sounds 'nice', which actually follows the more ancient sense of the word 'harmonics' which, for the ancient Greeks, was the study of tunings, temperaments, and scale designs. In other words, the scale sounds like modern music because it's a pentatonic scale.
Which brings me to what you were saying about music universals--there is, indeed, much cultural variation, but there are a number of commonalities--the pentatonic scale, is actually supposed to have been arrived at independently in many cultures, which isn't that surprising because it's what you get if you iterate the 'simplest' interval other than the octave, and the diatonic scales come from iterating that twice more.
There are also lots of universals about interval choice--melodically or harmonically, simple ratio intervals like 5ths are usually preferred, and you aren't going to find a culture that prefers minor 9th leaps to perfect 5th leaps, except Webern et al., of course.
There are also general cognitive constraints--for instance, most cultures have 5-7 note scales, which is supposedly tied to the size of working memory.
The reality is this: it is already a difficult compromise choosing audio software to work with on PC or Mac platforms. Only people who aren't serious about their work really have time to worry about linux solutions here. Composers are only just now beginning to see anything like a move towards a merger of sequencers and notation programs, with Sibelius and Finale adding limited audio support and Cubase adding better support for orchestral articulations and some improved notation capabilities. Protools added some code taken from Sibelius but it's still rudimentary. Competition in terms of features is very tight between these various alternatives, and it's not like OpenOfficeâ'it can't just do 'more or less, the main tasks we need'. The open source software has to actually be *better* than the existing options. Whenever I wonder again about this I just compare the 'new' features in the most recent version of Cubase or Sibelius to the most recent features in the open source alternatives and I can only laugh...
Her said 'also', not 'therefore'...
The... *ninja* way?
You've left out one very important strategy for doing comparisons:
say i want to compare mp3 playing software--i know winamp is a big one so i search for winamp and look for other mp3 players mentioned.
once i have 2 or 3 names, i put them all in a search string--# of resutls goes down a lot. Now i'm findinf pages which mentions several programs in one breath--every time i find another important program named i add it to the search query.
IF there is a page comparing all of them, this WILL find it.
you can easily get 0 hits this way, when that happens, experiment with removing a single word from the query. of all the possibile removals (i.e. removing the first, removing the 2nd instead, etc.), see which one gets the greatest # of hits.
by playing with the strings in this way you can get feel for the space of pages mentioning many items in the category you're concerned with.
I quickly found, for instance, that iMarkup and enLighter (two competing products for web-page annotation) are not mentioned on a single page together (this has since changed since someone made a maxthon forum post, lol), but that each of them is mentioned on the same page as some other related tools.
Well, there's forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain, but then it should be FOURTH-BRAIN. Maybe he's thinking of Left-brain, right-brain ?
If you studied philosophy you would know that the sentence "studying X is worth if you love it" is a tautology.
Good God! "S loves x entails it's worth it for S to study x" is NOT a tautology--it's just some claim you believe. A tautology would have to be true by the definitions of the words in it, and it's not true *by definition* that the things one loves are worth studying. To give the most extreme counterexample to the conditional, it's logically possible that *nothing* is 'worth studying', i.e. values do not exist, but that S still loves things--this would not violate the definitions of the words.
"Well, if what the article submitter says is all factually correct, then there has been a large conspiracy to misinform and lie to the public about what is actually happening." I agree. However, I reason somewhat like this, A: What the submitter says is correct B: There has been a conspiracy. A -> B !B (I don't believe in large conspiracies involving the UN and the vast majority of all natural scientists) --- !A This article is BS, and the "wow, this was pretty convincing" is just a seller line. I've seen a lot more convincing articles. I've also seen this article aggressively sold elsewhere in a similar manner. You know, I never heard of any successful global conspiracies on the scale that would be needed to conceal that global warming isn't happening/isn't mostly increasing due to C02/isn't increasing mostly due to our emissions... but I've heard of many successful astroturf jobs. I've fought for attention with press releases myself, but some people take it ten steps longer, without necessarily being open about it.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost." God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said no..no...no , You Get Your Own Dirt!
yes, but of course the speed of the compression is important for AI--if the compression would take longer than the lifetime of an organism it's not a reasonable model of how that organism thinks. We probably perform fast compression in real-time as we 'understand' things, but other, slower, forms over our lifetimes.
That actually *works* if you use Synergy over a network! :-)