I have to agree with you. There will always be good heartfelt music around. The days of it being spoonfed to you are over.
I write an occasional song or two and believe that process to be a outlet for whatever I'm feeling at the time. It's an organic and personal process. I can't imagine using a computer program to tell me if what I'm letting off my chest is going to sell. Personally I don't care if it sells, I'm not trying to make a living off of it.
To that end I try to write songs that please me first, though not all of them do. I generally don't like to perform the ones that don't because they lack energy. One thing I have learned overtime about writing songs and performing is that the same song can be well-received one night and poorly another. This speaks a lot to how you perform a particular work. It is essential that you are excited about what you are performing. I think this is especially the case if people are not familiar with your material.
Anyway if other people like my stuff, great. I'd like other people to like my songs, but I always start by pleasing myself, and I don't need some computer to tell me if I've done so.
I suppose this qualifies as art for art's sake. As long as people want to truly express themselves art for art's sake will be alive. It may however be dead as far as the major labels are concerned.
A file is always a file. One can not say in absolute terms, no matter its contents, if that file is a program or inert data. The only way to answer that question is in relation to an interpreter. If an interpreter can read that file and execute instructions based upon its contents then that file is a program in the context of that particular interpreter. If not, it is inert data.
A program is always data, but data is not always a program.
You can only consider a glob of data a program in the context of an interpreter that will run it. A Pentium processor can only directly interpret programs that are written in its dialect of machine code. An executable that is copied from a PPC to an x86 ceases to be a program in the x86 context. It is only a piece of data, and probably not a very useful piece of data at that!
XMMS is an interpreter of mp3 files. Therefore foo.mp3 is a program that runs on the XMMS virtual machine. Now this "mp3" language is certainly not a general purpose programming language. That is, it will not pass the Turing test. It is useful to look at things in this light sometimes. The art of computer programming revolves around writing interpreters.
Let's consider a more ambiguous example. Is an XML file a program or is it data? Certainly it is always data, but when can an XML file be considered a program? It would seem that if it contains SOAP syntax it could be considered a program. Suppose I write a program that reads XML files of the form:
Can't that XML file be considered a program in the context of my newly created interpreter? How is this any different than if my interpreter reads a file and plays some noise through the computer's speaker?
The point is that everything is data and that a particular piece of data can be considered a program in the context of a particular interpreter. This is not a bastardization of the noun program, but an elegant description of it.:)
Yes, you can actually think of an MP3 file as a program. The "program's" interpreter is the MP3 player. It's really no different than saying a text file is a program and that perl or python can interpret it to some end. As a programmer, understanding and exploiting this idea is important. In fact this idea, which I have probably presented in butchered form, is central to programming language theory.
My previous comment by the fact it was written, is copyrighted, as is this one. Now, I understand it was trivial and gramatically lacking, but nonetheless it is copyrighted. Certainly you would not argue this point if it had been the last paragraph of a couple pages of op-ed journalism right?
Code perhaps falls into the same catagorey as sheet music.
int main() {
bool ipLawIsBroken = true;
while ( ipLawIsBroken )
{
ipLawIsBroken = (legislate() && sue());
} }
be any less copyrightable than this:
Intellectual property laws are broken. We need congress to fundamentally repair it. However, even after congress has passed new laws that address some of it's current problems we will still need some cases to come to court to clarify it.
So basically, if I RTFA correctly, if a computer can read and make sense out of something it becomes uncopyrightable. So let's get philosophical and go to the code is data, data is code, bag of tricks and pull one out. Isn't an MP3 file a program that a MP3 interpreter can read and make sense out of. Does this make it software and thus uncopyrightable?
Point taken, but I believe mine is still valid. The better you can communicate with the people around you the better you are able to learn things from them. Learning things from others makes you a better programmer.:)
I don't know about the native tongue part. Mastery of the language most used in the country that you have chosen to live and work in is much more important. For example, if I moved to Japan to program, being fluent in Japanese would be more important that being a master of the English language.
Sure, I appreciate that, but I think it's better than basing it on a simple assertion. If some reasoning could be used it would be better, but until I run into that reasoning, it seems to me that God will be the best pedestal upon which to rest inalienable rights.
Yes, this is true. That why it is called "Gun Control" and not "Outlawing of guns". If a physically weak woman wants to buy a gun, and has no record of criminal activity, then she will still be able to despite the gun laws you seem to not like.
There are laws on the books already that make this the case! What are you talking about? Have you ever heard if NICS?
Probably I would be able to deal. I've been fighting for over seven years. I know what it's like to hit someone, hard, and to be hit back hard as well. Being up close and personal is not a problem for me. Still, taking a life is nothing something I want to do, though I believe I am prepared to do so should I ever truly need to. I do not represent the majority of people though.
All of that said, I can attest to the truth in what you are saying as I have previously been an assistant martial arts instructor. This is what I've noticed when people begin training:
They are not calm under fire. They are not comfortable having someone in their face. They generally don't want to hit you back, or if they do, they don't want to hit you very hard. They almost always have a problem with close bodily contact.
Still these things can be trained so that people are comfortable with them, but it takes time, and even with training some people just don't have the "killer instinct" that others do. Mine is certainly not as strong as that of others.
Ahh, the difference between living in a city and not living in a city.... What is good for our urban areas is not necessarily good for all of us. Gangs are just not a serious problem where I come from, not at all. Furthermore, I know many a farmer who shoots prairie dogs so that they don't damage the irrigation systems. These people almost always have a.22 in their vehicles for just such problems. And by the way there is a bounty on the little critters in this particular county. So not only are the farmer's actions legal they are encouraged!
It seems to me that people who have lived in a city, especially a big city, all of their lives do not understand what rural America is like in the least. Don't be upset though, it's not you, it's your upbringing.
So muggings are ok? Is beating the shit out of the guy who is trying to mug you ok? If he doesn't have a gun he can count on a fight from me. Oh wait in England it's self-defense is illegal. I forgot, sorry.
Maybe you just sit in your room with your kids and let him do what he wants in the rest of the house. Like people have said, the insurance will cover your stuff. It's just that when he gets to you, if he does, do you want to be at his mercy? My personal answer is no, no I don't.
Of course though my Doberman might have something for him too, but that's another story altogether!:)
It seems I've stumped you. You know I can not prove the existence of God anymore than you can prove he does not exist. However, it is precisely for that reason that using God as the foundation of liberty makes some sense. If I believe God grants me the right to defend my life then he just does. You can not refute my claim even if you do not recognize my rights.
Why do you think you should have the right to defend your life?
I already know what you're going to say. "Because I say I do." Fine, whatever, but humans are fallible and God is not. So you could be wrong. What's more is that because God grants life, only he can justly take it away. This means that you can not through some contract sign your own life and the lives of your posterity away. If the inalienability of our rights rests upon human reason, they can always be reasoned away.
Do you appreciate the dilemma here? I'm not wedded to the idea that God grants us our rights, but it's the best defense of inalienable rights I have heard. If you've got something better, I would really like to know what it is.
BTW: Contrary to what you might think, I am not a terribly religious person. I do not claim to be a Christian. I have a huge problem with the divinity of Jesus. I do believe that Jesus should be emulated, as he led an exemplary life. My God is a disinterested power that set the universe in motion eons ago, like I might start some kind of simulation. Since then, evolution and the physical laws of the universe have worked their magic. The only tenet of *my* religion is that Life is Sacred. Basically this translates into, obey the golden rule when dealing with other people, and treat the earth and animals with all due respect.
So, rather than being a confrontational ass who thinks he's talking to a religious wacko, try to appreciate the philosophical dilemma concerning the origins of inalienable rights. Admittedly basing them upon God is shaky, but I believe it is better than basing them in human reason.
I do agree with you in that the government should but out of marriage. Still this should be *legislated* on a *State by State* basis. The Constitution does not allow nor disallow gay marriage, though there is a statutory law that disallows it. I do not believe that the law is unconstitutional, though it may be a bad one.
We have lots of bad laws that are Constitutional, the PATRIOT Act and DMCA being two of them.
What if all governments (metaphorically speaking) rip up those pieces of paper? Do our rights still exist? If so why? If not, why not? I was arguing that they always exist regardless of what any government or person says or does. Because God grants them they are untouchable. That was the thrust of the whole argument and you missed it. But really I would like you to answer the above questions and would like to see more thought put into the answers than: "our rights are inalienable because they are".
I don't disagree with the ends of that decision, but the means do not justify the ends. It was a ruling that should have come down in favor of the states no matter how morally flawed. However, it didn't and now we are stuck with yet another precedent for an ever expanding federal power.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, you've got to do something while your waiting for builds.
I have to agree with you. There will always be good heartfelt music around. The days of it being spoonfed to you are over.
I write an occasional song or two and believe that process to be a outlet for whatever I'm feeling at the time. It's an organic and personal process. I can't imagine using a computer program to tell me if what I'm letting off my chest is going to sell. Personally I don't care if it sells, I'm not trying to make a living off of it.
To that end I try to write songs that please me first, though not all of them do. I generally don't like to perform the ones that don't because they lack energy. One thing I have learned overtime about writing songs and performing is that the same song can be well-received one night and poorly another. This speaks a lot to how you perform a particular work. It is essential that you are excited about what you are performing. I think this is especially the case if people are not familiar with your material.
Anyway if other people like my stuff, great. I'd like other people to like my songs, but I always start by pleasing myself, and I don't need some computer to tell me if I've done so.
I suppose this qualifies as art for art's sake. As long as people want to truly express themselves art for art's sake will be alive. It may however be dead as far as the major labels are concerned.
I think I've found a better way to state this.
A file is always a file. One can not say in absolute terms, no matter its contents, if that file is a program or inert data. The only way to answer that question is in relation to an interpreter. If an interpreter can read that file and execute instructions based upon its contents then that file is a program in the context of that particular interpreter. If not, it is inert data.
A program is always data, but data is not always a program.
You are not a Unix user are you? Any (text) file can be a program in the context of an interpreter.
Please address the XML example.
XMMS is an interpreter of mp3 files. Therefore foo.mp3 is a program that runs on the XMMS virtual machine. Now this "mp3" language is certainly not a general purpose programming language. That is, it will not pass the Turing test. It is useful to look at things in this light sometimes. The art of computer programming revolves around writing interpreters.
Let's consider a more ambiguous example. Is an XML file a program or is it data? Certainly it is always data, but when can an XML file be considered a program? It would seem that if it contains SOAP syntax it could be considered a program. Suppose I write a program that reads XML files of the form:and that program produces the output:
5
11
Can't that XML file be considered a program in the context of my newly created interpreter? How is this any different than if my interpreter reads a file and plays some noise through the computer's speaker?
The point is that everything is data and that a particular piece of data can be considered a program in the context of a particular interpreter. This is not a bastardization of the noun program, but an elegant description of it.
Yes, you can actually think of an MP3 file as a program. The "program's" interpreter is the MP3 player. It's really no different than saying a text file is a program and that perl or python can interpret it to some end. As a programmer, understanding and exploiting this idea is important. In fact this idea, which I have probably presented in butchered form, is central to programming language theory.
My previous comment by the fact it was written, is copyrighted, as is this one. Now, I understand it was trivial and gramatically lacking, but nonetheless it is copyrighted. Certainly you would not argue this point if it had been the last paragraph of a couple pages of op-ed journalism right?
Code perhaps falls into the same catagorey as sheet music.
this piece of code:
int main()
{
bool ipLawIsBroken = true;
while ( ipLawIsBroken )
{
ipLawIsBroken = (legislate() && sue());
}
}
be any less copyrightable than this:
Intellectual property laws are broken. We need congress to fundamentally repair it. However, even after congress has passed new laws that address some of it's current problems we will still need some cases to come to court to clarify it.
So basically, if I RTFA correctly, if a computer can read and make sense out of something it becomes uncopyrightable. So let's get philosophical and go to the code is data, data is code, bag of tricks and pull one out. Isn't an MP3 file a program that a MP3 interpreter can read and make sense out of. Does this make it software and thus uncopyrightable?
Point taken, but I believe mine is still valid. The better you can communicate with the people around you the better you are able to learn things from them. Learning things from others makes you a better programmer. :)
I don't know about the native tongue part. Mastery of the language most used in the country that you have chosen to live and work in is much more important. For example, if I moved to Japan to program, being fluent in Japanese would be more important that being a master of the English language.
Or, "You can't fire me. I quit."
Sure, I appreciate that, but I think it's better than basing it on a simple assertion. If some reasoning could be used it would be better, but until I run into that reasoning, it seems to me that God will be the best pedestal upon which to rest inalienable rights.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
What does your argument say about legalizing drugs? I recall in the 1920s we had violent gangs too. Replace alcohol with drugs and we have today.
Washington D.C. begin number one on both lists.
Yes, this is true. That why it is called "Gun Control" and not "Outlawing of guns". If a physically weak woman wants to buy a gun, and has no record of criminal activity, then she will still be able to despite the gun laws you seem to not like.
There are laws on the books already that make this the case! What are you talking about? Have you ever heard if NICS?
Tell me this: do you keep a fire extinguisher?
Probably I would be able to deal. I've been fighting for over seven years. I know what it's like to hit someone, hard, and to be hit back hard as well. Being up close and personal is not a problem for me. Still, taking a life is nothing something I want to do, though I believe I am prepared to do so should I ever truly need to. I do not represent the majority of people though.
All of that said, I can attest to the truth in what you are saying as I have previously been an assistant martial arts instructor. This is what I've noticed when people begin training:
They are not calm under fire. They are not comfortable having someone in their face. They generally don't want to hit you back, or if they do, they don't want to hit you very hard. They almost always have a problem with close bodily contact.
Still these things can be trained so that people are comfortable with them, but it takes time, and even with training some people just don't have the "killer instinct" that others do. Mine is certainly not as strong as that of others.
Ahh, the difference between living in a city and not living in a city.... What is good for our urban areas is not necessarily good for all of us. Gangs are just not a serious problem where I come from, not at all. Furthermore, I know many a farmer who shoots prairie dogs so that they don't damage the irrigation systems. These people almost always have a .22 in their vehicles for just such problems. And by the way there is a bounty on the little critters in this particular county. So not only are the farmer's actions legal they are encouraged!
It seems to me that people who have lived in a city, especially a big city, all of their lives do not understand what rural America is like in the least. Don't be upset though, it's not you, it's your upbringing.
So muggings are ok? Is beating the shit out of the guy who is trying to mug you ok? If he doesn't have a gun he can count on a fight from me. Oh wait in England it's self-defense is illegal. I forgot, sorry.
It's so easy that even grandma can do it. Appreciate this: guns are the only weapon ever created that allow the weak to stand up to the strong.
Maybe you just sit in your room with your kids and let him do what he wants in the rest of the house. Like people have said, the insurance will cover your stuff. It's just that when he gets to you, if he does, do you want to be at his mercy? My personal answer is no, no I don't.
:)
Of course though my Doberman might have something for him too, but that's another story altogether!
To get rid of waste:
Load it on the space elevator then shoot it into sun, another nearby star or just heave it in the direction of Pluto.
It seems I've stumped you. You know I can not prove the existence of God anymore than you can prove he does not exist. However, it is precisely for that reason that using God as the foundation of liberty makes some sense. If I believe God grants me the right to defend my life then he just does. You can not refute my claim even if you do not recognize my rights.
Why do you think you should have the right to defend your life?
I already know what you're going to say. "Because I say I do." Fine, whatever, but humans are fallible and God is not. So you could be wrong. What's more is that because God grants life, only he can justly take it away. This means that you can not through some contract sign your own life and the lives of your posterity away. If the inalienability of our rights rests upon human reason, they can always be reasoned away.
Do you appreciate the dilemma here? I'm not wedded to the idea that God grants us our rights, but it's the best defense of inalienable rights I have heard. If you've got something better, I would really like to know what it is.
BTW: Contrary to what you might think, I am not a terribly religious person. I do not claim to be a Christian. I have a huge problem with the divinity of Jesus. I do believe that Jesus should be emulated, as he led an exemplary life. My God is a disinterested power that set the universe in motion eons ago, like I might start some kind of simulation. Since then, evolution and the physical laws of the universe have worked their magic. The only tenet of *my* religion is that Life is Sacred. Basically this translates into, obey the golden rule when dealing with other people, and treat the earth and animals with all due respect.
So, rather than being a confrontational ass who thinks he's talking to a religious wacko, try to appreciate the philosophical dilemma concerning the origins of inalienable rights. Admittedly basing them upon God is shaky, but I believe it is better than basing them in human reason.
Yeah, I suppose we do agree. And yes, certainly God has been abused in the past for all sorts of things!
:)
By the way, the stuff I'm smoking, it's great!
Take care.
I do agree with you in that the government should but out of marriage. Still this should be *legislated* on a *State by State* basis. The Constitution does not allow nor disallow gay marriage, though there is a statutory law that disallows it. I do not believe that the law is unconstitutional, though it may be a bad one.
We have lots of bad laws that are Constitutional, the PATRIOT Act and DMCA being two of them.
What if all governments (metaphorically speaking) rip up those pieces of paper? Do our rights still exist? If so why? If not, why not? I was arguing that they always exist regardless of what any government or person says or does. Because God grants them they are untouchable. That was the thrust of the whole argument and you missed it. But really I would like you to answer the above questions and would like to see more thought put into the answers than: "our rights are inalienable because they are".
I don't disagree with the ends of that decision, but the means do not justify the ends. It was a ruling that should have come down in favor of the states no matter how morally flawed. However, it didn't and now we are stuck with yet another precedent for an ever expanding federal power.