Having both synthetic and live performers is going to be the most versatile by virtue of including both sets, but that may not always be wanted or practical, and if the technology advances enough, the conductor can portray a large share of the interpreted parts themselves, limiting the degree of disadvantages.
Comparing just instrumentalists against just synths, though, gives some big advantages to synths, particular in regards to the sounds available. Perhaps in genres with established norms and pieces already written, the disadvantages are going to be more evident while the advantages are less utilized. 'West Side Story' being a good example unlikely to benefit unless someone did a drastic overhall of the production. However, if you were to attempt to make a groundbreaking new composition today, you could utilize things that instrumentalists can't reasonably do. This would present some limitations, but it can also break down many walls that practicality limited in the past. I'm not saying that it's a net gain for everyone, but it would be a net gain for some, which I think I properly qualified with 'can' and 'without having to deal with the logistics being insane'
Perhaps a good analogy would be the trap set. It has not wholly replaced a percussion section, but it has paved the way for many new genres to emerge by replacing the parts of many with one. A conducted synthesizer could be a similar kind of endeavor with big advantages and disadvantages.
I'm sure the lights of many live shows are just as if not more controlled than this. You may say that lights aren't as important as music, but I'd say that's a matter of opinion and people in the respective fields would probably disagree.
It depends on who you ask. A conducted musician probably sees the actual playing as where the art is, while the conductor sees the conducting to be where the art is. A good conductor is certainly important, and if the tools were sophisticated enough to handle various cues to an extent similar to a musician, the artistic elements lost could be greatly reduced while opening many new opportunities.
It said that these machines can be 'conducted.' I'm not sure how sophisticated this is going to be, but it seems to leave a human element still present. Furthermore, it can give composers a larger sonic palette, meaning that they can easily switch between a traditional orchestra, a latin ensemble, an array of synths, and various new combinations without having to deal with the logistics being insane.
Unfortunately, I'm fairly sure that ASCAP and BMI don't take actual usage into consideration. I believe it's based on record sales and radio play, meaning that bars are paying the songwriters behind Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga more than Mack Rice despite nobody ever playing the former two's songs live in a bar while everybody and their brother plays "Mustang Sally" live.
SESAC takes a more scientific approach, but I'm not sure if even they take the statistic regarding songs chosen into consideration.
Their behavior towards small venues also creates a bad image, since it's effectively a protection racket that has resulted in quite a few venues being shut down, making it difficult for musicians to even play their own songs.
I think record labels do the lion's share of the TV stuff, since that is mostly synchronization rights, which don't have compulsory licensing. ASCAP does some radio stuff and getting royalties from venues, and recently the venues based stuff is quite comparable to a protection racket, particularly when dealing with small venues.
Perhaps one problem is that it takes quite a bit to overcome the clear realities in this debate. Williams' position on this matter is factually incorrect, and intelligent discussion can't change this. If Lessig were to wish to go there, he could probably present a decent argument that ASCAP is actually undermining copyright themselves.
You are correct that ASCAP would get no benefit, because when the facts are looked at, it will become evident that ASCAP's claims are false.
I would disagree. With a LiveCD, it's easier to save even a Windows users' data with Ubuntu than with Windows. I'd say the real issue with support is that it just isn't Windows, so it isn't familiar to many users.
FOSS actually lines up with communism AND capitalism quite well, as well as perhaps just about every other system outside of perhaps corporatism. Traditional uses of copyright require large governments providing monopolies to private entities, which doesn't fit well with many economic systems.
The real problem is those damn placebos. Let children get started on them, and before you know it, they'll be stealing televisions to pay for their next fix of sugar pills.
Re:The Internet as mass appetites
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 1
Getting information is still a very common task on the internet. The most popular site in the world is Google, and most everyone goes to Wikipedia on a regular basis. The audience is perhaps not as scholarly as the earlier crowd, but the information in question is reaching a much larger audience, and often in a more interactive way.
Society changes at a much faster rate than the gene pool, so the changes in society compared with time are going to be easier to note, especially given the limited data we currently have. As far as our understanding of intelligence, I would say that it is at a very primitive state, as well as most of psychology and brain science, but that doesn't make them not a field of endeavor worth studying.
There is undeniably a significant genetic element to intelligence. This doesn't mean that there is a racial divide in intelligence or whatever agenda you are defying common sense for. However, understanding the genetic components of intelligence could greatly serve humanity. For example, it's pretty well documented that the way boys and girls (rather pronounced entirely genetic differences) learn is generally somewhat different, and the current methods of education have been said to not serve boys as well as girls.
virtually nobody is attributing the flynn effect to genetics, but that doesn't mean genetics don't play an important role in intelligence. The cause could be better parenting, better schooling, chemicals in the water, consumption of fatty foods, or a number of other things.
There's a possibility of some link between viable sperm and genes related to intelligence or something, but that would be unlikely to fully account for the difference. A more plausible alternative would be that the ability to recognize and cope with various learning disorders, many of which are thought to have genetic factors (and many have environmental factors as well). This could be especially significant among those with ADD, high functioning autism, and the like, where they could very well go from below average to above average.
Having an environmental element doesn't mean there isn't a genetic element. Nature and nurture are basically coefficients in many things, intelligence included. Height has well known genetic components, but malnutrition can cause someone with genes for being tall to be significantly shorter.
There also needs to be a fair use option. There are cases where one is exercising fair use while using a recording. Also, if the software is too eager to make a match, it may have false negatives for parodies.
I haven't had time to look at this in detail, but this kind of thing seems to pretty clearly fall under fair use. It's criticism of the work itself in a political commentary, so it should be well within the limits.
GPL infringement is virtually always industrial, while most people are concerned with allowance for personal, non-commercial sharing of copyrighted works. Basically, they want a more limited scope of copyright.
I would say shorter law would be better than fewer laws. Things like the DEA and the PATRIOT act had SOME provisions that most people supported, but a lot of other bullshit tacked on.
The thing is, piracy doesn't cost the kind of resources that this kind of action takes. In fact, by downloading instead of using CDs or DVDs, you are not using the petroleum to make the plastic for these CDs, the energy to manufacture these CDs, or the fuel to transport said CDs from factory to wholesaler to retailer to ones personal home, and you are not filing up landfills with shrink-wrap plastic, so they are arguably choosing methods that support a more ecological system of distribution, while the RIAA tries to stop them.
Slashdot Mirror
Having both synthetic and live performers is going to be the most versatile by virtue of including both sets, but that may not always be wanted or practical, and if the technology advances enough, the conductor can portray a large share of the interpreted parts themselves, limiting the degree of disadvantages.
Comparing just instrumentalists against just synths, though, gives some big advantages to synths, particular in regards to the sounds available. Perhaps in genres with established norms and pieces already written, the disadvantages are going to be more evident while the advantages are less utilized. 'West Side Story' being a good example unlikely to benefit unless someone did a drastic overhall of the production. However, if you were to attempt to make a groundbreaking new composition today, you could utilize things that instrumentalists can't reasonably do. This would present some limitations, but it can also break down many walls that practicality limited in the past. I'm not saying that it's a net gain for everyone, but it would be a net gain for some, which I think I properly qualified with 'can' and 'without having to deal with the logistics being insane'
Perhaps a good analogy would be the trap set. It has not wholly replaced a percussion section, but it has paved the way for many new genres to emerge by replacing the parts of many with one. A conducted synthesizer could be a similar kind of endeavor with big advantages and disadvantages.
I'm sure the lights of many live shows are just as if not more controlled than this. You may say that lights aren't as important as music, but I'd say that's a matter of opinion and people in the respective fields would probably disagree.
It depends on who you ask. A conducted musician probably sees the actual playing as where the art is, while the conductor sees the conducting to be where the art is. A good conductor is certainly important, and if the tools were sophisticated enough to handle various cues to an extent similar to a musician, the artistic elements lost could be greatly reduced while opening many new opportunities.
It said that these machines can be 'conducted.' I'm not sure how sophisticated this is going to be, but it seems to leave a human element still present. Furthermore, it can give composers a larger sonic palette, meaning that they can easily switch between a traditional orchestra, a latin ensemble, an array of synths, and various new combinations without having to deal with the logistics being insane.
Unfortunately, I'm fairly sure that ASCAP and BMI don't take actual usage into consideration. I believe it's based on record sales and radio play, meaning that bars are paying the songwriters behind Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga more than Mack Rice despite nobody ever playing the former two's songs live in a bar while everybody and their brother plays "Mustang Sally" live. SESAC takes a more scientific approach, but I'm not sure if even they take the statistic regarding songs chosen into consideration.
Their behavior towards small venues also creates a bad image, since it's effectively a protection racket that has resulted in quite a few venues being shut down, making it difficult for musicians to even play their own songs.
I think record labels do the lion's share of the TV stuff, since that is mostly synchronization rights, which don't have compulsory licensing. ASCAP does some radio stuff and getting royalties from venues, and recently the venues based stuff is quite comparable to a protection racket, particularly when dealing with small venues.
Perhaps one problem is that it takes quite a bit to overcome the clear realities in this debate. Williams' position on this matter is factually incorrect, and intelligent discussion can't change this. If Lessig were to wish to go there, he could probably present a decent argument that ASCAP is actually undermining copyright themselves. You are correct that ASCAP would get no benefit, because when the facts are looked at, it will become evident that ASCAP's claims are false.
Way to go CERN, I guess we can't count on you to end the world for us. Any other takers?
I would disagree. With a LiveCD, it's easier to save even a Windows users' data with Ubuntu than with Windows. I'd say the real issue with support is that it just isn't Windows, so it isn't familiar to many users.
FOSS actually lines up with communism AND capitalism quite well, as well as perhaps just about every other system outside of perhaps corporatism. Traditional uses of copyright require large governments providing monopolies to private entities, which doesn't fit well with many economic systems.
There are good practices for security to minimize security risks, but nobody at Adobe has ever heard of them.
The real problem is those damn placebos. Let children get started on them, and before you know it, they'll be stealing televisions to pay for their next fix of sugar pills.
Getting information is still a very common task on the internet. The most popular site in the world is Google, and most everyone goes to Wikipedia on a regular basis. The audience is perhaps not as scholarly as the earlier crowd, but the information in question is reaching a much larger audience, and often in a more interactive way.
Society changes at a much faster rate than the gene pool, so the changes in society compared with time are going to be easier to note, especially given the limited data we currently have. As far as our understanding of intelligence, I would say that it is at a very primitive state, as well as most of psychology and brain science, but that doesn't make them not a field of endeavor worth studying. There is undeniably a significant genetic element to intelligence. This doesn't mean that there is a racial divide in intelligence or whatever agenda you are defying common sense for. However, understanding the genetic components of intelligence could greatly serve humanity. For example, it's pretty well documented that the way boys and girls (rather pronounced entirely genetic differences) learn is generally somewhat different, and the current methods of education have been said to not serve boys as well as girls.
virtually nobody is attributing the flynn effect to genetics, but that doesn't mean genetics don't play an important role in intelligence. The cause could be better parenting, better schooling, chemicals in the water, consumption of fatty foods, or a number of other things. There's a possibility of some link between viable sperm and genes related to intelligence or something, but that would be unlikely to fully account for the difference. A more plausible alternative would be that the ability to recognize and cope with various learning disorders, many of which are thought to have genetic factors (and many have environmental factors as well). This could be especially significant among those with ADD, high functioning autism, and the like, where they could very well go from below average to above average.
Having an environmental element doesn't mean there isn't a genetic element. Nature and nurture are basically coefficients in many things, intelligence included. Height has well known genetic components, but malnutrition can cause someone with genes for being tall to be significantly shorter.
but Google is stopping internal usage of Windows, making it a moot point.
There also needs to be a fair use option. There are cases where one is exercising fair use while using a recording. Also, if the software is too eager to make a match, it may have false negatives for parodies.
I haven't had time to look at this in detail, but this kind of thing seems to pretty clearly fall under fair use. It's criticism of the work itself in a political commentary, so it should be well within the limits.
GPL infringement is virtually always industrial, while most people are concerned with allowance for personal, non-commercial sharing of copyrighted works. Basically, they want a more limited scope of copyright.
Education is mostly handled on a state level, and a single system that works in Rhode Island, California, and South Carolina probably can't happen.
Our states generally have more powers reserved, and fit somewhere between a province and a nation in autonomy.
I would say shorter law would be better than fewer laws. Things like the DEA and the PATRIOT act had SOME provisions that most people supported, but a lot of other bullshit tacked on.
The thing is, piracy doesn't cost the kind of resources that this kind of action takes. In fact, by downloading instead of using CDs or DVDs, you are not using the petroleum to make the plastic for these CDs, the energy to manufacture these CDs, or the fuel to transport said CDs from factory to wholesaler to retailer to ones personal home, and you are not filing up landfills with shrink-wrap plastic, so they are arguably choosing methods that support a more ecological system of distribution, while the RIAA tries to stop them.