Random events + selection beats human tuners...

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27673/-A potshot @ David of course! ;-)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27673/ > > A potshot @ David of course! ;-)-It took years to equal nature, if this new method really does. Nature's nanomachines are better than human designs every time.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27673/-MATT: A potshot @ David of course! ;-)-Ugh, ugh, these headline writers!-Quote: "Haye Hinrichsen proposes a solution [...] that may make it possible for electronic tuners to match the performance of the best human tuners."-And Hinrichsen's algorithm, as compared to professional tuners, "doesn't come off badly at all."-If that = BEATS human tuners, we are dancing to a different beat!

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27673/ > > MATT: A potshot @ David of course! ;-) > > Ugh, ugh, these headline writers! > > Quote: "Haye Hinrichsen proposes a solution [...] that may make it possible for electronic tuners to match the performance of the best human tuners." > > And Hinrichsen's algorithm, as compared to professional tuners, "doesn't come off badly at all." > > If that = BEATS human tuners, we are dancing to a different beat!-I read the paper. The theory is rock-solid, all that's needed now is to tweak that algorithm. -It's done, son. ;-)

AgnosticWeb.com

Random events + selection beats human tuners... (Humans)