Stuff that you could listen to on a regular basis with a dicernable melody and harmonies. With lyrics that one can actualy understand and that you could possibly hum to yourself.
So you've ruled out for example percussives (no melody), Gregorian chant (no harmony) and instrumentals (no lyrics), all of which are a significant parts of music, historically or currently.
OK, OK, I know what you were getting at and I admit I'm kind of just yanking your chain here, but this idea that there is regular music and something else is kind of offensive. Even most major (i.e. evil) labels realize that there is more variety in music than slickly produced lyrical pop. To me, the only "regular" music is the music I regularly listen to.
Push technology cannot, ever, be made into a useful marketing vector. Client pull, and only pull, leads to reasonable, effective, and non-obtrusive marketing.
First of all, you must have a different definition of useful than the marketing world uses, because push -- TV ads come to mind -- has a demonstrable track record of success.
Secondly, and back to the matter at hand, it is a form of client pull when a user gives informed consent to a company to receive their advertising. Blanket, unethical, cost-shifted email without the informed consent of the recipient is the problem with spam.
I.E. *marketing* does not make quality. I never heard of this Taguchi guy.
You may not have heard of him, but you probably have bought something that was designed using his techniques. Taguchi's method is for improving the quality of product designs. The article discusses its application to marketing.
If only! It's not even one per day. I get sometimes five or more copies of the same crap from "different" addresses consecutively.
Re:What does this have to do with spam?
on
Building Better Spam
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Did anybody RTFA? What does this have to do with spam?
Thank you. That's exactly what I was about to say. I'll be the first to pull the trigger when we get the spammers against the wall, but just because it's email marketing doesn't make it spam. I get plenty of marketing mail for games, telescope equipment, and other stuff I'm actually interested in because I opted in to the lists after reviewing their policies on sharing my address and confirming that they wouldn't. This prevailing idea that every commercial use of email is spam is raving nonsense. It is sad that the spammers have managed to so thoroughly hijack people's perception of what can be a useful marketing vector.
You realize that if it doesn't turn out legal, that the tele-spammers now have confirmation of a valid phone number, right?
That is precisely my point. If they call me after confirming my number from a do-not-call list, then I have confirmation that they are evil and have even less respect for my interests than your average sleazy salesperson, therefore they will get the full-on assault if they call me anyway...
I don't give a flying you-know-what about the legal status of the Do Not Call list at this time. I signed up for it and I know that the telemarketers have already downloaded it in the event that it does prove legal, therefore I consider them forewarned. No more polite refusals and waiting for the 800 number. They've been warned, so if they call now I have my license to be as vicous as the moment possesses me to be.
1. It says they think it should be taught instead of evolution, not that they believe it.
2. "literal creation as described in the bible" does not necessarily entail "Young-Earth Creationism", which is predicated on a dating of the creation based on reversing history from the present through the recent archeological record till it suits them to pick up the bible and follow it backwards.
I'm splitting hairs here, and obviously being flip with #1, but if you're going to be provocative, you should at at least be factually accurate.
Y.E.C.s are a small faction of Judaeo-Christian faithful who feel compelled to date the creation and assert it as an educational issue. Most believers simply don't give the issue much thought until they're polled by CNN-Gallup and then they just regurgitate what they were taught in Sunday School. Bear in mind that many of the people they poll will, as a function of age, not have significant exposure to evolutionary theory (except possibly its ridicule from the pulpit) because they were not taught it in school. It is a fairly modern thing that the role of evolution in biology is taught. I won't even go into the self-selecting nature of these polls.
--
Now, for those of you who want to flame me as a "pinhead" or "moron" because I have not toed the rabid atheist party line in dismissing every religous person on the planet as a brain-dead idiot, please read the following disclaimer:
I believe the Universe as we know it came into existence everywhere at once some 15-20 billion years ago and began an inflationary expansion that continues till today, and that biological organisms evolved through a long history of natural selection.
I also believe that there is room for all of us in polite discussion, and that dogmatic nonsense is dogmatic nonsense no matter which side it comes from. Exploring and debating unprovables is fun. Getting into a tizzy over them just makes you look like a jackass...
Look, after having lived in the Midwest for a couple years, I'm sick of self-righteous lunatics like you.
How do you know he/she is a self-righteous lunatic? Having read nothing from this author but the anonymous post, I see evidence of neither.
Note: Unswerving faith in a religous doctrine is not symptomatic of mental illness unless it manifests in ways that are otherwise pathological/sociological. One might cite your assertion as evidence of your self-righteousness. Come to think of it, I believe that over generalization is a symptom of schizophrenia.
I'm very disappointed. Your posts are usually much more sensible, but I guess I touched a nerve. Not surprising, I guess. It's a touchy topic...
I sanitized my post because I am in a corporate environment where communications are scanned by the operations center and I'm fairly certain, given our corporate policies, that racist vernacular is on the keyword lists that set the alarms ringing. I thought I made that clear. I am not upset about being denied a right to say anything. I am upset that people want books banned because they contain those words. I consider the use of racial slurs offensive, but I consider it even more offensive that anyone, right or left, is making it their business to say what I can read, watch or listen to.
You assume I'm a conservative moralist pinhead because I dare to think that everyone ought to be entitled honest information that they can evaluate for themselves? What kind of bass-ackwards logic is that? Answer: the same kind that's behind GWB's if-you're-not-with-us-your-against-us rhetoric. It's the same kind that sends people to the polls every year thinking Democrats vs Republicans is a choice. You apparently don't even know who your friends are, much less your enemies.
I don't need a lecture on the evils of the West. I am positively ashamed of my culture's abuse of indigenous peoples and meddling in other countries affairs. I recognize, however, that no subset of humankind is holding a monopoly on brutality. 200 years (actually it's more like 400+) are a blink of an eye in the arc of history, and every brutality attributed to the white man can be demonstrated in other cultures at other times, though arguably without our ruthless technological efficiency. Gee, come to think of it, it didn't take Pol Pot (about as far left as you can go) much technology to exterminate a million of his countrymen...
I extend to you the same invitation offered to the original poster. Read the book The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn by Diane Ravitch, and if you can then come back and claim that there is no interference from the liberal/left (as well as the right, this book is no apology for religous conservatives) in the contents of schoolbooks, then come back to me with arguments and citations, not name calling.
First of all, let me apologize for the "high horse" remark. That was needlessly inflammatory editorializing.
Evolution and environmentalism are not the issues here. They are based on solid science and should be included in the curricula, as they are almost everywhere despite the tremendous effort of religous conservatives to block them or get equal time for their mythos.
The "left" agenda affects education in other ways, mostly focused on sanitizing our history and literature where it doesn't suit the purpose of demonizing white Europeans (cite any number of books banned for using the N-word, or the fact hat I have to euphemize N-word or risk being flagged a racist by some PC traffic scanner). That is not being grounded in reality, it's pandering and dishonest. It is historically myopic, and it threatens the intellectual development of our children.
Seriously, read the book I mentioned, or even just some of its press. There are extremists out there on both sides, and both affect education far more than they should.
because the publishers cater to the crazy ass Bible Thumping-Idiots that run the powerful Texas ISD's.
They also pander to cultural relativist liberal wusses, so get off your high horse. The problem isn't the specific groups affecting the educational process with their political agendas, but that the educational process is vulnerable to subversion by political agendas at all. In the attempt to avoid all contreversy, our texts -- particularly history and literature -- are completely castrated.
Read the book The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn by Diane Ravitch.
Well your f-ls ought to take that up with the LOC because
this is what they say. [loc.gov]
Linked behind this is a statement "With the implementation of the LC ILS on August 16, 1999,..."
The "former" in my wife's title correlates to mid-1998, so there's a good reason for the confusion.
Remember, Google knows MORE than you do.
Does it know that you're a sarcastic smartass hiding your lack of social grace behind an AC checkbox?
Grow up and learn to participate in civil discussions or do us a favor and go away. Posts like yours are the reason I generally don't reply to (or even read) ACs. Thanks for reminding me what a waste of time the practice is...
It's simple really. You're not supposed to just make up LOC numbers for you local archive out of thin air.
According to my former-librarian spouse, this statement is incorrect. LOC is a classification scheme, not a registration number (actually they may also offer something like that, analogous to an ISBN, but we didn't discuss that). Ergo, there is nothing per se wrong with a library assigning an LOC classification. You would generally want to check against existing classifications from other libraries and OCLC, but you can assign LOC numbers without the book being registered there.
Is the euphamism you are looking for "enough rope to hang yourself" or ".. gives us a gun to shoot yourself in the foot"? Your version doesn't make sense and isn't even funny.
It's the title of a book on C/C++ programming by Holub. That you find it neither sensible nor funny suggests you have never used either of those languages...
As for the developers, well it was outsourced to the cheapest bid.
Yep. That's a big problem, too. I've spent years (as a non-cheap consultant) undoing the messes left by lowest-bid outsourcers. God bless 'em...
As for "compile once, run anywhere" I'm guessing your program runs, just not correctly? Container hazards are a big problem in Web apps. I've had to take the architectural low road more than once when dealing with proprietary app servers...
it provides for rapid development and portability that are a developer's dream
That must explain why we've spent the last week wasting our time with a newly delivered peice of code that refuses to run.
No, the incompetence of your developer explains that. Just because you can write it in Java doesn't guarantee its portability. Java gives you abstractions that can be used to guarantee portability, but it is a complete language and therefore also gives you, to nick the famous axiom about C, enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot.
Whoever wrote the stinking pile of crap wasn't what I'd call "a developer", either. I'd call them something, but certainly not a "developer"
Ah, I see you've come to the same conclusion yourself...
At first I thought my technolust was just fueled by the stylishness and because-we-can appeal of this thing, but then I realized it would have a very real advantage to me:
I have an ANSI spec workstation desk at home with a drop-down keyboard tray. The tray must be in the down position to be comfortable, and it is not wide enough to hold a notebook. Ergo, this kind of machine would be great for the road and for a console on my desktop.
Of course buying a new desk or higher chair would probably still be cheaper!
Wanna make a video game out of the above "Shoot the Lawyers" theme ?
I really just meant it as a sort of feedback-loop joke; that making such a game would result in some dumbass shooting a real lawyer, resulting in the gamemakers being sued by his lawyers, further enflaming gamer ire against lawyers, ad infinitum.
I am a programmer, but have zero skills in games design or implementation, so I'm not a very good candidate for such a project. I also don't have the resources to defend myself against the lawsuits.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
So you've ruled out for example percussives (no melody), Gregorian chant (no harmony) and instrumentals (no lyrics), all of which are a significant parts of music, historically or currently.
OK, OK, I know what you were getting at and I admit I'm kind of just yanking your chain here, but this idea that there is regular music and something else is kind of offensive. Even most major (i.e. evil) labels realize that there is more variety in music than slickly produced lyrical pop. To me, the only "regular" music is the music I regularly listen to.
Um.. Can you clue me in as to what constitutes "regular" music?
First of all, you must have a different definition of useful than the marketing world uses, because push -- TV ads come to mind -- has a demonstrable track record of success.
Secondly, and back to the matter at hand, it is a form of client pull when a user gives informed consent to a company to receive their advertising. Blanket, unethical, cost-shifted email without the informed consent of the recipient is the problem with spam.
Look again. The title of the book is E-mailing Your Way to Sales With the Taguchi Approach.
:-)
You can't be faulted for using the purist 'email' when you searched the document, though. 'e-mail' is an abomination.
You may not have heard of him, but you probably have bought something that was designed using his techniques. Taguchi's method is for improving the quality of product designs. The article discusses its application to marketing.
If only! It's not even one per day. I get sometimes five or more copies of the same crap from "different" addresses consecutively.
Thank you. That's exactly what I was about to say. I'll be the first to pull the trigger when we get the spammers against the wall, but just because it's email marketing doesn't make it spam. I get plenty of marketing mail for games, telescope equipment, and other stuff I'm actually interested in because I opted in to the lists after reviewing their policies on sharing my address and confirming that they wouldn't. This prevailing idea that every commercial use of email is spam is raving nonsense. It is sad that the spammers have managed to so thoroughly hijack people's perception of what can be a useful marketing vector.
That is precisely my point. If they call me after confirming my number from a do-not-call list, then I have confirmation that they are evil and have even less respect for my interests than your average sleazy salesperson, therefore they will get the full-on assault if they call me anyway...
I don't give a flying you-know-what about the legal status of the Do Not Call list at this time. I signed up for it and I know that the telemarketers have already downloaded it in the event that it does prove legal, therefore I consider them forewarned. No more polite refusals and waiting for the 800 number. They've been warned, so if they call now I have my license to be as vicous as the moment possesses me to be.
Actually:
1. It says they think it should be taught instead of evolution, not that they believe it.
2. "literal creation as described in the bible" does not necessarily entail "Young-Earth Creationism", which is predicated on a dating of the creation based on reversing history from the present through the recent archeological record till it suits them to pick up the bible and follow it backwards.
I'm splitting hairs here, and obviously being flip with #1, but if you're going to be provocative, you should at at least be factually accurate.
Y.E.C.s are a small faction of Judaeo-Christian faithful who feel compelled to date the creation and assert it as an educational issue. Most believers simply don't give the issue much thought until they're polled by CNN-Gallup and then they just regurgitate what they were taught in Sunday School. Bear in mind that many of the people they poll will, as a function of age, not have significant exposure to evolutionary theory (except possibly its ridicule from the pulpit) because they were not taught it in school. It is a fairly modern thing that the role of evolution in biology is taught. I won't even go into the self-selecting nature of these polls.
--
Now, for those of you who want to flame me as a "pinhead" or "moron" because I have not toed the rabid atheist party line in dismissing every religous person on the planet as a brain-dead idiot, please read the following disclaimer:
I believe the Universe as we know it came into existence everywhere at once some 15-20 billion years ago and began an inflationary expansion that continues till today, and that biological organisms evolved through a long history of natural selection.
I also believe that there is room for all of us in polite discussion, and that dogmatic nonsense is dogmatic nonsense no matter which side it comes from. Exploring and debating unprovables is fun. Getting into a tizzy over them just makes you look like a jackass...
For my part, thanks for the post of the article. I don't know what AC was fussing about, except maybe your sig?!
Clue me in, though: to what do you refer on the lame filter requirements?
How do you know he/she is a self-righteous lunatic? Having read nothing from this author but the anonymous post, I see evidence of neither.
Note: Unswerving faith in a religous doctrine is not symptomatic of mental illness unless it manifests in ways that are otherwise pathological/sociological. One might cite your assertion as evidence of your self-righteousness. Come to think of it, I believe that over generalization is a symptom of schizophrenia.
Article:
I'm very disappointed. Your posts are usually much more sensible, but I guess I touched a nerve. Not surprising, I guess. It's a touchy topic...
I sanitized my post because I am in a corporate environment where communications are scanned by the operations center and I'm fairly certain, given our corporate policies, that racist vernacular is on the keyword lists that set the alarms ringing. I thought I made that clear. I am not upset about being denied a right to say anything. I am upset that people want books banned because they contain those words. I consider the use of racial slurs offensive, but I consider it even more offensive that anyone, right or left, is making it their business to say what I can read, watch or listen to.
You assume I'm a conservative moralist pinhead because I dare to think that everyone ought to be entitled honest information that they can evaluate for themselves? What kind of bass-ackwards logic is that? Answer: the same kind that's behind GWB's if-you're-not-with-us-your-against-us rhetoric. It's the same kind that sends people to the polls every year thinking Democrats vs Republicans is a choice. You apparently don't even know who your friends are, much less your enemies.
I don't need a lecture on the evils of the West. I am positively ashamed of my culture's abuse of indigenous peoples and meddling in other countries affairs. I recognize, however, that no subset of humankind is holding a monopoly on brutality. 200 years (actually it's more like 400+) are a blink of an eye in the arc of history, and every brutality attributed to the white man can be demonstrated in other cultures at other times, though arguably without our ruthless technological efficiency. Gee, come to think of it, it didn't take Pol Pot (about as far left as you can go) much technology to exterminate a million of his countrymen...
I extend to you the same invitation offered to the original poster. Read the book The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn by Diane Ravitch, and if you can then come back and claim that there is no interference from the liberal/left (as well as the right, this book is no apology for religous conservatives) in the contents of schoolbooks, then come back to me with arguments and citations, not name calling.
First of all, let me apologize for the "high horse" remark. That was needlessly inflammatory editorializing.
Evolution and environmentalism are not the issues here. They are based on solid science and should be included in the curricula, as they are almost everywhere despite the tremendous effort of religous conservatives to block them or get equal time for their mythos.
The "left" agenda affects education in other ways, mostly focused on sanitizing our history and literature where it doesn't suit the purpose of demonizing white Europeans (cite any number of books banned for using the N-word, or the fact hat I have to euphemize N-word or risk being flagged a racist by some PC traffic scanner). That is not being grounded in reality, it's pandering and dishonest. It is historically myopic, and it threatens the intellectual development of our children.
Seriously, read the book I mentioned, or even just some of its press. There are extremists out there on both sides, and both affect education far more than they should.
They also pander to cultural relativist liberal wusses, so get off your high horse. The problem isn't the specific groups affecting the educational process with their political agendas, but that the educational process is vulnerable to subversion by political agendas at all. In the attempt to avoid all contreversy, our texts -- particularly history and literature -- are completely castrated.
Read the book The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn by Diane Ravitch.
Linked behind this is a statement "With the implementation of the LC ILS on August 16, 1999,
The "former" in my wife's title correlates to mid-1998, so there's a good reason for the confusion.
Does it know that you're a sarcastic smartass hiding your lack of social grace behind an AC checkbox?
Grow up and learn to participate in civil discussions or do us a favor and go away. Posts like yours are the reason I generally don't reply to (or even read) ACs. Thanks for reminding me what a waste of time the practice is...
You do, but I think you replied to the wrong post!
According to my former-librarian spouse, this statement is incorrect. LOC is a classification scheme, not a registration number (actually they may also offer something like that, analogous to an ISBN, but we didn't discuss that). Ergo, there is nothing per se wrong with a library assigning an LOC classification. You would generally want to check against existing classifications from other libraries and OCLC, but you can assign LOC numbers without the book being registered there.
It's the title of a book on C/C++ programming by Holub. That you find it neither sensible nor funny suggests you have never used either of those languages...
Yep. That's a big problem, too. I've spent years (as a non-cheap consultant) undoing the messes left by lowest-bid outsourcers. God bless 'em...
As for "compile once, run anywhere" I'm guessing your program runs, just not correctly? Container hazards are a big problem in Web apps. I've had to take the architectural low road more than once when dealing with proprietary app servers...
<sarcasm>Yeah, I've never heard anyone complain about Java before...</sarcasm>
No, the incompetence of your developer explains that. Just because you can write it in Java doesn't guarantee its portability. Java gives you abstractions that can be used to guarantee portability, but it is a complete language and therefore also gives you, to nick the famous axiom about C, enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot.
Ah, I see you've come to the same conclusion yourself...
At first I thought my technolust was just fueled by the stylishness and because-we-can appeal of this thing, but then I realized it would have a very real advantage to me:
I have an ANSI spec workstation desk at home with a drop-down keyboard tray. The tray must be in the down position to be comfortable, and it is not wide enough to hold a notebook. Ergo, this kind of machine would be great for the road and for a console on my desktop.
Of course buying a new desk or higher chair would probably still be cheaper!
I really just meant it as a sort of feedback-loop joke; that making such a game would result in some dumbass shooting a real lawyer, resulting in the gamemakers being sued by his lawyers, further enflaming gamer ire against lawyers, ad infinitum.
I am a programmer, but have zero skills in games design or implementation, so I'm not a very good candidate for such a project. I also don't have the resources to defend myself against the lawsuits.