Oh crap, maybe I should add an address to my page... lol
1) Does this run in real-time without the convolution (i.e. just combining the streams together)
I'm not sure about what you mean. It will be able to run in real-time without the convolution, like forwarding the streams, provided that the convolution function gets commented out. That's basically what has to be done now.
2) How do you handle different streams having different sample rates?
You see, I don't know. that's what I'm looking for a device driver developper for, to taking care of that part. I didn't even know there could be such a problem, I thought that everything would be captured as one stream, mainly since it's supposed to "intercept" the stream that is about to go to the audio output, it should be a single stereo stream
3) Are you summing all streamd and then applying the convolution? Or are you convolving a kernel with each stream and then adding the results?
haha, well like I said I didn't know about that whole streams thing, but if there has to be such a problem, then the streams will have to get added together before convolution. The other way around would be incredibly stupid.
4) How large are your buffers? Have you considered cache effects?
I don't know, since I'm not gonna really work on the capturing part, I'd have to ask a device driver programmer what I can use. One thing is for sure, depending on the kernel length, but assuming that the kernel can contain frequencies around 20-30 Hz, the buffer sizes should better be at least 1024 samples long. Cache effects? i'm not sure to remember what it is, but i think it has to do with the data being moved from the memory to the CPU, whatever it is, it had to be included in my non-real-time prototype and thus be included in the performance I claim.
OK, welcome to the land of the non-sense and consistance, when I posted the parent, the original post was at 0 (and there was at least 3 mods), now it's at +5, GO FIGURE!
It's all good, today is not a good day to have mod points anyways, I guess.
Seeing how the grand-parent got modded, I conclude that I hardly understand any logic in the modders mind anyways. Instead of considering using quasars for encryption, they should rather consider using/. mods.
Offtopic? Basically, the guy in the article got R* in trouble because he said their game made him do it, right?
So, if I get arrested by the police, for say, chairing someone to death (stoning someone to death with a chair, if you prefer), I might claim that Steve Ballmer made me do it, so I can get his ass in trouble because I don't like him.
Both piracy and cheating need to be squashed. It is the same people doing the two things. They have no morals, they cheat and steal because they believe they can get away with it.
Shit, what a bunch of crap. I "pirate", I "steal" (although I don't have the feeling to), but I don't cheat, because that sucks, nothing to do with morals.
Most people who pirate don't cheat, I bet, prove me wrong with figures...
Indeed! And believe me I know that for a fact. The good thing is that it's usually easier to write a story they're gonna like than make a Playgirl type picture of yourself when you're 125 lbs for 6'1.
And I think girls like it about as much as boys love porn, I'd say that about 85-90% of girls like erotic stories, other just don't care about them. And some sure do get addicted as well, or at least they are very deep into it.
All this being said, if you can write stories girls like, you're definitly rolling in the pimp lane of internet
I never understood why people have such trouble with understanding pointers
I've been both in the position of one of the students who had the thougest times understanding pointers in Pascal, and when I started skipping college and studying C at home I started understanding them really well.
Personally, what prevented me from understanding them back when I was in college was their nature, I didn't understand how it worked. When I started working with C and with heavily sending and returning arrays and values from functions, it only made sense to me when I understood that a pointer was an address, and that for example when you want to send a variable to a function and make it modify it, you have to send its address so the function doesn't have to return a value, but can modify the contents of the indicated address.
Once I understood that pointers suddenly went from mysterious to easy and actually people who tell me about pointers when I say I program in C tell me shit like "so you like pointers, huh?" well I actually do now. I think that pointers are only hard to understand (at least in my case) when the language you're in tries to make abstraction of what a pointer really is (like Pascal) as I think one of the strength of C is that it acts more closely to the reality of how things really get done (in a fashion closer to assembly code, although it's portable) and thus makes it alot clearer. (Disclaimer : I've only been doing C for about a year and most of what I work on is DSP programs, thus I rarely have to deal with strings, otherwise I wouldn't like C that much)
For a minute I thought you meant the quote itself was not correctly quoted, but when you say "incorrect" you mean you disagree with it.
Lets say a rapist gets into your house and you have your daughter with you. You can lock yourself in a room (hence safety, but can't go any where yet freedom), to protect her. You only have to give it up untill he's gone, now it may just be me but I think I know what I'd do. Do I suddenly not deserve freedom any more?
Oh, what a shit analogy. What does it have to do with the reality? Does hiding yourself mean losing freedom just because you can't move much? Where's the rapist? If you're talking about terrorists, your analogy totally falls apart, cuz when we know there's a terrorist is around, he's already dead, because terrorist are only feared when they die (for kamikaze terrorists at least). And where's the necessary loss of freedom? Ain't none:
Basically, a 911 type attack is a bullet took to the head. And what we have done before in my analogy means either doing some shit that has nothing to do with it, or start wearing a bulletproof vest. No matter what you do, you'll get a plane in a tower whenever some lunatic feels like. No matter how many bulletproof vests you wear, you'll always be able to take 2 to the head.
You lose freedom not so you can be protected, but because it serves your administration well.
You probably couldn't point out a few positive things America has done for the world, like when we stopped Hitler
Funny, when talking about WWII, it often sounds like the americans did it all, as if what UK and Russia did was so unsignifying that you could take credit for all of it.
freed people from the shackles of communism in east germany and former soviet states
And removed a dangerous socialist president (Salvador Allede) to replace with a more firendly dictator (Augusto Pinochet). You see, fighting against socialism/communism/terrorism or whatever the axis of evil of the day is isn't systematically a good thing. But the USA isn't about doing good in the world, otherwise we would have troops in Nepal, no, what has been done since Eisenhower left the oval office has been done mainly by interest, not to help other people out our to free people from an evil regime.
If there had been no Cold War, would the USA have done anything to stop communism? Of course not, think about China. If we helped the "freedom fighters" (before we rm'ed them to "terrorists") in the 80's in Afghanistan, if we fought against communism, it was to weaken the ennemy, wasn't it?
Whatever else the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan were, they were undeniably not illegal.
At the risk of breaking Godwin's law, I'll say that everything Hitler did was legal.
I'm less clear on the Afghanistan front, but the gov't there was officially harboring the group which killed ~3,000 civilians on our soil, etc.
That makes me wonder, if the terrorists who performed the 911 had been found to belong to the egyptian jihad or whatever they got over there, do you really think we would have invaded Egypt? Can you imagine that? I can't!
Or are you so naive to think that a "war on terrorism" can actually be won?
Exactly, matter of fact it's just a substitute to cold war. It will last for about 40 years during which they'll do whatever they want using war on terror as an excuse for it until for some reason they'll get tired of it / move on to a new thing, although I hardly can see what they might move to next.
Maybe one day the military industrial complex will just magically step out of the oval office...
I only read the post, not TFA (but after all, it's ok, it's Slashdot) and all I can say is wtf, "News : staying in bed inclined by 6 degrees reproducts the effects of zero-g". No joke, I've read about that many times about a couple of years ago, I think I even seen it in the news on TV, about maybe a dozen (or two dozens) of women doing that experiements few several months (or maybe just a couple).
Well I'd be curious to know the specs of the box you've testes FreeBSD on, because I run FreeBSD 6.0 on a Pentium I 133 MHz with 32 MB of RAM and it runs like a charm. No Gnome or KDE tho, just a lightweight window manager (blackbox). Maybe your performance issues have to do with that?
Well I'm quite new to FreeBSD, but I already can tell you that if you got a problem with the ports, pkg_add -r! Personally I always download the packages anyways, mainly because I run it on a Pentium 133, and cuz it's simpler.
And as inexperimented to various unixes as I am, I've had such a though time with various Linuxes to get to install the software I wanted (eh, I'm a n00b!), as I never had any software resisting me yet in FreeBSD
Yeah, I understand clearly what you mean. I agree, an addition is hard for us as it's easy for a computer, and walking is easy for us as it's not for a machine.
But I was comparing a *genuinely* depressed AI to a simpler form of "genuine" AI, and if, provided that we consider the two are theorically feasible, both would be hard to be done, I'm pretty sure that the bug-like AI would be easier to do than the human-like AI.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. And it seems that it's pretty much what everybody on this topic agrees on. Also, I think that if we were able to really simulate right other stuff, there maybe much more interesting stuff to do with it than to try to make AI emerge from it.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Does this run in real-time without the convolution (i.e. just combining the streams together)
I'm not sure about what you mean. It will be able to run in real-time without the convolution, like forwarding the streams, provided that the convolution function gets commented out. That's basically what has to be done now.
2) How do you handle different streams having different sample rates?
You see, I don't know. that's what I'm looking for a device driver developper for, to taking care of that part. I didn't even know there could be such a problem, I thought that everything would be captured as one stream, mainly since it's supposed to "intercept" the stream that is about to go to the audio output, it should be a single stereo stream
3) Are you summing all streamd and then applying the convolution? Or are you convolving a kernel with each stream and then adding the results?
haha, well like I said I didn't know about that whole streams thing, but if there has to be such a problem, then the streams will have to get added together before convolution. The other way around would be incredibly stupid.
4) How large are your buffers? Have you considered cache effects?
I don't know, since I'm not gonna really work on the capturing part, I'd have to ask a device driver programmer what I can use. One thing is for sure, depending on the kernel length, but assuming that the kernel can contain frequencies around 20-30 Hz, the buffer sizes should better be at least 1024 samples long. Cache effects? i'm not sure to remember what it is, but i think it has to do with the data being moved from the memory to the CPU, whatever it is, it had to be included in my non-real-time prototype and thus be included in the performance I claim.
C'mon on, please don't tell me we're gonna see them all on /. today (by "them all" I mean these : http://aprilfools.urgo.org/ )
OK, welcome to the land of the non-sense and consistance, when I posted the parent, the original post was at 0 (and there was at least 3 mods), now it's at +5, GO FIGURE!
Exactly what I thought. I thought today all posts would be like "LMLAO OMFG ROFL KAWAII CHECK THIS SITE OUT!!!! G2G TTYL WUN!!!"
I am disappointed.
Seeing how the grand-parent got modded, I conclude that I hardly understand any logic in the modders mind anyways. Instead of considering using quasars for encryption, they should rather consider using /. mods.
OK, since today the weirdest stuff happens out here, can I get this comment modded up? Looks like there just has to ask. Thanks alot.
So, if I get arrested by the police, for say, chairing someone to death (stoning someone to death with a chair, if you prefer), I might claim that Steve Ballmer made me do it, so I can get his ass in trouble because I don't like him.
Shit, what a bunch of crap. I "pirate", I "steal" (although I don't have the feeling to), but I don't cheat, because that sucks, nothing to do with morals.
Most people who pirate don't cheat, I bet, prove me wrong with figures...
And I think girls like it about as much as boys love porn, I'd say that about 85-90% of girls like erotic stories, other just don't care about them. And some sure do get addicted as well, or at least they are very deep into it.
All this being said, if you can write stories girls like, you're definitly rolling in the pimp lane of internet
I've been both in the position of one of the students who had the thougest times understanding pointers in Pascal, and when I started skipping college and studying C at home I started understanding them really well.
Personally, what prevented me from understanding them back when I was in college was their nature, I didn't understand how it worked. When I started working with C and with heavily sending and returning arrays and values from functions, it only made sense to me when I understood that a pointer was an address, and that for example when you want to send a variable to a function and make it modify it, you have to send its address so the function doesn't have to return a value, but can modify the contents of the indicated address.
Once I understood that pointers suddenly went from mysterious to easy and actually people who tell me about pointers when I say I program in C tell me shit like "so you like pointers, huh?" well I actually do now. I think that pointers are only hard to understand (at least in my case) when the language you're in tries to make abstraction of what a pointer really is (like Pascal) as I think one of the strength of C is that it acts more closely to the reality of how things really get done (in a fashion closer to assembly code, although it's portable) and thus makes it alot clearer. (Disclaimer : I've only been doing C for about a year and most of what I work on is DSP programs, thus I rarely have to deal with strings, otherwise I wouldn't like C that much)
Steve Ballmer made me do it!
Just because the USA helped doesn't allow them to take all the credit, and you can tell me they don't, but lots of americans actually do.
What about these? http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7_fi les/image008.jpg http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7_fi les/image010.jpg
Btw, I fail to see how these 3 buildings didn't fit into their footprints. WTC1 and WTC2 just look spilled all over the ground, but WTC7 fits.
For a minute I thought you meant the quote itself was not correctly quoted, but when you say "incorrect" you mean you disagree with it.
Lets say a rapist gets into your house and you have your daughter with you. You can lock yourself in a room (hence safety, but can't go any where yet freedom), to protect her. You only have to give it up untill he's gone, now it may just be me but I think I know what I'd do. Do I suddenly not deserve freedom any more?
Oh, what a shit analogy. What does it have to do with the reality? Does hiding yourself mean losing freedom just because you can't move much? Where's the rapist? If you're talking about terrorists, your analogy totally falls apart, cuz when we know there's a terrorist is around, he's already dead, because terrorist are only feared when they die (for kamikaze terrorists at least). And where's the necessary loss of freedom? Ain't none :
Basically, a 911 type attack is a bullet took to the head. And what we have done before in my analogy means either doing some shit that has nothing to do with it, or start wearing a bulletproof vest. No matter what you do, you'll get a plane in a tower whenever some lunatic feels like. No matter how many bulletproof vests you wear, you'll always be able to take 2 to the head.
You lose freedom not so you can be protected, but because it serves your administration well.
Funny, when talking about WWII, it often sounds like the americans did it all, as if what UK and Russia did was so unsignifying that you could take credit for all of it.
freed people from the shackles of communism in east germany and former soviet states
And removed a dangerous socialist president (Salvador Allede) to replace with a more firendly dictator (Augusto Pinochet). You see, fighting against socialism/communism/terrorism or whatever the axis of evil of the day is isn't systematically a good thing. But the USA isn't about doing good in the world, otherwise we would have troops in Nepal, no, what has been done since Eisenhower left the oval office has been done mainly by interest, not to help other people out our to free people from an evil regime.
If there had been no Cold War, would the USA have done anything to stop communism? Of course not, think about China. If we helped the "freedom fighters" (before we rm'ed them to "terrorists") in the 80's in Afghanistan, if we fought against communism, it was to weaken the ennemy, wasn't it?
At the risk of breaking Godwin's law, I'll say that everything Hitler did was legal.
I'm less clear on the Afghanistan front, but the gov't there was officially harboring the group which killed ~3,000 civilians on our soil, etc.
That makes me wonder, if the terrorists who performed the 911 had been found to belong to the egyptian jihad or whatever they got over there, do you really think we would have invaded Egypt? Can you imagine that? I can't!
Exactly, matter of fact it's just a substitute to cold war. It will last for about 40 years during which they'll do whatever they want using war on terror as an excuse for it until for some reason they'll get tired of it / move on to a new thing, although I hardly can see what they might move to next.
Maybe one day the military industrial complex will just magically step out of the oval office...
I don't remember well, maybe because it's old
That's very true. Same for me and my father, I write with Firefox on Windows, he writes with ink on paper.
Well I'd be curious to know the specs of the box you've testes FreeBSD on, because I run FreeBSD 6.0 on a Pentium I 133 MHz with 32 MB of RAM and it runs like a charm. No Gnome or KDE tho, just a lightweight window manager (blackbox). Maybe your performance issues have to do with that?
And as inexperimented to various unixes as I am, I've had such a though time with various Linuxes to get to install the software I wanted (eh, I'm a n00b!), as I never had any software resisting me yet in FreeBSD
This and the monthly fee.
But I was comparing a *genuinely* depressed AI to a simpler form of "genuine" AI, and if, provided that we consider the two are theorically feasible, both would be hard to be done, I'm pretty sure that the bug-like AI would be easier to do than the human-like AI.
Harder than what? Than making a chatting genuine AI?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. And it seems that it's pretty much what everybody on this topic agrees on. Also, I think that if we were able to really simulate right other stuff, there maybe much more interesting stuff to do with it than to try to make AI emerge from it.