Slashdot Mirror

Are you truly so incompetent that you cannot perform a simple Internet search? Do people this incompetent actually exist? It's shocking to me, I am sorry. Here you are:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=musicolog ist

While it is possible to just grab a block of stone and just chip away until you have something, most "master" sculptors don't do that - they usually start with sketches and other drawings, then progress through maquettes, and sometimes make multiple versions of the full-size pieces. Large bronzes are almost always done in sections that get connected to a pre-planned framework, and many of those sections get reused elsewhere, albeit with minor changes. (Take a careful look at any large Rodin exhibit and see for yourself).

The sculptor of a large piece is the creative lead, but almost always the actual implementation (once the design work is out of the way) is done with the help of assistants. Truly massive sculptures are almost never credited to a single individual; even if they are, it is understood that they did not do all the work themselves. (eg, the Statue of Liberty).

Traditional architects (as opposed to "software architects") are closely related, but they work in different materials and usually have more practical goals that "artistic" sculptors and obviously have much higher costs of failure than the sculptor. ("Oh, an ugly sculpture - nobody will pay me for that" versus "Oh, the bridge fell down, I just killed 27 people").

If you're so sure you're spelling it right, make it a link to dictionary.com or something.
</troll-bite>

Thanks for the information. Fascinatingly simple exploit...

Wala, you now have rights

just so you know, it's voila. It's French

Pronunciation: 'ha-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity (a tennis hacker)
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

Pronunciation: 'kra-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 chiefly dialect : a bragging liar : BOASTER
2 : something that makes a cracking or snapping noise: as a : FIRECRACKER b : the snapping end of a whiplash : SNAPPER c : a paper holder for a party favor that pops when the ends are pulled sharply
3 plural : NUTCRACKER
4 : a dry thin crispy baked bread product that may be leavened or unleavened
5 a usually disparaging : a poor usually Southern white b capitalized : a native or resident of Florida or Georgia -- used as a nickname
6 : the equipment in which cracking (as of petroleum) is carried out

Pronunciation: 'ha-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity (a tennis hacker)
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

Pronunciation: 'kra-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 chiefly dialect : a bragging liar : BOASTER
2 : something that makes a cracking or snapping noise: as a : FIRECRACKER b : the snapping end of a whiplash : SNAPPER c : a paper holder for a party favor that pops when the ends are pulled sharply
3 plural : NUTCRACKER
4 : a dry thin crispy baked bread product that may be leavened or unleavened
5 a usually disparaging : a poor usually Southern white b capitalized : a native or resident of Florida or Georgia -- used as a nickname
6 : the equipment in which cracking (as of petroleum) is carried out

Not "grammer", but "grammar". "The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences." grammar

Not "eb", but "ebb". "To fall away or back; decline or recede." Ebb.

And funny!

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that maybe "interesting stuff" means stuff that is interesting.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that maybe "interesting stuff" means stuff that is interesting.

It's not ironic, it's hypocritical.

It's not ironic, it's hypocritical.

6. Undisguised; blunt: a bald statement of policy.

Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship! Symbiosis does not mean that there's something in it for both parties! You're thinking of mutualism instead.

Or deprivation, even! :-)

You'd think that anything that involved depravation might include his wife. ;-)

Or deprivation, even! :-)

You'd think that anything that involved depravation might include his wife. ;-)

In my opinion, it should be made a law (A natural phenomenon that has been proven to occur invariably whenever certain conditions are met)...

Laws are for mathematics. You mean it should be made a fact or a theory. Oh, wait - it's already both.

Quay is typable with only the left hand on a Dvorak keyboard. So is pope, pupae, pike, and (probably) others. Note that the calculator on that page is not very good - it is unable to say 100% for "same hand". Try typing the word "i" for an example. I'm not saying whether QWERTY is better, just that your facts are wrong.

A single word has never, in the history of man, desribed any specific incarnation of a Government. Well, except perhaps, the name of the nation itself.

The devil is always in the implementation.

Anyway, the "huge" difference is that here in the US we are generally taught in high school that there is a diffrence. Hey, if our all holy educational system says its so, then it must be God Own Word of Truth, right?

Anyway, you've selected the one definitional aspect of each word to suit your post. If you read the range of meaning behind each word, I think you'll sense a slight difference.

Anyway, in the context of the US, the historially correct selection for 'Republic" is...

'An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.' Republic

The modern fact is that the US republic is long since dead, as the states are no longer autonomous in any serious sense of the word.

Nor am I sure we are a Democracy any longer. If you put a man in an isolation chamber and tell him the building is burning, then ask him to vote between fighting the fire, or planting corn in the field next door -- he'd probably vote for fire fighting. Yes, he is voting in self-interest (as he should), but in this case the Feds just told him there was a fire -- all they needed was to send money to their fire truck making friends (there wasn't). Got their vote, sure - but was it Democratic?

This is the state of the US. When the Government lies, the media lies, and the population is left in the dark save for "marketed information" can the process we go through really be called voting at all? Surely, just by looking at the current state of affairs, the people of the US are no longer the "primary" political power.

Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them

Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives

Can somebody kindly tell me what this "huge difference" is?

Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them

Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives

Can somebody kindly tell me what this "huge difference" is?

thanks for catching my error.

;)

precession

Not very different, those words, but don't go astrogating without the correct one. (-:

precession

Not very different, those words, but don't go astrogating without the correct one. (-:

Please explain to me how RIAA's methodical and careful sobotage of download attempts on N'Sync's latest mp3 on P2P matching a specific hash is a violation of your rights, your privacy, or of criminal or civil law.

It's an illegal denial of service attack. If I put your copyrighted content on my webpage, it's not legal for you to DOS my webserver (or anyone visiting the site). Duh. You could call it self defense if you wanted to, but you would still go to jail.

You really are a sucker if you think they would be careful and methodical. They legal threats they bulk email people with certainly aren't. And they have historically shown no respect for any legitimate use of P2P networks.

Haha! The irony. It's bad if RIAA takes vigilante action, but it's fine if users do take their own form of vigilante action by pirating because RIAA = BAD. Is that your argument?

It's not vigilante action, it's civil disobedience. I don't think you know what a vigilate actually does.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=land

v. landed, landing, lands
v. tr.

1. To bring to and unload on land: land cargo.
2. To set (a vehicle) down on land or another surface: land an airplane smoothly; land a seaplane on a lake.

Actually if we ever catch up to Japan, that's the exact model we'll have here. People will be Encouraged to /gasp/ 'sample' music! I realize I'll probably get my asbestos boxers yanked over my neck (atomic wedgie style) for this heresay but:

I have a friend living in japan right now and they're decades ahead of us in the music side of things.

- You can RENT cd's for around 2 bucks a week.

- You can buy mix cd's right at the damn record store.

- Bands give out data cd's with mp3's/ogg's and other cool digital media right at the concerts.

That's just a quick listing of what he's enjoying, even as a gaijin over there right now. And it's not like he's in downotown Tokyo either!

...new evidence indicating that cell phones can interfere with airplanes' navigation systems.

...new evidence indicating that cell phones can interfere with airplanes' navigation systems.

While I think that the initial question posed in the OP has been addressed, I can't help but think that the real impact Pro Tools has had on commercial music is not lower overall production costs.

Like any software tool, Pro Tools can be an excellent way for skilled people to create good things. It can help novices or amateurs (see meaning [1]) develop their skills relatively cheaply. It can also create a whole universe of music that is flat, bland and mind-numbingly the same.

Whenever a particular tool becomes dominant in a field (whether it "deserves" to be dominant or not) it tends to place it's mark on a wide swath of work in that field. I'm thinking particularly of tools like Photoshop and Quark. Anyone who is familar with these tools is usually familar with the standard dreck that is churned out using them.

I've noticed the same trend with Pro Tools. In some ways, Pro Tools can be a bit of a lie: you can get four guys to stand up and belt out a tune and using Pro Tools you can normalize, compress, expand, quantize and otherwise tweak the hell out of the recording and make it sound good. Or at least as good as everything else.

There is a universal sameness to much Pro Tools produced music. Everything is limited to just below peak. Vocals are compressed, doubled and quantized to unearthly degrees. Each instrument is patched through the standard reverbs de rigueur. There are 128 tracks per song not because they are put to good use, but because you can have 128+ tracks per song.

This is not to say that Pro Tools can't be used to make good music. Nobody could say that, just as nobody could really say that Photoshop can't produce good print-ready images. But Photoshop is not a good tool to paint a picture, and Pro Tools does not replace the entire studio and a smart engineer with big ears behind the console.

As a musician, the trick is to know the limitations of your gadgets. Pro Tools will not, and can not, replace old-fashioned tracking, microphone placement, wet/dry mixes, or human-tuned compression.

The success of Pro Tools has created the Pro Tools sound, and one that I am not overly fond of. As music in the digital domain matures, I hope and expect we will move away from overuse of any single tool. This seems to be the history of popular music, anway.

Well, if you are not the obvious anonymous coward. Try logging in.

Anyways.

Or the fact that having an "overpowering offense to keep the peace" is called Totalitarianism?

Bzzt, wrong.

Totalitarianism is when a goverment oppresses its own people with absolute power. I am not suggesting that we oppress our own people, more protect them from other governments which desire harm to our people. Hence, saving our lives. Little difference there.

Or that your argument that we should keep pouring money into developing arms "until you can say without a doubt that noone will ever attack anyone else" not only ignores the fact that the same money could save lives in other ways (e.g. medical research) but also ignores the possibility that a certain nation already has such a military advantage that there is the ROI of continued research is quite low. When you already have an overwhelming advantage, having more of an overwhelming advantage seems pointless (and in the meantime, AIDS is still killing people).

Good point, its not like we are not allocating resources elseware though. So, -1 for thinking we can only do one thing at a time. You probably also think we should send food and humanitarian supplies to Iraq and not give work on setting up phone systems and training folks there to be self sufficient. Well, we are sending humanitarian supplies and also working on setting up phone systems along with a ton of other infrastructure.

Tell me does not this ROI also level off with money spent in other research areas? So, as you argue that ROI in military spending you also get the same thing in other research areas.

There is no such thing as a invincible military. As more countries gain nuclear arsenals the better we need to be prepared against it. The problem with research is that once the original is done, copying it is considerabley easier. When we were the only country to have nukes, it didn't take russia long to have them. Especially with weapons that have a low acuracey requirement and relatively high yeild (nukes and other wmd) that can be build for relatively low costs there is no such thing currently as overpowering force.

And, yes, until you can prove that N. Korea wouldn't try to go to war with S. Korea or anyone; Prove that China wouldn't want to go to war with Tiawan to reintegrate them into China; Prove that Jordan/Lybia/Egypt/etc wouldn't want to exterminate Isreal just cause they exist; Prove that every country would not go to war for any reason, military spending makes sense.

I'm pretty sure any lawyer that helped you with this would be charged with barratry, or for vexatious litigation.

I'm not sure if individuals can be charged with something similar. You'd have to look it up. :)

Note that the charges you are laying can still have some merit, but doing them in an attempt to subdue the defence isn't legal.

However, I don't feel ALL dumb because at least I didn't mispell the word proNUNciation (although I probably mispelled others).

Fascism:Extreme right-wing dictatorial government,belligerently nationalist,that merges state and business leadership

From dictionary.com:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Central authority? Check. Stringent socioeconomic controls? Check. Suppression of opposition through terror and censorship? Check--the KGB was really good at that. Belligerent nationalism, etc? Check.

Funny, Soviet-style Communism sounds an awful lot like fascism, but without all that "extreme right-wing" stuff.

So you're less interested in starting a computer club then you are in "educating" people in Windows alternatives. That's called proselytizing, not educating.

Every time someone suggests that, God kills a pygmy marmoset. Please, for the sake of the marmosets, stop.

I thought a matrix was just a mathematical array.

So I looked it up, and whacha know, you're right. Womb is number two in the list. Mathematical arrays are number 8a. It's actually quite an informative entry, especially the first definition, which ties the rest together.

No, no, you see, we (where "we" is defined as Bush, the Hawks, and Big Business; the ruling class of the US) don't expect them to make any music, and even if they did, we don't care if they make any money off it. The reason we're using Darth Rosen is to make sure those citizens of Iraq who want to listen to N'Sync's latest abomination have to contribute $20 a piece to the record companies who so generously contributed the legislation.

After all, without the so gererously contributed (and, above-all, critical) legislation, Iraq would be plunged into a state of anarchy in which citizens could listen to pirated music for free and rich americans would suffer millions, trillions, and octillians in lost revenue and probably starve.

a tiny or scarcely detectable amount

The "target" is irrelevent, at least by the definition of the word. It simply has to be for purposes of comedic effect or ridicule.
Check it out.

For the SS cartoon to be free from a charge of being an unauthorized derivative work of the Strawberry Shortcake(R) property, it needs to actually be making a protected statement about SS, American Greetings, etc.

Actually, the definition of the word "parody" includes no such stipulation. The comic's a parody, by definition.

The real question to ask is not wether it's a parody, but wether the law defines restrictions on the content of parodies that PA is not in compliance with.

I hate to be pedantic, but the difference is rather signifigant.

parody - A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

Hopefully you can agree that the above is an accurate definition, and you might even go so far as to find legal and court references to the definition of a parody. With that in mind, I'd love to hear how you can call the artwork a parody of Strawberry Shortcake(R).

Look it up: tourism

Also see:
This
and
This

It's as if a well fed westerner telling a poor hungry 3rd world citizen to stay away from the truffles because they will give him a bad case of indigestion. Hypocritical at best...

So, are you saying that I don't believe that Monster.com is a scumbag organization? That I have some sekrit plan to keep the joyous motherlode of high-quality opportunities at Monster.com all for my eviil self?

Perhaps you might consider that I am an employer, and that therefore my views on where I will and won't look for candidates might be of some use to job seekers.

So for those who might actually care, when I am recruiting I post & read in these kinds of forums:

• local Linux user group mailing lists (we are a Linux vendor)
• local system administration mailing lists (I have high respect for admins as potential developers)
• Craig's List
• Security Jobs
• "networking", i.e. friends of friends

Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase

That would help more if people would stop writing articles that read like:

"There's an article on CNN about a new sequel to the popular PC game Half-Life by Valve Software (and published by Sierra Entertainment. I'm sure all of Slashdot will be glad to hear this news. GamePro also has an article. The White House had no comment.

writing software for free might be a coder pride thing, but folks, vanity don't pay the rent or the groceries. Unless you're independently wealthy, you have to be doing something to pay for the pork and beans.

Hobby: "An activity or interest pursued outside one's regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure."

Nothing there about needing to be independently wealthy to have one ;)

As the "human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature", I would say that HTML is not art; designing web sites has little to do with imitating nature, though some existential definition of nature could include anything man has ever developed to be a part of nature...

As the "conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty", HTML(or web design in general) is certainly art, which I think should be obvious to just about everyone.

Art, to me, is expression exposed to the senses. HTML is only the structure of the web page, but as it allows extensive creativity and certainly exposes a variety of potential sensory stimulations on a computer screen, utilizing HTML is certainly art in my opinion.

Any objections?

Well, the problem with "art" is that it's notoriously difficult to define.

Let's try something else - can we prove that code can be poetry?

Poetry also tends to avoid definition; however, I think the best definition I've heard is that poetry is succinct use of language.

Since, say, C++ affords an enormous economy of expression, and a vast number of ways to accomplish a given task, then performing a given task in an elegant, succint way is surely perfectly valid poetry.

You can also argue the case with dictionary.com's definition of poetry: "a quality that suggests poetry, as in grace, beauty, or harmony: the poetry of the dancer's movements."