On 6/12/2011 5:21, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Hahaha! Yes, the solution to something really inaccurate is to use
>>> something even *more* inaccurate! :-D
>>
>> Yes. We do that all the time. What do you think digital technology is?
>
> Using a digital representation for something which is actually continuous
> allows you to trade an insignificant degrees in capture precision for an
> infinite gain in copy fidelity.

That's what you want here. You have a number in your head. You want to copy 
it into the computer. You have a continuous, imprecise channel to do so, 
namely spoken words.

So you go digital. "Zero", "One", "Two", ...

You lose all the wonderful subtleties ones voice can convey, and you wind up 
with something very precise and accurate, by limiting the analog channel to 
only carrying digital information.

> What you're proposing is akin to "hey, it's really hard to hit a dart board
> from 237 cm away; let's try doing in blind-fold instead".

Nonsense. I'm proposing an alternative to a keyboard, is all. It's not like 
I'm recommending that you whistle the pitch that corresponds to the height 
of the box you want to draw.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message