When did Pink Floyd ever write a modal melody that blossomed into florid counterpoint
The Great Gig in the Sky is in dorian mode that wonderfully mirrors the dorian in one of the previous songs in the album, Breathe, but then, towards the end, it seamlessly turns into a sweet ionian melody that ends the otherwise conflicted piece in a soothing tone.
or discovered a way to make the D triad follow the C# triad, through a harmonic intensification of a melodic element
While I wouldn't say they 'discovered' it, a succession of triads in that interval is not that uncommon. You'll find it in Money on the same album for example
Or when do you see anything even remotely close to the technique of taking a tune or theme and successively chipping it away to motivic nothings?
Too many examples. The whole Dark Side of the Moon is variations on the same tune. The tune is especially aggressively deconstructed in the song Money.
Even a minor composer from 18th century Bohemia, Zdenek Fibich, showed more harmonic creativity than Bruce Springsteen. I mean, have you actually listened to "Born in the USA?" The monotonous repetitions are so tiring.
Yes, as far as I know, Bruce Springsteen is musically not very interesting. But if you can't see the difference between him and Lady Gaga and Pink Floyd, then you know nothing about modern music
But while we are at it - when was the last time your Beethoven integrated ambient sounds seamlessly into his music, like Pink Floyd did with cash register sounds that they wowed sublimely into a 7/4 beat of the song Money (that later erupts in a 4/4 swing guitar solo)? When did he play with the color and the texture of the sound the way modern artists do ever since the early jazz times? When did he use intricate polyrythms with counter-beats - did he even use ONE syncopation in his work? His music is just flat!
True. But Foxconn is no more evil than the farms for making its production more efficient. If somebody would like to force Foxconn to stop making its factories more efficient, they might as well force farmers to dump their tractors and combines.
Do you also care as much about all the people that lost their work when agricultural automation became wide spread? Do you cry for the thousands of workers that might have been tilling the land manually instead of just one guy riding a tractor - when you eat your morning cereals/bread/whatever? And don't tell me you only eat stuff from your local farmer's market, because those people use automation too. How is factory automation any different?
If any law was perverted into a problem it was the case of a perverted lawmaker. You can 'pervert' any law. You might have had a case in 1947 saying 'if today they ask to ban national socialism, what are they going to ban tomorrow?' But today, after 60 years of not banning any additional ideologies you are just silly.
So it is there to allow people to say `but we're not like that anymore!' after all. Not that I'm saying they are, understand?
So what *are* you saying?
I'm just trying to understand the rational basis of forbidding all depictions of Nazi symbols, even in stories in which they are (quite literally) demonized.
Doom is not censored in Germany after the case was appealed by the distributor. Wolfenstein 3D is. And yes, it is a silly case based mainly on the fact that the bureaucrats in 1990 did not understand what a video game was. If someone goes through the motions to release Wolfenstein from censorship just like they did with Doom, I'm sure it would be free to distribute.
Oh no, that's okay, I believe you. Could you please explain to an ignorant, uncultured amerkan what purpose the censorship serves after sixty years if it is not for the purpose that I have stated?
It's forbidden because the Nazi movement is still alive today and the majority disapproves of it. If any German politician campaigned for removing the nazi ban law, the public would tear him into shreds.
It isn't. The law permits the use of the symbols in research and educational contexts. Every person in Germany learns about the Nazi regime at school at large and in negative context. Just ask your nearest German.
Yes, all free... unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version". Or if you are muslim, and want to wear observant clothing. Or if you have a reason to defend yourself. Etc.
The upshot: "Based on the vast majority of the empirical work to date, HFT and automated,competing trading venues have substantially improved market liquidity and reduced trading costs for all investors. Share prices are almost surely higher as a result of this reduction in trading costs, benefiting long-term investors. Higher share prices also have favorable implications for firms\ cost of equity capital. "
You are mixing apples and oranges here. Automated trading and HFT are not the same thing. Automated trading does provide substantially improved liquidity and reduced trading cost. HFT on the other hand does not demonstrably reduce trading costs (or at best the jury is still out on that) and the liquidity it provides means your transaction can go through in a fraction of a second rather than in one second. It provides no liquidity when the market is under stress as the HFT machines are plugged out immediately in non-standard situations. On the other hand, HFT takes a lot of capital out of the market for that 'service'. Is that fraction of a second of additional liquidity worh it? IMHO not.
There is so much FUD around HFT it is hard for people to think rationally about it. I had wasted the following study on a troll once already earlier this morning and therefore it would be a shame not to repost it: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/HFT0324.pdf [wsj.com]
That article is funded by Citadel LLC that owns a HFT platform. It provides no hypothesis, no metrics, no tangible goals. It's pretty much an essay reiterating a couple dozen pro HFT papers and press pieces
Over the past 20 years the currency supply as estimated by the Fed themselves has gone from $400 billion to $3,000 billion dollars - a gain of $2,600 billion.
You don't know what you are talking about. The Fed did not print all that money. It's the so called M2 type of money that has grown so rapidly. Please, educate yourself a little bit before you start spewing fire all over the internet about it.
I don't necessarily disagree. But I thought the comment I was reacting to was too one-sided. True, the expectations about the production values and the price level are stricter. But development in general is cheaper and the customer base is larger.
Additionally, the expectations on game graphics are not that hard on the developers. A new iteration of an existing engine is enough - sometimes with barely noticeable changes.
On the other hand, the software development industry has moved on significantly since the early 1990's:
.
- development tools are more reliable, languages more fool-proof
- there are extensive frameworks available - graphics, communication, logging - myriads of well tested libraries for pretty much anything
- development processes are better understood and are readily supported by various development tools
- automated testing and building software is much better
- operating systems are much more robust
These are all things that make development much cheaper and more stable.
And then we see the presentation of the new Call of Duty and its great new innovation is the inclusion of a dog. Where exactly do the $100 million (or whatever the ridiculous amount is) go?
While mostly valid points, there are a couple of strange ones:
Cooling; To charge and run properly batteries must be cooled which further restricts the form of the battery and vehicle.
Why should this be a problem for a battery switching system? Isn't it much easier to cool the batteries when they're outside of the car? Seems like this is a case of an advantage for the swapping system.
Duplication; High performance batteries are expensive. There would have to be multiple batteries in multiple places to support one vehicle. There would be tens of thousands of dollars in batteries sitting waiting to be used. Someone would have to pay for that.
This is also an advantage of the swapping system. Batteries are the most rapidly degrading part of the car. Assuming they are good for 500 charges and the range is 100 miles, they will need to bee replaced after 50 000 miles. So you'll need more batteries than cars upfront, but in the long run, you will keep discarding the degraded batteries without an additional hassle to the owners and it will even out.
I was wondering why Monsanto didnt sue the elevator instead
It's because he was the one who infringed on the patent - he used Roundup on his crops meaning he actually used Monsanto's technology. Also, the elevator most probably sold the soybeans legally - for processing, not for planting.
Consider a case where you have a senile cashier in your local grocery store and you find out that if you buy a certain combination of items and give him a 10 dollar bill, he'll confuse it with a 100 dollar bill and give you $92 back.
Would you call that hacking?
However, if you notice that the elderly clerk is not at the register and ask the manager to call him because you really like to do business with him personally, you might be conducting a fraud.
Many companies - especially the industrial ones - work on long business cycles. Things like assembly lines or CT scanners are supposed to run for decades.
Imagine a company producing CT scanners who's been on the market for some time. They would have dozens of versions of their scanners in the field, some of them more than a decade old, using old software. To update an old system with new software (such as one supporting new browsers) requires to run a full round of system tests. In the case of medical software, it's even mandated by government regulation.
This would mean you would have to rebuild all 20 (or more) machines in your test lab to perform the tests (simulators are not good enough for FDA) at a huge cost. On top of that, you might not even be able to get some of the parts for the machines that were produced in the previous millennium.
I assume you didn't read into the case. The prosecutors were never trying to argue that Nestor (the accused) used hacking to find the glitch. They were trying to argue that the combination of keys that activates the glitch is so complex that it should by itself be considered 'hacking'.
However, the 'combination of keys' used was not that extraordinary - all were legal game-play moves. Boiled down to the fact that switching a denomination of a game could change the payout the machine would give you on games you already won (but did not cash out yet).
The prosecution was trying to paint is as access rights violation but they failed to show just what exactly did the defendants do that they were 'not entitled' to do.
It still might be a fraud. Especially since Nestor convinced the operator in one case to switch on the feature that enabled the glitch. But hacking is out of the question.
Gun related crimes are not being done using legally held weapons. You're no better off with a printed gun than you are with a black market S&W. In one case you leave traces of your presence in the black market, in the other you leave traces of downloading the schematics from the internet. In the long run owning a 3D printer and gun schematics will be equal to having the means to murder someone. If your average Joe Blow has an opportunity and a motive on top of that, he'd still get busted.
The most important thing is to show them that there is a demand for what you do. This is where great ideas make it or fail. Henry Ford didn't invent mass production. It's just that nobody thought there would be enough demand for so many automobiles. Same goes for every other successful enterprises. Who would want a personal computer? Who would want a phone without physical buttons?
So who wants your stuff? How much do they want it? How much are they willing to pay for it?
I blame the lack of programming apprenticeships, personally.
I wholly agree on that. But in addition, the deeper problem seems to be that the incentive for the colleges is to have as many graduates as possible - that's where the cash flow comes from. I think that's the reason why they've become a bit loose on the requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised nobody called you on this
When did Pink Floyd ever write a modal melody that blossomed into florid counterpoint
The Great Gig in the Sky is in dorian mode that wonderfully mirrors the dorian in one of the previous songs in the album, Breathe, but then, towards the end, it seamlessly turns into a sweet ionian melody that ends the otherwise conflicted piece in a soothing tone.
or discovered a way to make the D triad follow the C# triad, through a harmonic intensification of a melodic element
While I wouldn't say they 'discovered' it, a succession of triads in that interval is not that uncommon. You'll find it in Money on the same album for example
Or when do you see anything even remotely close to the technique of taking a tune or theme and successively chipping it away to motivic nothings?
Too many examples. The whole Dark Side of the Moon is variations on the same tune. The tune is especially aggressively deconstructed in the song Money.
Even a minor composer from 18th century Bohemia, Zdenek Fibich, showed more harmonic creativity than Bruce Springsteen. I mean, have you actually listened to "Born in the USA?" The monotonous repetitions are so tiring.
Yes, as far as I know, Bruce Springsteen is musically not very interesting. But if you can't see the difference between him and Lady Gaga and Pink Floyd, then you know nothing about modern music
But while we are at it - when was the last time your Beethoven integrated ambient sounds seamlessly into his music, like Pink Floyd did with cash register sounds that they wowed sublimely into a 7/4 beat of the song Money (that later erupts in a 4/4 swing guitar solo)? When did he play with the color and the texture of the sound the way modern artists do ever since the early jazz times? When did he use intricate polyrythms with counter-beats - did he even use ONE syncopation in his work? His music is just flat!
True. But Foxconn is no more evil than the farms for making its production more efficient. If somebody would like to force Foxconn to stop making its factories more efficient, they might as well force farmers to dump their tractors and combines.
Do you also care as much about all the people that lost their work when agricultural automation became wide spread? Do you cry for the thousands of workers that might have been tilling the land manually instead of just one guy riding a tractor - when you eat your morning cereals/bread/whatever? And don't tell me you only eat stuff from your local farmer's market, because those people use automation too. How is factory automation any different?
If any law was perverted into a problem it was the case of a perverted lawmaker. You can 'pervert' any law. You might have had a case in 1947 saying 'if today they ask to ban national socialism, what are they going to ban tomorrow?' But today, after 60 years of not banning any additional ideologies you are just silly.
So it is there to allow people to say `but we're not like that anymore!' after all. Not that I'm saying they are, understand?
So what *are* you saying?
I'm just trying to understand the rational basis of forbidding all depictions of Nazi symbols, even in stories in which they are (quite literally) demonized.
Doom is not censored in Germany after the case was appealed by the distributor. Wolfenstein 3D is. And yes, it is a silly case based mainly on the fact that the bureaucrats in 1990 did not understand what a video game was. If someone goes through the motions to release Wolfenstein from censorship just like they did with Doom, I'm sure it would be free to distribute.
Oh no, that's okay, I believe you. Could you please explain to an ignorant, uncultured amerkan what purpose the censorship serves after sixty years if it is not for the purpose that I have stated?
It's forbidden because the Nazi movement is still alive today and the majority disapproves of it. If any German politician campaigned for removing the nazi ban law, the public would tear him into shreds.
It isn't. The law permits the use of the symbols in research and educational contexts. Every person in Germany learns about the Nazi regime at school at large and in negative context. Just ask your nearest German.
Yes, all free ... unless your opinions on the history of WWII differ from the "official version". Or if you are muslim, and want to wear observant clothing. Or if you have a reason to defend yourself. Etc.
How does any of this apply to Iceland?
That law has been around since 1947. How much has it slipped towards "you cannot criticize the government" since then?
Not. One. Bit.
You have no clue.
That's the most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard.
Welcome to the internet, newcomer!
Email - good. Spam - bad. What's so baffling about it?
The upshot: "Based on the vast majority of the empirical work to date, HFT and automated,competing trading venues have substantially improved market liquidity and reduced trading costs for all investors. Share prices are almost surely higher as a result of this reduction in trading costs, benefiting long-term investors. Higher share prices also have favorable implications for firms\ cost of equity capital. "
You are mixing apples and oranges here. Automated trading and HFT are not the same thing. Automated trading does provide substantially improved liquidity and reduced trading cost. HFT on the other hand does not demonstrably reduce trading costs (or at best the jury is still out on that) and the liquidity it provides means your transaction can go through in a fraction of a second rather than in one second. It provides no liquidity when the market is under stress as the HFT machines are plugged out immediately in non-standard situations. On the other hand, HFT takes a lot of capital out of the market for that 'service'. Is that fraction of a second of additional liquidity worh it? IMHO not.
There is so much FUD around HFT it is hard for people to think rationally about it. I had wasted the following study on a troll once already earlier this morning and therefore it would be a shame not to repost it: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/HFT0324.pdf [wsj.com]
That article is funded by Citadel LLC that owns a HFT platform. It provides no hypothesis, no metrics, no tangible goals. It's pretty much an essay reiterating a couple dozen pro HFT papers and press pieces
Maybe you could educate yourself as well and listen to some other opinions - like that of one of the fathers of automated trading.
Over the past 20 years the currency supply as estimated by the Fed themselves has gone from $400 billion to $3,000 billion dollars - a gain of $2,600 billion.
You don't know what you are talking about. The Fed did not print all that money. It's the so called M2 type of money that has grown so rapidly. Please, educate yourself a little bit before you start spewing fire all over the internet about it.
I don't necessarily disagree. But I thought the comment I was reacting to was too one-sided. True, the expectations about the production values and the price level are stricter. But development in general is cheaper and the customer base is larger.
Additionally, the expectations on game graphics are not that hard on the developers. A new iteration of an existing engine is enough - sometimes with barely noticeable changes.
On the other hand, the software development industry has moved on significantly since the early 1990's:
.
- development tools are more reliable, languages more fool-proof
- there are extensive frameworks available - graphics, communication, logging - myriads of well tested libraries for pretty much anything
- development processes are better understood and are readily supported by various development tools
- automated testing and building software is much better
- operating systems are much more robust
These are all things that make development much cheaper and more stable.
And then we see the presentation of the new Call of Duty and its great new innovation is the inclusion of a dog. Where exactly do the $100 million (or whatever the ridiculous amount is) go?
While mostly valid points, there are a couple of strange ones:
Cooling; To charge and run properly batteries must be cooled which further restricts the form of the battery and vehicle.
Why should this be a problem for a battery switching system? Isn't it much easier to cool the batteries when they're outside of the car? Seems like this is a case of an advantage for the swapping system.
Duplication; High performance batteries are expensive. There would have to be multiple batteries in multiple places to support one vehicle. There would be tens of thousands of dollars in batteries sitting waiting to be used. Someone would have to pay for that.
This is also an advantage of the swapping system. Batteries are the most rapidly degrading part of the car. Assuming they are good for 500 charges and the range is 100 miles, they will need to bee replaced after 50 000 miles. So you'll need more batteries than cars upfront, but in the long run, you will keep discarding the degraded batteries without an additional hassle to the owners and it will even out.
How is a Steambox any less of a "corporate wet dream" than the Xbox One?
The OP didn't say it wasn't. He just said Xbox One does not have any advantages to Steambox, just downsides.
I was wondering why Monsanto didnt sue the elevator instead
It's because he was the one who infringed on the patent - he used Roundup on his crops meaning he actually used Monsanto's technology. Also, the elevator most probably sold the soybeans legally - for processing, not for planting.
I still see no 'hacking' part in it
Consider a case where you have a senile cashier in your local grocery store and you find out that if you buy a certain combination of items and give him a 10 dollar bill, he'll confuse it with a 100 dollar bill and give you $92 back.
Would you call that hacking?
However, if you notice that the elderly clerk is not at the register and ask the manager to call him because you really like to do business with him personally, you might be conducting a fraud.
Many companies - especially the industrial ones - work on long business cycles. Things like assembly lines or CT scanners are supposed to run for decades.
Imagine a company producing CT scanners who's been on the market for some time. They would have dozens of versions of their scanners in the field, some of them more than a decade old, using old software. To update an old system with new software (such as one supporting new browsers) requires to run a full round of system tests. In the case of medical software, it's even mandated by government regulation.
This would mean you would have to rebuild all 20 (or more) machines in your test lab to perform the tests (simulators are not good enough for FDA) at a huge cost. On top of that, you might not even be able to get some of the parts for the machines that were produced in the previous millennium.
I assume you didn't read into the case. The prosecutors were never trying to argue that Nestor (the accused) used hacking to find the glitch. They were trying to argue that the combination of keys that activates the glitch is so complex that it should by itself be considered 'hacking'.
However, the 'combination of keys' used was not that extraordinary - all were legal game-play moves. Boiled down to the fact that switching a denomination of a game could change the payout the machine would give you on games you already won (but did not cash out yet).
The prosecution was trying to paint is as access rights violation but they failed to show just what exactly did the defendants do that they were 'not entitled' to do.
It still might be a fraud. Especially since Nestor convinced the operator in one case to switch on the feature that enabled the glitch. But hacking is out of the question.
äiti in Finnish
Apparently the Finns separated from the general population way before the ice age.
I've said nothing about 3D printed guns being illegal.
Gun related crimes are not being done using legally held weapons. You're no better off with a printed gun than you are with a black market S&W. In one case you leave traces of your presence in the black market, in the other you leave traces of downloading the schematics from the internet. In the long run owning a 3D printer and gun schematics will be equal to having the means to murder someone. If your average Joe Blow has an opportunity and a motive on top of that, he'd still get busted.
The most important thing is to show them that there is a demand for what you do. This is where great ideas make it or fail. Henry Ford didn't invent mass production. It's just that nobody thought there would be enough demand for so many automobiles. Same goes for every other successful enterprises. Who would want a personal computer? Who would want a phone without physical buttons?
So who wants your stuff? How much do they want it? How much are they willing to pay for it?
I blame the lack of programming apprenticeships, personally.
I wholly agree on that. But in addition, the deeper problem seems to be that the incentive for the colleges is to have as many graduates as possible - that's where the cash flow comes from. I think that's the reason why they've become a bit loose on the requirements.