So are you defining dissonance as the musical use of discordance within a piece? Insofar as discordance is natural they would be very linked but I agree a lot is learned. The authentic V-I cadence is almost naturally derived but there are plenty of cadences used in different styles and times, like IV-I, that give resolution almost by convention.
Something is missing in the summary, the 'yet' does not reveal a disagreement as the amusical listeners disliked the same intervals.
It should be noted that it's traditionally considered the ratio of the frequencies that causes dissonance, not the closeness of the notes. To be harmonious two notes need to have frequencies that come into sync quickly. So a sixth (5:3) is is actually less harmonious than the closer fifth (3:2).
It would be interesting to check the numbers from their theory on the frequencies of the overtones as that gives many more possibilities for frequency ratios (first overtone of the second note against the root of the first note etc.). Overtones do diminish in strength very quickly so the root frequencies are always going to be more important.
There's one part I find has some interest and the rest just sound like he's noodling idly while watching TV. My tracks aren't numbered properly so not sure which one it is. I wouldn't classify it as dissonant, though, not in the same sense as Schoenberg.
Musical taste is a moving target. Dissonance has somewhat been absorbed into our collective musical vocabulary. Witness the 'stab-scene' music from Psycho. We accept it has it's place and the mood it invokes, however audiences literally walked out of the initial microtonal performances.
Technically English has a lot of words but the vocabulary of the average person is closer to 50,000, and the average working vocabulary is way, way less (5,000 to 10,000 and certainly not evenly distributed). That is, there are a lot of words we recognise but would never think to use. From memory I believe that Shakespeare's works use 60,000 and the King James Bible 11,000. Most passphrases would be chosen from this smaller space.
Crunching the numbers, a 4-word passphrase (lowercase) would have 6.25e14 to 1e16 combinations. An 8-character password (uppercase, lowercase, numbers) would have 2.18e14. So they're in the same realm, at least with this simplistic analysis.
This motivation is no different from that of liberals. More of them are on welfare or low incomes and so vote in their own self-interest to increase it and so on. Broadly conservatives want a dog-eat-dog world because they are more likely to thrive in it, and liberals want a nanny state for similar reasons.
Of course it's not that simple. Your statements show you are thinking beyond your own self-interest as do many conservatives (who tend to give to charity more than liberals (never been sure if that's corrected for disposable income)).
Not sure exactly what you're saying here, that without bank and oil subsidies you would be paying those prices? But then how do you "take pizza and a movie" which would presumably be more expensive with bank/oil subsidised?
Anyhow, there are legitimate food security reasons for a country to subsidise its own farmers. Oil subsidies tend to be to placate consumers which makes them fundamentally different. Hollywood and banking, just basic corruption.
I agree. Governments have put a lot of effort into forcing interoperability on telecommunications lines, yet on the internet it's becoming all proprietary. I guess the difference is the cutting-edge nature. Like it or not, systems like Facebook and MSN/Skype identified deficiencies in existing protocols and were able to provide improvments far more quickly than if an industry standard had to be developed. They also work better for being under centralised control.
Ultimately I hope, once things mature, that open standards will prevail. It's insane to handcuff society's means of communication to corporations.
Money flows from people to corporations [...] if you tax the people and not the business - eventually business will collect all the money in the system
What you are neglecting is that corporations are, ultimately, owned by people, and those people will take the profits and spend them.
Right, although the more people who behave honestly, the greater the cultural pressure to behave this way there is. That is why you get societies with differing levels of corruption.
Late reply here, but I don't IQ can be perceived linearly like that. A person of IQ 65 is virtually incapable of looking after themselves and appears to have something 'wrong' with them.
Perhaps the difference is that most of the tasks of life, such as cooking, driving, building, communicating with people etc. do not require a high IQ. 135 is only needed for a relatively small amount of abstract jobs. For everything else, 90 is just fine. From this perspective a 135 should not find a 100 to be retarded.
While I'm commenting, I do like how nerds think that they are so much more arrogant than other people:)
On arrogance, it's part of hope and self-esteem. We naturally place higher value on the things we are good at. For the case of high IQ, you can recognise the skills of others in other areas. For the more rare case of someone who genuinely is superior in many realms, not being arrogant is recognising that people have intrinsic worth by virtue of simply being human.
Any society of greater than about 10 people is going to have a proportion who do not agree with the general consensus. Therefore you get some non-collectivist Scandanavians and you get some collectivist Americans who haven't fallen for the free-market-is-perfect brainwashing (note majority culture and government are intertwined, it would be a mistake to attribute this to the government alone).
Unfortunately for those minorities, rules tend to need to be universal, so the answer to your question is that they probably hate it and, if they have the motivation and means, emigrate to somewhere more aligned with their attitudes.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest very few Scandanavians are trying to get out for financial and security reasons. On the other side it seems rare for U.S. citizens to permanently move also.
I can't remember the last time a child was actually abducted in Australia
This one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Arthurs, was six years ago. A relative managed one of the stores in the shopping centre at the time. As infrequent as these things are (and as your reaction shows), the stakes are so high, for guilt and pain, that it's understandable why parents focus on them disproportionately.
This also works on bookdepository.co.uk which offers 'free' shipping but changes the price based on your IP location. Obviously you have to trust the proxy site with your password which may or may not be worth a couple of dollars.
Pointing out hypocrisy is a form of the ad hominen fallacy. It does nothing to prove that the original argument (supporting piracy of movies, anti-gay, pro-life) is incorrect. Still it is useful for the hypocrite in that they should be forced to examine their own principles, or outworkings of those principles, for flaws.
You only see your example on the news because they are scandals, it doesn't really tell us about frequency. At least in the case of piracy, religious people are more inclined to follow the goverment's laws on copyright.
It's an interesting question. Certainly translations are copyrightable, e.g. all the different Bibles or English versions of Tolstoy. In those cases the original content is out of copyright.
However consider music transcriptions like guitar tablature. I believe that these are not considered a breach of copyright of the original work even when they contain lyrics. There were early court cases about this. Perhaps music is different because the transcription is an abstract representation, not the work itself.
I suspect that, in the same way that most early guitar tab was actually ripped from existing copyright tab books, these transcriptions are studio-commissioned and extracted from the discs, making it a moot point.
Closer, but plagiarism is to IP what forgery is to physical property. IP piracy is different in that the infringer is not seeking to present the work as their own, they are simply copying it for the benefit of others.
This is hardly a new type of action for which we need a new word, it goes back to at least the printing press. "Stealing" has probably been the approximation for centuries ("piracy" in this context is about 100 years old IIRC), but of course if society changes its thinking on the action then the connotations of stealing are no longer accurate.
I question whether this is even piracy. If the DivX site community translated these subtitles themselves then it could be argued they are providing them under an open license. I certainly doubt they attach a copyright warning to them! If instead the subtitles are extracted from the title discs then Netflix are indeed guilty of piracy, although not against the DivX group.
And yes, the use of "stealing" is typical headline trolling, especially on a site where any copyright discussion is guaranteed to contain at least 20 posters going off about why infringement isn't technically stealing.
I agree that a stable, mature democracy will produce two virtually indistinguishable parties. It's an indication that democracy is working. The people have all pooled their wishes and the resulting closeness of the two parties shows that the compromise is optimal. Okay, it's probably going too far to call it optimal, there are problems and corruption.
it's tyranny of the minority
Yes and no. Australia had this experience where the Labour party aligned with the Greens to form government. While this allowed the Greens to have power disproportionate to their vote, it should be acknowledged that the entrenchment of the major parties usually gives them power disproportionately smaller to their vote, and it indicates that the optimal compromise is not yet reflected in the policies of the major parties, so it becomes an agent of change.
Spot on. Asides from this a country unfortunately needs to flex, and provide practice for, its military to avoid being a larger target. The only saving grace is that there has never been a nation with as much power that has abused it so moderately.
According to wikipedia the U.S. has 3 million active and reserve military personel, which is 1% the population. The percentage of homosexuals is generally put at 2% to 10%. Removing closeted gays would reduce this slightly. 1/100 and 2/100 are small fractions. You could argue that 10/100 is not, but I doubt you'd call it a large or even medium fraction.
I had the same reaction upon finding out the 'high H' in HFCS represented 45/55 rather than 50/50. It seems insignificant. However you have it the wrong way around; fructose is the 55% in most soft drink uses (hence the HF = high-fructose).
There is something to the type of sugar. Fructose is considered unhealthier as it is processed by the liver (glucose is processed throughout your body) and, in soft drink quantities, overwhelms the liver which responds by laying it down as fat. Similar levels of glucose can be handled by insulin.
It's not unfeasible that the 5% could be a tipping point (especially at the population level) however I don't know, and I suspect you are correct in pointing out the bigger problem is simply the ludicrous amount of sugar. I do love Coke though.
It's the same old story, individual rights versus community harmony.
She's stretching feminism to turn it into an attack on all women. I'd say Sweden's thinking is that (most of the) particular women who determine they want to be paid for sex are moral imbeciles.
Slashdot Mirror
So are you defining dissonance as the musical use of discordance within a piece? Insofar as discordance is natural they would be very linked but I agree a lot is learned. The authentic V-I cadence is almost naturally derived but there are plenty of cadences used in different styles and times, like IV-I, that give resolution almost by convention.
Something is missing in the summary, the 'yet' does not reveal a disagreement as the amusical listeners disliked the same intervals.
It should be noted that it's traditionally considered the ratio of the frequencies that causes dissonance, not the closeness of the notes. To be harmonious two notes need to have frequencies that come into sync quickly. So a sixth (5:3) is is actually less harmonious than the closer fifth (3:2).
It would be interesting to check the numbers from their theory on the frequencies of the overtones as that gives many more possibilities for frequency ratios (first overtone of the second note against the root of the first note etc.). Overtones do diminish in strength very quickly so the root frequencies are always going to be more important.
There's one part I find has some interest and the rest just sound like he's noodling idly while watching TV. My tracks aren't numbered properly so not sure which one it is. I wouldn't classify it as dissonant, though, not in the same sense as Schoenberg.
Musical taste is a moving target. Dissonance has somewhat been absorbed into our collective musical vocabulary. Witness the 'stab-scene' music from Psycho. We accept it has it's place and the mood it invokes, however audiences literally walked out of the initial microtonal performances.
Technically English has a lot of words but the vocabulary of the average person is closer to 50,000, and the average working vocabulary is way, way less (5,000 to 10,000 and certainly not evenly distributed). That is, there are a lot of words we recognise but would never think to use. From memory I believe that Shakespeare's works use 60,000 and the King James Bible 11,000. Most passphrases would be chosen from this smaller space.
Crunching the numbers, a 4-word passphrase (lowercase) would have 6.25e14 to 1e16 combinations. An 8-character password (uppercase, lowercase, numbers) would have 2.18e14. So they're in the same realm, at least with this simplistic analysis.
Well I just found out now, very surprising. And I thought I was uncrackable with PaSsWoRd too :(
This motivation is no different from that of liberals. More of them are on welfare or low incomes and so vote in their own self-interest to increase it and so on. Broadly conservatives want a dog-eat-dog world because they are more likely to thrive in it, and liberals want a nanny state for similar reasons.
Of course it's not that simple. Your statements show you are thinking beyond your own self-interest as do many conservatives (who tend to give to charity more than liberals (never been sure if that's corrected for disposable income)).
Not sure exactly what you're saying here, that without bank and oil subsidies you would be paying those prices? But then how do you "take pizza and a movie" which would presumably be more expensive with bank/oil subsidised?
Anyhow, there are legitimate food security reasons for a country to subsidise its own farmers. Oil subsidies tend to be to placate consumers which makes them fundamentally different. Hollywood and banking, just basic corruption.
I agree. Governments have put a lot of effort into forcing interoperability on telecommunications lines, yet on the internet it's becoming all proprietary. I guess the difference is the cutting-edge nature. Like it or not, systems like Facebook and MSN/Skype identified deficiencies in existing protocols and were able to provide improvments far more quickly than if an industry standard had to be developed. They also work better for being under centralised control.
Ultimately I hope, once things mature, that open standards will prevail. It's insane to handcuff society's means of communication to corporations.
Money flows from people to corporations [...] if you tax the people and not the business - eventually business will collect all the money in the system
What you are neglecting is that corporations are, ultimately, owned by people, and those people will take the profits and spend them.
Right, although the more people who behave honestly, the greater the cultural pressure to behave this way there is. That is why you get societies with differing levels of corruption.
Late reply here, but I don't IQ can be perceived linearly like that. A person of IQ 65 is virtually incapable of looking after themselves and appears to have something 'wrong' with them.
Perhaps the difference is that most of the tasks of life, such as cooking, driving, building, communicating with people etc. do not require a high IQ. 135 is only needed for a relatively small amount of abstract jobs. For everything else, 90 is just fine. From this perspective a 135 should not find a 100 to be retarded.
While I'm commenting, I do like how nerds think that they are so much more arrogant than other people :)
On arrogance, it's part of hope and self-esteem. We naturally place higher value on the things we are good at. For the case of high IQ, you can recognise the skills of others in other areas. For the more rare case of someone who genuinely is superior in many realms, not being arrogant is recognising that people have intrinsic worth by virtue of simply being human.
Any society of greater than about 10 people is going to have a proportion who do not agree with the general consensus. Therefore you get some non-collectivist Scandanavians and you get some collectivist Americans who haven't fallen for the free-market-is-perfect brainwashing (note majority culture and government are intertwined, it would be a mistake to attribute this to the government alone).
Unfortunately for those minorities, rules tend to need to be universal, so the answer to your question is that they probably hate it and, if they have the motivation and means, emigrate to somewhere more aligned with their attitudes.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest very few Scandanavians are trying to get out for financial and security reasons. On the other side it seems rare for U.S. citizens to permanently move also.
I can't remember the last time a child was actually abducted in Australia
This one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Arthurs, was six years ago. A relative managed one of the stores in the shopping centre at the time. As infrequent as these things are (and as your reaction shows), the stakes are so high, for guilt and pain, that it's understandable why parents focus on them disproportionately.
This also works on bookdepository.co.uk which offers 'free' shipping but changes the price based on your IP location. Obviously you have to trust the proxy site with your password which may or may not be worth a couple of dollars.
Pointing out hypocrisy is a form of the ad hominen fallacy. It does nothing to prove that the original argument (supporting piracy of movies, anti-gay, pro-life) is incorrect. Still it is useful for the hypocrite in that they should be forced to examine their own principles, or outworkings of those principles, for flaws.
You only see your example on the news because they are scandals, it doesn't really tell us about frequency. At least in the case of piracy, religious people are more inclined to follow the goverment's laws on copyright.
Right you are. I assumed the GP was talking about piracy in general. Plagiarism is an apt term for what Netflix has done here.
It's an interesting question. Certainly translations are copyrightable, e.g. all the different Bibles or English versions of Tolstoy. In those cases the original content is out of copyright.
However consider music transcriptions like guitar tablature. I believe that these are not considered a breach of copyright of the original work even when they contain lyrics. There were early court cases about this. Perhaps music is different because the transcription is an abstract representation, not the work itself.
I suspect that, in the same way that most early guitar tab was actually ripped from existing copyright tab books, these transcriptions are studio-commissioned and extracted from the discs, making it a moot point.
Closer, but plagiarism is to IP what forgery is to physical property. IP piracy is different in that the infringer is not seeking to present the work as their own, they are simply copying it for the benefit of others.
This is hardly a new type of action for which we need a new word, it goes back to at least the printing press. "Stealing" has probably been the approximation for centuries ("piracy" in this context is about 100 years old IIRC), but of course if society changes its thinking on the action then the connotations of stealing are no longer accurate.
I question whether this is even piracy. If the DivX site community translated these subtitles themselves then it could be argued they are providing them under an open license. I certainly doubt they attach a copyright warning to them! If instead the subtitles are extracted from the title discs then Netflix are indeed guilty of piracy, although not against the DivX group.
And yes, the use of "stealing" is typical headline trolling, especially on a site where any copyright discussion is guaranteed to contain at least 20 posters going off about why infringement isn't technically stealing.
I agree that a stable, mature democracy will produce two virtually indistinguishable parties. It's an indication that democracy is working. The people have all pooled their wishes and the resulting closeness of the two parties shows that the compromise is optimal. Okay, it's probably going too far to call it optimal, there are problems and corruption.
it's tyranny of the minority
Yes and no. Australia had this experience where the Labour party aligned with the Greens to form government. While this allowed the Greens to have power disproportionate to their vote, it should be acknowledged that the entrenchment of the major parties usually gives them power disproportionately smaller to their vote, and it indicates that the optimal compromise is not yet reflected in the policies of the major parties, so it becomes an agent of change.
Quokka. Easier to pronounce and they make handy footballs.
Spot on. Asides from this a country unfortunately needs to flex, and provide practice for, its military to avoid being a larger target. The only saving grace is that there has never been a nation with as much power that has abused it so moderately.
According to wikipedia the U.S. has 3 million active and reserve military personel, which is 1% the population. The percentage of homosexuals is generally put at 2% to 10%. Removing closeted gays would reduce this slightly. 1/100 and 2/100 are small fractions. You could argue that 10/100 is not, but I doubt you'd call it a large or even medium fraction.
I had the same reaction upon finding out the 'high H' in HFCS represented 45/55 rather than 50/50. It seems insignificant. However you have it the wrong way around; fructose is the 55% in most soft drink uses (hence the HF = high-fructose).
There is something to the type of sugar. Fructose is considered unhealthier as it is processed by the liver (glucose is processed throughout your body) and, in soft drink quantities, overwhelms the liver which responds by laying it down as fat. Similar levels of glucose can be handled by insulin.
It's not unfeasible that the 5% could be a tipping point (especially at the population level) however I don't know, and I suspect you are correct in pointing out the bigger problem is simply the ludicrous amount of sugar. I do love Coke though.
It's the same old story, individual rights versus community harmony.
She's stretching feminism to turn it into an attack on all women. I'd say Sweden's thinking is that (most of the) particular women who determine they want to be paid for sex are moral imbeciles.