Networked ground radars (and what we're talking about wasn't even networking, just using radars at the right places) != networked airplane instruments. lol.
"Stupidity" (let's assume it means low IQ) has little to do with success. Success has more to do with education or social background. Or gifts. I.e. you can have a lower IQ, but not be impaired by it by say strong human skills, in which you might do very good in managerial positions, that's just an example. "Stupidity" these days is really just a blanket term that doesn't mean much, but quite often (too often) it's used for poorly educated.
That movie in question is flawed because it's based on the assumption that poor people are stupid. People are no more genetically stupid in Mississippi as they are in Hawaii, it's just that they have different factors, like a poorer diet during childhood which results in a few less IQ points, and obviously an education that Congolese kids wouldn't envy.
The "pilot support" part is no big deal, that won't help you make the aircraft much smaller. Also, the F-22 isn't rated for more acceleration than a person can sustain, so to achieve something higher you'd need to design an aircraft with the extra resistance necessary for that, as well as the avionics to be even able to go there.
But as it turns out I spoke a bit out of ignorance, even if I wasn't necessarily wrong, someone informed me that such combat UAVs are already in the works. The interesting thing is how in many of these designs a large air intake replaces the cockpit.
I see, so in a way it's like "think of the children/teh terrists" here, it's only here to create a leverage to do other stuff, like censoring or wiretapping.
Id like to see that in a porn film, the girl yelling out, "freedom to all, death to taxes, no riaa, get rid of older 50yos in govt!!!, release all aliens info"
Porn actresses rarely share the same agenda as libertarian Slashdotters, you know?;-)
step 1. Get the names of all communist govt people, and all army people and all police people.
step 2. Get their home addresses, and family names.
That's really the easy part, all you have to do is look them all up on the Red Pages (redpages.cn), that's like the White Pages except that on top of giving the phone number and name it also gives you their occupation, street address, maiden name and birth date.
Indeed. What the Chinese government really needs to give to its people is porn, addictive dumb reality TV shows, food and booze. You feel less angry after a good wanking, you'll forget why you were angry in the first place when you'll cross your fingers for Wang Wang to be the next Chinese Idol, a full stomach and some booze will finish knocking you out.
What do you think all the civil unrest is about? Chinese officials themselves have said they were preparing themselves for a year of chaos. Not sure that'll be enough for them to get rid of their government, provided that's even what the protesters want.
Imagine if they did that in our countries? You would feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Slashdotters cried out in anger and considered stepping outside of their home to do something about it.
No that's balls. What is claimed to exist is either falsifiable or it's not, but it doesn't change. Your X-rays comparison is so flawed because it takes things backwards, i.e. claiming something to have been discovered before it has. If you claim "This kind of radiation may exist" you may give details as to why it should exist, like where it's coming from, or its characteristics. It's falsifiable in that, even if at the moment you're unable to validate or invalidate these claims, you could eventually say "no there's no such there, that's for sure, we tested".
The thing with "Matrix theories" is that they're inherently unfalsifiable, basically it's "we're all simulated in a computer and there's no way we could tell if it's true or not". Therefore that's baseless, because it doesn't make any claims about anything. That means you don't have any reason to even suggest these possibilities. I know people are confused with that falsifiability thing, but so are you. "Matrix theories" are just as valid as "big turtle theories", and actually if you compare them they're quite similar in that we project things that are familiar to us, such as computers or turtles, outside/as the basis of our universe. Saying when facing a scientifical question such as that resolution thing "maybe the Matrix simulation did it" is as moronic as saying "maybe God did it". Just another baseless belief. At least beliefs in deities have the merit to have a founding in what some psychiatrists call the collective inconcious, your "theory" only has a founding in a lack of education.
Science cannot measure courage, hope, beauty*, love, the soul, and a myriad of others. Do they exist? Who knows?
Huh yes you can. It's called an electroencephalogram, shows where your brain fires up when you experience these things. Not like it has anything to do with what we're talking about.
Yeah, I know what you mean, that's why I spend much of my time working on examples to try and demonstrate what it can actually be used for, and that it's not just a gimmicky outlandish idea. It's not easy, but on the other hand, at the rate of one sale for every 300 demo downloads, maybe I'm not doing that bad, I guess I need more volume (i.e. more people to visit) but I'm not quite sure how to achieve that either..
Sadly true, but I'd rather have these justice guys take their chances with experts (although I'd say the bias of the expert depends on the person who required their assistance's bias) than never go with an expert (or panel of expert)'s opinion, or even ignoring any sort of consensus among experts.
Maybe it's a sign of the current culture that doesn't value experts as much as it should.
lol, right, more like it didn't even cross their mind to ask the opinion of an expert. If they did you wouldn't have so many senseless and useless laws. It seems more like they thought process is "Hey, let's put a curfew/CCTV there, assuming it'll do anything to reduce crime". I truly think that people who write laws just assume a bunch of shit just because it seems to make sense to them, i.e. "if we teach kids about abstinence then they won't have sex, makes sense to me".
Isn't it the problem? When he left, in the mid 1980s, nothing changed, they kept on doing the same kind of stuff. They almost died. When Jobs went back, bam, iMac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, all successes in new directions. The problem of a Jobs-less Apple isn't that anything would change, it's that nothing would change, as it needs to go in new and risky directions to stay afloat, and that's what Jobs' insight is needed for.
"Seeing sound" refers to the sound's spectrogram. It's frequency on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal axis (see the axis on the screenshot). Yes, an horizontal line will sound like a tone, a vertical line like a click, a diagonal like a chirp. You can see which frequency and pitch a feature matches to by referring to these axis.
If you want to make a guitar sound, it'll look like thin horizontal parallel straight lines that fade out, yes. The height of the lowest line defines which note is played, the distance between each of the parallel line and each of their respective intensity defines how the instrument sounds, defines how warm, metallic, harmonic/anharmonic something sounds.
It's more intuitive than some other approaches, but it's a bit more technical than that. You can't just obtain the sound you want by thinking about it hard and letting your hand do the rest;-) you have to know how to do what you want. As I said, it's pretty low level, but if you want to create a guitar sound, you'll have to look at one first (that is open one with Photosounder and look at the image), then you can "let your hand do the job" by reproducing what you saw/what you remember seeing, and from that point on you can try tweaking things, doing things a bit differently, making some lines or parts brighter, spacing lines differently, adding a sort of glow to make it more noisy, and so on.
And yeah it's more intuitive than looking at waves, looking at waves informs you about little more than the sound's envelope, which is its intensity regardless of frequency. A spectrogram (what I refer to as a sound's image) is more informative in that it shows everything you can hear in a very descriptive way. Although once again it's very low level, it takes a bit of deciphering, depending on what you're looking at. It's very much like a musical score, actually if you loaded a musical score it would sound quite like the tune it's supposed to represent, if you omit the bars. To use a programming analogy, a piano score is like code in a high level language. The compiler (the interpret, or the synthesiser) turns it into sound. Photosounder disassembles this sound into an image, which is a low level representation of the tune, but if you compare it to the original "high level" score, you'll find out that basically the "compiler" turned the score into music by replacing graphically each dot (representing a note) into a set of parallel horizontal lines which are more or less long horizontally, depending on the length of the note interpreted by it. The interest of disassembling is that you can modify anything you want, i.e. you can shift a note up by moving it up, you can shorten one, or you can change the distance in parallel lines to make it sound like a more or less different instrument, and then reassemble the modified result into a sound, by pressing the Play button. Of course it might be more practical to just change the original score and reinterpret it, but maybe you're an electronic musician who wants to modify a bit a specific piano sample.
There are many kinds of echoes. The mountain kind (the one that repeats what you say) can be achieved by just duplicating many times the sound's image, shifting the copies to the right, toning them down a bit (making it darker) and blending the whole. You can get creative and achieve something new by also for example shifting the copies downwards a bit to get something progressively diminishing, or blur them progressively, or rotating them a bit, or whatever you can think of really. A more room-like echo tends to look like random "scanlines" overlaid on the original image.
Yes you can make a sound fuzzy by blurring it, although if you want to make it just more fuzzy in time (i.e. make it sound kind of slower while still playing at the same rate) you could just use an horizontal motion blur. Yes you can sharpen the sound you can erase some blur, that's actually what I do to fix the blur on some
Slashdot Mirror
That didn't intendedly, I was just speaking my mind.
Networked ground radars (and what we're talking about wasn't even networking, just using radars at the right places) != networked airplane instruments. lol.
You are stupid.
"Stupidity" (let's assume it means low IQ) has little to do with success. Success has more to do with education or social background. Or gifts. I.e. you can have a lower IQ, but not be impaired by it by say strong human skills, in which you might do very good in managerial positions, that's just an example. "Stupidity" these days is really just a blanket term that doesn't mean much, but quite often (too often) it's used for poorly educated.
That movie in question is flawed because it's based on the assumption that poor people are stupid. People are no more genetically stupid in Mississippi as they are in Hawaii, it's just that they have different factors, like a poorer diet during childhood which results in a few less IQ points, and obviously an education that Congolese kids wouldn't envy.
The "pilot support" part is no big deal, that won't help you make the aircraft much smaller. Also, the F-22 isn't rated for more acceleration than a person can sustain, so to achieve something higher you'd need to design an aircraft with the extra resistance necessary for that, as well as the avionics to be even able to go there.
But as it turns out I spoke a bit out of ignorance, even if I wasn't necessarily wrong, someone informed me that such combat UAVs are already in the works. The interesting thing is how in many of these designs a large air intake replaces the cockpit.
I see, so in a way it's like "think of the children/teh terrists" here, it's only here to create a leverage to do other stuff, like censoring or wiretapping.
Hehe, interesting. What's up with that porn censor thing though then?
Sure, if one of your principles is to avoid anything produced by anyone who doesn't strictly adhere to your beliefs and principles.
Id like to see that in a porn film, the girl yelling out, "freedom to all, death to taxes, no riaa, get rid of older 50yos in govt!!!, release all aliens info"
Porn actresses rarely share the same agenda as libertarian Slashdotters, you know? ;-)
step 1. Get the names of all communist govt people, and all army people and all police people.
step 2. Get their home addresses, and family names.
That's really the easy part, all you have to do is look them all up on the Red Pages (redpages.cn), that's like the White Pages except that on top of giving the phone number and name it also gives you their occupation, street address, maiden name and birth date.
Hey thanks for the list :-)
Indeed. What the Chinese government really needs to give to its people is porn, addictive dumb reality TV shows, food and booze. You feel less angry after a good wanking, you'll forget why you were angry in the first place when you'll cross your fingers for Wang Wang to be the next Chinese Idol, a full stomach and some booze will finish knocking you out.
What do you think all the civil unrest is about? Chinese officials themselves have said they were preparing themselves for a year of chaos. Not sure that'll be enough for them to get rid of their government, provided that's even what the protesters want.
Imagine if they did that in our countries? You would feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of Slashdotters cried out in anger and considered stepping outside of their home to do something about it.
OK, I understand why they would want to choke civil unrest by censoring dissidents online, but porn? How's that helping them?
Twilight Zone? More like Gulliver's Travels, with the egg ends war.
Next thing you'll know they'll use old modems to communicate over the air by sound.
By the way, has anyone ever done this? I tried to look on Google but couldn't find any such thing.
No that's balls. What is claimed to exist is either falsifiable or it's not, but it doesn't change. Your X-rays comparison is so flawed because it takes things backwards, i.e. claiming something to have been discovered before it has. If you claim "This kind of radiation may exist" you may give details as to why it should exist, like where it's coming from, or its characteristics. It's falsifiable in that, even if at the moment you're unable to validate or invalidate these claims, you could eventually say "no there's no such there, that's for sure, we tested".
The thing with "Matrix theories" is that they're inherently unfalsifiable, basically it's "we're all simulated in a computer and there's no way we could tell if it's true or not". Therefore that's baseless, because it doesn't make any claims about anything. That means you don't have any reason to even suggest these possibilities. I know people are confused with that falsifiability thing, but so are you. "Matrix theories" are just as valid as "big turtle theories", and actually if you compare them they're quite similar in that we project things that are familiar to us, such as computers or turtles, outside/as the basis of our universe. Saying when facing a scientifical question such as that resolution thing "maybe the Matrix simulation did it" is as moronic as saying "maybe God did it". Just another baseless belief. At least beliefs in deities have the merit to have a founding in what some psychiatrists call the collective inconcious, your "theory" only has a founding in a lack of education.
Science cannot measure courage, hope, beauty*, love, the soul, and a myriad of others. Do they exist? Who knows?
Huh yes you can. It's called an electroencephalogram, shows where your brain fires up when you experience these things. Not like it has anything to do with what we're talking about.
Sure, if you leave out the fact that the "Matrix theories" are unfalsifiable, and therefore baseless.
Yeah, I know what you mean, that's why I spend much of my time working on examples to try and demonstrate what it can actually be used for, and that it's not just a gimmicky outlandish idea. It's not easy, but on the other hand, at the rate of one sale for every 300 demo downloads, maybe I'm not doing that bad, I guess I need more volume (i.e. more people to visit) but I'm not quite sure how to achieve that either..
Sadly true, but I'd rather have these justice guys take their chances with experts (although I'd say the bias of the expert depends on the person who required their assistance's bias) than never go with an expert (or panel of expert)'s opinion, or even ignoring any sort of consensus among experts.
Maybe it's a sign of the current culture that doesn't value experts as much as it should.
lol, right, more like it didn't even cross their mind to ask the opinion of an expert. If they did you wouldn't have so many senseless and useless laws. It seems more like they thought process is "Hey, let's put a curfew/CCTV there, assuming it'll do anything to reduce crime". I truly think that people who write laws just assume a bunch of shit just because it seems to make sense to them, i.e. "if we teach kids about abstinence then they won't have sex, makes sense to me".
I fully expect nothing to change in his absence.
Isn't it the problem? When he left, in the mid 1980s, nothing changed, they kept on doing the same kind of stuff. They almost died. When Jobs went back, bam, iMac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, all successes in new directions. The problem of a Jobs-less Apple isn't that anything would change, it's that nothing would change, as it needs to go in new and risky directions to stay afloat, and that's what Jobs' insight is needed for.
Do they even ask the opinion of experts like paedopsychatrists or anything before writing such laws?
"Seeing sound" refers to the sound's spectrogram. It's frequency on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal axis (see the axis on the screenshot). Yes, an horizontal line will sound like a tone, a vertical line like a click, a diagonal like a chirp. You can see which frequency and pitch a feature matches to by referring to these axis.
If you want to make a guitar sound, it'll look like thin horizontal parallel straight lines that fade out, yes. The height of the lowest line defines which note is played, the distance between each of the parallel line and each of their respective intensity defines how the instrument sounds, defines how warm, metallic, harmonic/anharmonic something sounds.
It's more intuitive than some other approaches, but it's a bit more technical than that. You can't just obtain the sound you want by thinking about it hard and letting your hand do the rest ;-) you have to know how to do what you want. As I said, it's pretty low level, but if you want to create a guitar sound, you'll have to look at one first (that is open one with Photosounder and look at the image), then you can "let your hand do the job" by reproducing what you saw/what you remember seeing, and from that point on you can try tweaking things, doing things a bit differently, making some lines or parts brighter, spacing lines differently, adding a sort of glow to make it more noisy, and so on.
And yeah it's more intuitive than looking at waves, looking at waves informs you about little more than the sound's envelope, which is its intensity regardless of frequency. A spectrogram (what I refer to as a sound's image) is more informative in that it shows everything you can hear in a very descriptive way. Although once again it's very low level, it takes a bit of deciphering, depending on what you're looking at. It's very much like a musical score, actually if you loaded a musical score it would sound quite like the tune it's supposed to represent, if you omit the bars. To use a programming analogy, a piano score is like code in a high level language. The compiler (the interpret, or the synthesiser) turns it into sound. Photosounder disassembles this sound into an image, which is a low level representation of the tune, but if you compare it to the original "high level" score, you'll find out that basically the "compiler" turned the score into music by replacing graphically each dot (representing a note) into a set of parallel horizontal lines which are more or less long horizontally, depending on the length of the note interpreted by it. The interest of disassembling is that you can modify anything you want, i.e. you can shift a note up by moving it up, you can shorten one, or you can change the distance in parallel lines to make it sound like a more or less different instrument, and then reassemble the modified result into a sound, by pressing the Play button. Of course it might be more practical to just change the original score and reinterpret it, but maybe you're an electronic musician who wants to modify a bit a specific piano sample.
There are many kinds of echoes. The mountain kind (the one that repeats what you say) can be achieved by just duplicating many times the sound's image, shifting the copies to the right, toning them down a bit (making it darker) and blending the whole. You can get creative and achieve something new by also for example shifting the copies downwards a bit to get something progressively diminishing, or blur them progressively, or rotating them a bit, or whatever you can think of really. A more room-like echo tends to look like random "scanlines" overlaid on the original image.
Yes you can make a sound fuzzy by blurring it, although if you want to make it just more fuzzy in time (i.e. make it sound kind of slower while still playing at the same rate) you could just use an horizontal motion blur. Yes you can sharpen the sound you can erase some blur, that's actually what I do to fix the blur on some
lol.. you're being ironic, right? (sorry I'm too tired to tell)