Well, thank you for the forgiveness. I indeed think that I've *never* encountered courtesy accidentals not in brackets. I suspect I wouldn't have flinched if the brackets had been there.
I ran off to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_(music) which expresses what I think should be the ideal: "Cautionary accidentals or naturals (in parentheses) may be used to clarify ambiguities, but should be held to a minimum." Looking back at the document, it seems it also likes to cancel accidentals in different octaves from where they were applied in different bars, which seems even more redundant. Worse than that - they're cancelling accidentals in different octaves in different bars in different staves from where they were applied (var. 14, bar 17) - that's just excessive.
So this document has no brackets, and has not minimised the use of them in any way at all, in fact, it seems to have maximised the use of them. And this is not my unique personal judgement, a bevvy of wikipedia contributors who care about music notation seem to agree.
However, it does at least appear to be consistent, which is the most important thing, so its preferences could be considered a publisher's house style and just something you have to get used to.
Firstly - if they recognise me - they are tracking me. I don't care if you call it a "session token" or whatever, it's simply a mechanism for tracking me, nothing more.
I'm more interested in knowing how the rendering of the music as a score has changed how an automaton (or a human unfamiliar with the piece) would interpret that score and play the music back. If that's unchanged - has there actually been any progress?
I also wonder if they have sanity-checking - Just in the first few minutes of listening whilst reading along I noticed a natural modifier to a note which was not sharp (nor flat) according to the key signature, nor which had been modified previously, and therefore did not need the natural sign (e.g. var. 6, bar 16, the middle C). I've not read any music for *many* decades - someone else should have spotted this!
(Yeah, yeah, if it's open, I should just submit a patch...)
Was she just trilling the A, or playing A-G-A-G-A-G as demi-semi-quavers? That E briefly before the minim D - was it just a passing note? (see the first 2 bars of the PDF score)
Any distinction between data and interpreted code is stupid. Is if((c=getc()) == 'x') { doX(); } else if(c=='y'){ doY(); } an "interpreter" for a "language" where a "program" can contain two commands, 'x' and 'y'. Or is that just a config file parser.
We're heading well OT, but why don't you just install linux or a traditional BSD on your powerpc? I've been running linux/ppc64 as my main machine quite happily for several years (since my Alpha blew up). Now I have my own choice of window manager I am 10 times as productive compared to the default single-button-brain OS that the G5 came bundled with.
Instead, they should have permission to shoot any phone that is being used by the driver of a car. There may be some "collateral damage", alas, but that's unavoidable.
No, the summary writer presumably does not think that. Nobody with a brain would conclude that he thinks that from what was written.
He cites a single case. For you to interpret that as anything but information about a single case makes you the idiot. Please read for comprehension next time.
Nope. From a quoted passage above it seems the law states that only *intent* to commit a crime is enough to make you guilty of committing a crime, if you're obscuring your face.
Which probably means if you go to a Mardi Gras style parade all dressed up and made up (it's explicitly not just masks, make-up can be sufficient), and even *think* about what it would be like to caress any breasts or buttocks, round and curved, like the moon, that you see - you've committed assault!
What's quoted above is: (2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
At no point does "and rioting" enter into that. There's "with intent" instead. Which is of course completely intangible and unprovable, and undisprovable. Why would you be in a rioting crowd if you didn't intent to riot? Bang - 10 years.
Exactly. Is your ID number, or your signature, on your ballot paper? Anonymity when casting votes has been held up as one of the vital tenets of democracy for a very long time.
Well, in supposedly democratic countries anyway. I know many non- or faux- democracies outlaw such freedom of expression. With your mention of "states" having such laws, are you confirming that the US is such a faux-democracy?
Slashdot Mirror
> there is nothing wrong with the bible as an ancient Jewish storybook
Don't forget the splitters...
I'm guessing you're American. A "moot" is a debate. To moot is to debate. If something is "moot", then it's debatable, and thus worthy of debate.
The actual word you were looking for was "bollocks".
Scratching my head, I can't think of any African religions that forbid condom use. You're not thinking of Catholicism, are you?
Well, thank you for the forgiveness. I indeed think that I've *never* encountered courtesy accidentals not in brackets. I suspect I wouldn't have flinched if the brackets had been there.
I ran off to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_(music) which expresses what I think should be the ideal: "Cautionary accidentals or naturals (in parentheses) may be used to clarify ambiguities, but should be held to a minimum." Looking back at the document, it seems it also likes to cancel accidentals in different octaves from where they were applied in different bars, which seems even more redundant. Worse than that - they're cancelling accidentals in different octaves in different bars in different staves from where they were applied (var. 14, bar 17) - that's just excessive.
So this document has no brackets, and has not minimised the use of them in any way at all, in fact, it seems to have maximised the use of them. And this is not my unique personal judgement, a bevvy of wikipedia contributors who care about music notation seem to agree.
However, it does at least appear to be consistent, which is the most important thing, so its preferences could be considered a publisher's house style and just something you have to get used to.
Firstly - if they recognise me - they are tracking me. I don't care if you call it a "session token" or whatever, it's simply a mechanism for tracking me, nothing more.
The arithmetic is saturating and the overflow flag is set.
This one's CC0 (i.e. placed in the public domain) - I can burn it to CD and charge for it if I like!
I'm more interested in knowing how the rendering of the music as a score has changed how an automaton (or a human unfamiliar with the piece) would interpret that score and play the music back. If that's unchanged - has there actually been any progress?
I also wonder if they have sanity-checking - Just in the first few minutes of listening whilst reading along I noticed a natural modifier to a note which was not sharp (nor flat) according to the key signature, nor which had been modified previously, and therefore did not need the natural sign (e.g. var. 6, bar 16, the middle C). I've not read any music for *many* decades - someone else should have spotted this!
(Yeah, yeah, if it's open, I should just submit a patch...)
Was she just trilling the A, or playing A-G-A-G-A-G as demi-semi-quavers?
That E briefly before the minim D - was it just a passing note?
(see the first 2 bars of the PDF score)
I think you'll find your n900 uses webkit too. But not as a browser.
dpkg -l | grep webkit
(It's used by maps, IIRC)
Any distinction between data and interpreted code is stupid. Is
if((c=getc()) == 'x') { doX(); } else if(c=='y'){ doY(); }
an "interpreter" for a "language" where a "program" can contain two commands, 'x' and 'y'. Or is that just a config file parser.
We're heading well OT, but why don't you just install linux or a traditional BSD on your powerpc? I've been running linux/ppc64 as my main machine quite happily for several years (since my Alpha blew up). Now I have my own choice of window manager I am 10 times as productive compared to the default single-button-brain OS that the G5 came bundled with.
That's murder!
Instead, they should have permission to shoot any phone that is being used by the driver of a car. There may be some "collateral damage", alas, but that's unavoidable.
One is something that the providers of the information know that the recipients of the information sought out, the other is as well.
"He searches for Brazillian fart fetish porn to watch" and "he watches Brazilian fart fetish porn" carry much the same payload, data-mining-wise.
Acting? I think you'll find it's the *dancing* that he's really notorious for!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VxtEGsssxE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD1Usk0DYc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIUlVAjsIFw
Margaret Thatcher: Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.
Major failure in submitting at all. TT's proof was published on Febrauary 1st - this isn't news at all, this is olds.
No, the summary writer presumably does not think that. Nobody with a brain would conclude that he thinks that from what was written.
He cites a single case. For you to interpret that as anything but information about a single case makes you the idiot. Please read for comprehension next time.
And yet you vote anonymously.
You didn't think that one through, did you?
Nope. From a quoted passage above it seems the law states that only *intent* to commit a crime is enough to make you guilty of committing a crime, if you're obscuring your face.
Which probably means if you go to a Mardi Gras style parade all dressed up and made up (it's explicitly not just masks, make-up can be sufficient), and even *think* about what it would be like to caress any breasts or buttocks, round and curved, like the moon, that you see - you've committed assault!
What's quoted above is:
(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
At no point does "and rioting" enter into that. There's "with intent" instead. Which is of course completely intangible and unprovable, and undisprovable. Why would you be in a rioting crowd if you didn't intent to riot? Bang - 10 years.
Nope. It's now illegal to *intend* to riot (or commit another offence).
The mask (or makeup or other disguise) turns thinking about committing an offence into an actual concrete offence.
Thoughcrime!
Exactly. Is your ID number, or your signature, on your ballot paper? Anonymity when casting votes has been held up as one of the vital tenets of democracy for a very long time.
One of the ways that the enfranchised can stand up as a citizen for or against some idea is to vote for a party of their choice in an election.
Do you demand ID numbers and signatures on ballot papers now?
Why should one expression of preference how the country is run forced to be non-anonymous, and another forced to be anonymous?
Since when was protesting a crime?
Well, in supposedly democratic countries anyway. I know many non- or faux- democracies outlaw such freedom of expression. With your mention of
"states" having such laws, are you confirming that the US is such a faux-democracy?