I just looked up the word in order to harangue recent usage, and found out I was wrong. we teach contextual language acquisition, because that is how people normally learn. and when it goes horribly wrong we have a completely tangential conversation about whether this is good.
I think I will return to correcting people again. except for begging the question, because we lost that one years ago
risk communication is a real field that covers the same ground as this submission, regardless of the source. you can't dismiss out of hand any source. you might not bother corroborating, but someone should.
Pj got dragged through the mud and personally attacked just covering a minor intellectual property skirmish. Reporting the mundane briefs and filings of copyright proceedings.
Sure it was big news here, but in mainstream msm media it was a mousefart.
After that, in a real showdown with the actual government on one side, would you stick around? I wouldn't.
First amendment of which document? I don't know of any British Congress. USA, which does have a congress and bill of rights, threw out the brits, making a separate legal system.
The typical Slashdot thread, where a bunch of semi-related facts get thrown in a blender and nothing good comes out.
Indeed, hasn't music *always* been open source?
In the sense of one composer re-using parts of someone else's work, yes until recently. Imitation was flattery, and it has always been clever to quote something. Open source in the sense of "take this and do stuff with it"? No.
Composers have not been publishing their sheet music for everyone to see.
Composers have been publishing their music, but not for everyone to see. For everyone to buy, yes, but not see freely.
Actually historically many (most) composers did publish sheet music - it was one of the few ways they could make money from their art, conducting and taking commissions being the others.
It sounds like you are making a correction, but you aren't, unless you misread the "for everyone to see" part.
And anyway why would they need to publish their sheet music for others to build upon their work? Sheet music is not the source code, it's the note-cards you take to the podium.
Apparently you can memorize every note by hearing it once or twice - please go to the nearest university psychology department. They will want to scan your brain and see what makes you extremely rare, like one in hundreds of million rare. Or maybe you can remember the key and general shape of a complete work by hearing it once or twice - still on the order of one in 10,000 at the most generous.
any decent composer can listen to a piece only once or twice before creating their own composition clearly inspired by it
Oh, that's all you meant? That's not open source, that's art. You're talking about downloading a tarball of Quake 3 and making a completely new game, art and all. A mostly new work with foundations in the original. "Variations on a theme of" is one of the most popular ways to start a title for work like this, and no music is needed.
If you just need to patch two measures of Beethoven because there's just no way he was *that* dissonant, and you're pretty sure the original manuscript was just mis-read, good luck doing that without music. That is what open source implies.
I was wrong in that it was allowed by prescription for 10 years, but then outlawed completely. Controlled substances act was 1970, 50 years after Heroin was banned, so there was clearly no medicinal use at that time.
Yes it was sold as a sedative for kids, and for colic, for for any reason Bayer could think of - those ads have been circulating online for at least a decade. I should remind you that advertising and availability don't mean there is a legitimate medicinal use, and certainly don't apply after the product has been banned. The controlled substances act says "currently accepted medical use", and at that time there was not one.
I meant to post more on marijuana since that is a far more interesting read. The testimony of Anslinger is well documented, should you seek it.
The American Medical Association, which would likely have argued the medicinal benefits of marijuana, was notified only two days prior to the hearing. Their representative, Dr. William Woodward, denounced the hearings as being rooted in tabloid sensationalism, and demanded an explanation for the secrecy involved. Anslinger ignored Woodward's vociferous objections -- when before the vote he was asked by Congress if the AMA agreed that the bill should be passed, a member of Anslinger's committee replied, "Yes, they are in complete agreement."
Public domain is not open source, that's not what this article is talking about. And GPL as it is makes no sense to apply to music, because then you have to re-define words like "binary" and "source" for it to even be applicable. In a legal document, which the GPL is, you just don't do that kind of shit. You have to say what you mean, or it's unenforceable. And by the time you re-defined everything, you have re-created Creative Commons in a much more verbose way and deserve to be cock-punched (or kicked in the box if that's your anatomy)
It sounds like the author has not heard of Creative Commons, but there is one mention of it ("bring together the ideas of the Creative Commons and open source to create a new, sustainable future for music"), and the article is licensed as CC. What it actually is, is someone who is unable to write a coherent thesis, mixing terms and concepts that don't make any sense together except metaphorically.
The core of the article seems to be about applying ideas that Glenn Gould put forward in 1966 to today's music. This is already taken care of by CC licensing. Kanye West, Peter Gabriel, Radiohead, and others have already allowed people to do most of this, legally.
The closest to true "open source" is Chapel Club, a band that I've never heard about and don't really care to after reading that article.
That was Nov. 2012, pretty much a year ago now. Kanye was in 2008. The example given is Open Goldberg Variations, which is Creative Commons licensed, which is different from open source (conceptually the same but the terms are different). Apparently some or all of it is now Commons Zero, basically public domain. So if there is already a name for this, and a license permitting it, what is the point of this article?
Can there be open source music? Let's all just say no, it doesn't make sense to stretch the idea of "source code" which, thanks to court cases like the SCO debacle, already have a well defined meaning (legally I mean).
It seems to me that music for which a written score exists is open source by definition, the score being the "source code" for the music.
By what definition? The source code exists in the form of a score. That doesn't make it open source. The code for Windows is available to researchers and governments. That doesn't make it open source.
If you're saying merely that the code exists, full stop, then we're not talking about the same thing.
Read what you wrote again. You are not talking about the same thing as yourself, but I'm going to let that one by with just a warning.
You can buy, for a trivial cost, sheet music which is (if you will) a mathematical representation of the music in question, allowing reproduction, even if not accounting for individual interpretation (which as I've said elsewhere, is *individual*).
You can rent the "book" for Phantom of the Opera, you can buy Sibelius symphony number 1, you can get the music and accompaniment for a saxophone solo suitable for a 15 year old. All have different costs, but the source code exists. And only the last one will be trivial.
These are representative prices for high school age and younger - Southern Music. They are the first I could think of off the top of my head. The individual solos are in the $20 or less range. Do you want to get the complete words and music for Rent or Wicked? $12 on Amazon. Can you perform that? No. Licensing is complicated. How is that open source? Or, how does that qualify as trivial? Either answer would be good, both would be excellent.
In what way is this "allowing reproduction"? You are bound by copyright law to not reproduce it. And again, if this is licensed in public domain or Creative Commons then we are not talking about "open source". Creative Commons was created for a whole class of things that don't fit the idea of "open source" but allow similar rights.
How does it stand up to the open source definition from OSI?
Free Redistribution - Nope, it's protected by copyright. You can't copy it, but you can give it to someone else (unless you are just renting, which is what most large ensembles would do).
Derived Works - no, you can't make changes. You can perform it incorrectly, but you can't deviate substantially without either permission from the author, or some other loophole in copyright law, such as parody. You certainly can't pass on any changes you make unless it's a simple "diff" (errata sheet in other words)
So in what way is the source code being available for any price (trivial or not) make the music open source?
No more than windows source code existing makes Windows open source.
The score would have to be permissively licensed.
Open source music doesn't have much need, as the essence can be taken without the score. CC is more relevant, allowing sampling and remixing. I can't see any point for calling that open source music.
Pharma conspiracy nutters. Heroin has never been prescribed, nor has marijuana. Therefore no recognized medical use, as of when they were classified. The AMA was asked specifically, and their representative said flatly yes, schedule 1.
Natural marijuana is not consistent in its potency nor makeup, and only a few cannabinoids are understood. It makes sense to make marinol less restricted, according to the classification system.
IIRC, prenda got companies to assign copyright si they could prosecute. There was another newspaper scheme that failed because they did not act on behalf of any copyright owner. Prenda took that failure, plugged the hole, and thought it could print money. If the fucktard who editorialized meant this, he could have posted some reference. I think it was intentional trolling for page loads, myself.
The personality traits that make someone enter a personality contest to be one of less than 600 people who can determine the direction of the mist powerful empire coincide with those which underpin amoral choices.
I started typing because I really didn't care, but now I realize these are the least desirable candidates.
Once in office, however, personal choices validate their election, at least according to the current electoral system. They immediately lose credence as a candidate, but gain as a duly elected leader. It remains irrelevant.
The levels of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in conservatives who fell from grace cannot be healthy. Especially when their career and marriage ends publicly. Does that not qualify as pathological?
Win-p-u starts ultra edit. Win-d starts my custom app Win+d- I enter starts Ida pro
I have plenty of programs that start with 3 keys or less, and I like it that way. Fast access goes in start menu, infrequent usage that needs to be findable goes on desktop.
I am not typing an application name and getting 15 documents and emails in the list, because that is not helpful
I am a keyboard jockey, I can get things done quickly. And I do not need a touch interface between me and my goals.
The entire metro UI is merging Xbox and mobile onto the desktop. For most users, once you get past the learning curve It's fine. But the people who do serious work need a place to get that work done.
With that logic, they would be hosting child rape fantasies, calls for assassination on named targets, and all manner of things that, while speech, violate the TOS. And more importantly put them in legal crosshairs.
And I don't think it has been tested, but killing yourself may take you out of having rights to vote, from searches since officials have to verify cause of death, and probably speech.
And his license said anyone could do anything with it. Yahoo did exactly that.
While generally true, how is that observation relevant here?
Google does not need to pay people 1/5 of their salaries to hack on random projects whetheir offerings are mature, and between android and chromebook they have plenty of actual development on real products.
They are unlikely to die from this, and if they need to it is easily reinstated.
with the exception of some of the Alzheimer stuff he mentioned every thing he described is treatable
That makes me feel bad for the dude. You mean he didn't actually have any reason to off himself? You could have told him that, I'm sure he would have listened to reason in his highly emotional state of mind.
And the idea that a corporation with shareholders should in some way show compassion, you're cute.
Yahoo should have considered the negative publicity, proving that pre-paid means nothing after death. More likely they have legal advice that keeping a site which will be cited as a suicide advocate is more expensive in the long term than lost revenue.
It doesn't matter that the site is a personal opinion and as neutral as it can be while still explaining. If a ridiculous court case popped up, Yahoo would have to defend itself with no way to either pass the blame onto the guy, or at least have him explain that it was not an advocacy position. Because he's dead.
And that is the important bit. If Yahoo had found out about this while he was alive, he would have been able to switch providers, and probably ask for a refund. But it was not an actual suicide note until he did it, so it could have qualified as fantasy or even therapy.
When the dude bit it, it became reality, and business hates ties to reality when it could point to legal issues later. Kind of a catch-22 where it doesn't bother Yahoo until it's too late to talk to the dude about it.
But it's not censorship. Your misunderstanding of words doesn't mean that's what they mean.
Slashdot Mirror
we are used to unreliable and useless here, you might get more helpful answers if you asked /b/ where they get their tech news.
I just looked up the word in order to harangue recent usage, and found out I was wrong. we teach contextual language acquisition, because that is how people normally learn. and when it goes horribly wrong we have a completely tangential conversation about whether this is good.
I think I will return to correcting people again. except for begging the question, because we lost that one years ago
flow is even more important now, with screen sizes between 4 inches and 60 plus inches.
if you want precise control, there is a portable document format that does a great job.
quit whining.
why aren't they exploring x instead of y?
people who explore math instead of global warming are a drain on the global economy.
anthropologists are a net drain on intracranial induction, preventing me from experiencing life as gorillas know it.
all scientists researching something other than my interest waste my time.
done here?
risk communication is a real field that covers the same ground as this submission, regardless of the source. you can't dismiss out of hand any source. you might not bother corroborating, but someone should.
Pj got dragged through the mud and personally attacked just covering a minor intellectual property skirmish. Reporting the mundane briefs and filings of copyright proceedings.
Sure it was big news here, but in mainstream msm media it was a mousefart.
After that, in a real showdown with the actual government on one side, would you stick around? I wouldn't.
What the fuck are you on about, and why should anyone give enough of a shit to even look it up?
First amendment of which document? I don't know of any British Congress. USA, which does have a congress and bill of rights, threw out the brits, making a separate legal system.
The typical Slashdot thread, where a bunch of semi-related facts get thrown in a blender and nothing good comes out.
In the sense of one composer re-using parts of someone else's work, yes until recently. Imitation was flattery, and it has always been clever to quote something. Open source in the sense of "take this and do stuff with it"? No.
Composers have been publishing their music, but not for everyone to see. For everyone to buy, yes, but not see freely.
It sounds like you are making a correction, but you aren't, unless you misread the "for everyone to see" part.
Apparently you can memorize every note by hearing it once or twice - please go to the nearest university psychology department. They will want to scan your brain and see what makes you extremely rare, like one in hundreds of million rare. Or maybe you can remember the key and general shape of a complete work by hearing it once or twice - still on the order of one in 10,000 at the most generous.
Oh, that's all you meant? That's not open source, that's art. You're talking about downloading a tarball of Quake 3 and making a completely new game, art and all. A mostly new work with foundations in the original. "Variations on a theme of" is one of the most popular ways to start a title for work like this, and no music is needed.
If you just need to patch two measures of Beethoven because there's just no way he was *that* dissonant, and you're pretty sure the original manuscript was just mis-read, good luck doing that without music. That is what open source implies.
I was wrong in that it was allowed by prescription for 10 years, but then outlawed completely. Controlled substances act was 1970, 50 years after Heroin was banned, so there was clearly no medicinal use at that time.
Yes it was sold as a sedative for kids, and for colic, for for any reason Bayer could think of - those ads have been circulating online for at least a decade. I should remind you that advertising and availability don't mean there is a legitimate medicinal use, and certainly don't apply after the product has been banned. The controlled substances act says "currently accepted medical use", and at that time there was not one.
I meant to post more on marijuana since that is a far more interesting read. The testimony of Anslinger is well documented, should you seek it.
The American Medical Association, which would likely have argued the medicinal benefits of marijuana, was notified only two days prior to the hearing. Their representative, Dr. William Woodward, denounced the hearings as being rooted in tabloid sensationalism, and demanded an explanation for the secrecy involved. Anslinger ignored Woodward's vociferous objections -- when before the vote he was asked by Congress if the AMA agreed that the bill should be passed, a member of Anslinger's committee replied, "Yes, they are in complete agreement."
http://www.reefermadness.org/propaganda/essay2.html
Public domain is not open source, that's not what this article is talking about. And GPL as it is makes no sense to apply to music, because then you have to re-define words like "binary" and "source" for it to even be applicable. In a legal document, which the GPL is, you just don't do that kind of shit. You have to say what you mean, or it's unenforceable. And by the time you re-defined everything, you have re-created Creative Commons in a much more verbose way and deserve to be cock-punched (or kicked in the box if that's your anatomy)
It sounds like the author has not heard of Creative Commons, but there is one mention of it ("bring together the ideas of the Creative Commons and open source to create a new, sustainable future for music"), and the article is licensed as CC. What it actually is, is someone who is unable to write a coherent thesis, mixing terms and concepts that don't make any sense together except metaphorically.
The core of the article seems to be about applying ideas that Glenn Gould put forward in 1966 to today's music. This is already taken care of by CC licensing. Kanye West, Peter Gabriel, Radiohead, and others have already allowed people to do most of this, legally.
The closest to true "open source" is Chapel Club, a band that I've never heard about and don't really care to after reading that article.
That was Nov. 2012, pretty much a year ago now. Kanye was in 2008. The example given is Open Goldberg Variations, which is Creative Commons licensed, which is different from open source (conceptually the same but the terms are different). Apparently some or all of it is now Commons Zero, basically public domain. So if there is already a name for this, and a license permitting it, what is the point of this article?
Can there be open source music? Let's all just say no, it doesn't make sense to stretch the idea of "source code" which, thanks to court cases like the SCO debacle, already have a well defined meaning (legally I mean).
By what definition? The source code exists in the form of a score. That doesn't make it open source. The code for Windows is available to researchers and governments. That doesn't make it open source.
Read what you wrote again. You are not talking about the same thing as yourself, but I'm going to let that one by with just a warning.
You can rent the "book" for Phantom of the Opera, you can buy Sibelius symphony number 1, you can get the music and accompaniment for a saxophone solo suitable for a 15 year old. All have different costs, but the source code exists. And only the last one will be trivial.
These are representative prices for high school age and younger - Southern Music. They are the first I could think of off the top of my head. The individual solos are in the $20 or less range. Do you want to get the complete words and music for Rent or Wicked? $12 on Amazon. Can you perform that? No. Licensing is complicated. How is that open source? Or, how does that qualify as trivial? Either answer would be good, both would be excellent.
In what way is this "allowing reproduction"? You are bound by copyright law to not reproduce it. And again, if this is licensed in public domain or Creative Commons then we are not talking about "open source". Creative Commons was created for a whole class of things that don't fit the idea of "open source" but allow similar rights.
How does it stand up to the open source definition from OSI?
Free Redistribution - Nope, it's protected by copyright. You can't copy it, but you can give it to someone else (unless you are just renting, which is what most large ensembles would do).
Derived Works - no, you can't make changes. You can perform it incorrectly, but you can't deviate substantially without either permission from the author, or some other loophole in copyright law, such as parody. You certainly can't pass on any changes you make unless it's a simple "diff" (errata sheet in other words)
So in what way is the source code being available for any price (trivial or not) make the music open source?
No more than windows source code existing makes Windows open source.
The score would have to be permissively licensed.
Open source music doesn't have much need, as the essence can be taken without the score. CC is more relevant, allowing sampling and remixing. I can't see any point for calling that open source music.
Pharma conspiracy nutters. Heroin has never been prescribed, nor has marijuana. Therefore no recognized medical use, as of when they were classified. The AMA was asked specifically, and their representative said flatly yes, schedule 1.
Natural marijuana is not consistent in its potency nor makeup, and only a few cannabinoids are understood. It makes sense to make marinol less restricted, according to the classification system.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, just answering.
IIRC, prenda got companies to assign copyright si they could prosecute.
There was another newspaper scheme that failed because they did not act on behalf of any copyright owner. Prenda took that failure, plugged the hole, and thought it could print money.
If the fucktard who editorialized meant this, he could have posted some reference. I think it was intentional trolling for page loads, myself.
The personality traits that make someone enter a personality contest to be one of less than 600 people who can determine the direction of the mist powerful empire coincide with those which underpin amoral choices.
I started typing because I really didn't care, but now I realize these are the least desirable candidates.
Once in office, however, personal choices validate their election, at least according to the current electoral system.
They immediately lose credence as a candidate, but gain as a duly elected leader. It remains irrelevant.
The levels of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in conservatives who fell from grace cannot be healthy. Especially when their career and marriage ends publicly. Does that not qualify as pathological?
Win-p-u starts ultra edit.
Win-d starts my custom app
Win+d- I enter starts Ida pro
I have plenty of programs that start with 3 keys or less, and I like it that way. Fast access goes in start menu, infrequent usage that needs to be findable goes on desktop.
I am not typing an application name and getting 15 documents and emails in the list, because that is not helpful
I am a keyboard jockey, I can get things done quickly. And I do not need a touch interface between me and my goals.
The entire metro UI is merging Xbox and mobile onto the desktop. For most users, once you get past the learning curve It's fine. But the people who do serious work need a place to get that work done.
Firefox is ported, therefore you don't need source for it, either. And ie runs on wine, so mission accomplished?
The only person who has real standing is dead, so it doesn't have to hold up.
And if you enter a contract that terminates when you do, suicide is probably not the best follow-up act. Lesson learned, check the small print.
With that logic, they would be hosting child rape fantasies, calls for assassination on named targets, and all manner of things that, while speech, violate the TOS. And more importantly put them in legal crosshairs.
And I don't think it has been tested, but killing yourself may take you out of having rights to vote, from searches since officials have to verify cause of death, and probably speech.
And his license said anyone could do anything with it. Yahoo did exactly that.
While generally true, how is that observation relevant here?
Google does not need to pay people 1/5 of their salaries to hack on random projects whetheir offerings are mature, and between android and chromebook they have plenty of actual development on real products.
They are unlikely to die from this, and if they need to it is easily reinstated.
Knee jerk much?
That makes me feel bad for the dude. You mean he didn't actually have any reason to off himself? You could have told him that, I'm sure he would have listened to reason in his highly emotional state of mind.
Because it's not censorship.
And the idea that a corporation with shareholders should in some way show compassion, you're cute.
Yahoo should have considered the negative publicity, proving that pre-paid means nothing after death. More likely they have legal advice that keeping a site which will be cited as a suicide advocate is more expensive in the long term than lost revenue.
It doesn't matter that the site is a personal opinion and as neutral as it can be while still explaining. If a ridiculous court case popped up, Yahoo would have to defend itself with no way to either pass the blame onto the guy, or at least have him explain that it was not an advocacy position. Because he's dead.
And that is the important bit. If Yahoo had found out about this while he was alive, he would have been able to switch providers, and probably ask for a refund. But it was not an actual suicide note until he did it, so it could have qualified as fantasy or even therapy.
When the dude bit it, it became reality, and business hates ties to reality when it could point to legal issues later. Kind of a catch-22 where it doesn't bother Yahoo until it's too late to talk to the dude about it.
But it's not censorship. Your misunderstanding of words doesn't mean that's what they mean.
Better quality of life is the whole point of treating aging. Longevity will probably be a nice benefit.
If we keep bodies healthy until they expire, they can enjoy old age without the health issues.
And no one will be forced treatment, so you can still suffer frailty and restriction if you want.