And they're nuts. Humanity has a solid evolutionary record on this planet....
You're essentially saying that the world is not an illusion because it's not an illusion. That's not an argument.
Like it or not, the simulation thesis, or the malicious demon thesis, or the veil of Maya, or the various theses of the various Gnostics, etc. basically hold that sensation itself is an illusion, so when you point to evolution (etc.), you demonstrate nothing. You need to demonstrate somehow that sensation is veridical, and that proof has eluded consensus for quite sometime.
Viruses. In English, at least. In Latin, it would be vira. Third declination, not second.
And while I can at least understand that people who don't understand Latin but somehow learned that -us becomes -i in plural (yes, if it's 2nd and masculine instead of neuter), where the fuck does that second "i" come from?
Your answer is confusing, even though the result is correct.
Morphologically speaking, "vira" would be the proper plural precisely because "virus" is a second (not third) declension neuter noun.
Yet, it "virus" like "water" is uncountable so this plural is unattested.
But why do we always end up in this same Latin grammar and philology lesson?
This is precisely what Kant meant when he argued that the principle of non-contradiction does not prove the existence of anything, and that reason left to its own devices can conjure up anything it wants.
I would use LO, and at one point had actually switched, but I need to use WordFast for my translation work, and there are really no comparable plugins for LO. (Don't bother listing them - the ones I have tried don't do what I need as efficiently as WF).
I have DAB, and I find it is far inferior to FM, and even to Internet radio. I can constantly stream Internet stations and even Spotify on my Revo Superconnect, but DAB constantly breaks up.
The real problem with the summary is that it contained basically the whole article, and that article was rather empty, or at least devoid of any real analysis.
Sparks but no flame: Pianist Dejan Lazic at Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater
By Anne Midgette
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 6, 2010; 5:32 PM
Grandiloquence is an occupational hazard for a solo musician. There you are, alone onstage, playing works that are acknowledged to be monumentally great with breathtaking ability. It can be hard to avoid assuming the trappings of greatness.
Exhibit A is Dejan Lazic, who made his Washington debut Saturday afternoon as part of the Washington Performing Arts Society's Hayes Piano Series at the Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater. Lazic, 33, is a pianist, composer and sometime clarinetist. A few years ago, he made a strong mark as a performing partner of cellist Pieter Wispelwey. More recently, his claim to fame was turning Brahms's violin concerto into something dubbed "Piano Concerto No. 3," which he recorded with the Atlanta Symphony earlier this year. The feat ranks somewhere on the "because it's there" spectrum of human achievement: attention-getting, large scale and a little empty.
His recital of Chopin and Schubert on Saturday was unfortunately on the same spectrum. The selection of those two composers is usually a way to demonstrate a pianist's sensitivity as well as his virtuosity. This performance, though, kept one eye fixed on monumentality. Some of the pieces, such as Chopin's Scherzo No. 2, sounded less like light solo piano works than an attempt to rival the volume of a concerto with full orchestra. This scherzo became cartoon-like in its lurches from minutely small to very, very large.
It's not that Lazic isn't sensitive - or profoundly gifted. The very first notes of Chopin's Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise Brillante at the start of the program signalled that he can do anything he wants at the keyboard, detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet. Again and again, throughout the afternoon, he showed what a range of colors he could get out of the instrument, switching from hard-edged percussiveness to creamy legato, crackling chords to a single thread of sound. The sheer technical ability was, at first, a delight.
Soon, though, all of the finesse started to seem like an end in itself. Every nuance of the music was underlined visibly with a host of concert-pianist playacting gestures: head flung back at the end of a phrase; left hand conducting the right hand; or a whole ballet of fingers hovering over keys and picking out their targets before an opening note was even struck at the start of Chopin's Ballade No. 3. There were fine moments, but they stubbornly refused to add up to anything more than a self-conscious display of Fine Moments. The final movement of Chopin's Second Piano Sonata was in a way the most successful part of the program: sheer virtuosity, and perfectly unhinged.
Schubert's B-flat Sonata, D. 960, was a chance to shift into another gear and show a more reflective side, but it was a chance Lazic didn't quite take. The notes, again, were exquisitely placed, and there were things to like, but the human side fell short. All of the precision didn't help bring across the lyricism of the first movement's theme, or the threat of the bass growl that keeps warning off ease from the bottom of the keyboard. The second movement, instead of being a searching, tugging quest, was reduced to merely very pretty music.
The pianist was received with reasonably warm applause, but it didn't last long enough to draw an encore - which ought to get his attention. He's a pianist of prodigious gifts, and he's too good not to do better, to move beyond the music's challenges and into the realm of its soul.
Slashdot Mirror
swoosh ...
And they're nuts. Humanity has a solid evolutionary record on this planet. ...
You're essentially saying that the world is not an illusion because it's not an illusion. That's not an argument.
Like it or not, the simulation thesis, or the malicious demon thesis, or the veil of Maya, or the various theses of the various Gnostics, etc. basically hold that sensation itself is an illusion, so when you point to evolution (etc.), you demonstrate nothing. You need to demonstrate somehow that sensation is veridical, and that proof has eluded consensus for quite sometime.
I for one detest the click-baity headline.
Somebody got their coastocoastam in my /.
"Viruses" being the correct answer ....
Viruses. In English, at least. In Latin, it would be vira. Third declination, not second.
And while I can at least understand that people who don't understand Latin but somehow learned that -us becomes -i in plural (yes, if it's 2nd and masculine instead of neuter), where the fuck does that second "i" come from?
Your answer is confusing, even though the result is correct.
Morphologically speaking, "vira" would be the proper plural precisely because "virus" is a second (not third) declension neuter noun.
Yet, it "virus" like "water" is uncountable so this plural is unattested.
But why do we always end up in this same Latin grammar and philology lesson?
I think parent is taking the modern university to be a company. Even liberal arts institutions like mine are now explicitly run that way.
This is precisely what Kant meant when he argued that the principle of non-contradiction does not prove the existence of anything, and that reason left to its own devices can conjure up anything it wants.
Barnes and Noble, in my experience, does not run book stores but campus stores.
Except at the beginning of the semester, there are no books available for sale at my BN-run mid-major store.
Well, there is an ignored rack of faculty-authored books....
I would use LO, and at one point had actually switched, but I need to use WordFast for my translation work, and there are really no comparable plugins for LO. (Don't bother listing them - the ones I have tried don't do what I need as efficiently as WF).
I actually write books. In my case, I earn much more from rank promotion than I do from royalties. When people pirate my books, I lose VERY little.
What you don't seem to care about though is the fascination with the idea that numbers, in whatever base, express reality.
Working through "the relationships between digits" is simply a primitive form of a deeper insight.
I have no problems with this. I had no idea this film was in production, and now I can't wait to see it. Plus I love hoops....
This is happening even at universities. We are supposed to teach competencies, and not really worry about the details of our specific subject area.
It's a great word - "private law (privi-lege)." That's how I remember how to spell it...
This is an ad.
Then you add a gunner to your cockpit crew. Or maybe put him in a turret on the bottom of the fuselage.
He could be self-loathing, naive, or - horror of horrors - a trolling administrator.
Of course he thinks this, He's already drunk the Kool-aid. Only those deep in the bowels of edu-babble speak like that.
I have DAB, and I find it is far inferior to FM, and even to Internet radio. I can constantly stream Internet stations and even Spotify on my Revo Superconnect, but DAB constantly breaks up.
The real problem with the summary is that it contained basically the whole article, and that article was rather empty, or at least devoid of any real analysis.
Sparks but no flame: Pianist Dejan Lazic at Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater
By Anne Midgette
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 6, 2010; 5:32 PM
Grandiloquence is an occupational hazard for a solo musician. There you are, alone onstage, playing works that are acknowledged to be monumentally great with breathtaking ability. It can be hard to avoid assuming the trappings of greatness.
Exhibit A is Dejan Lazic, who made his Washington debut Saturday afternoon as part of the Washington Performing Arts Society's Hayes Piano Series at the Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater. Lazic, 33, is a pianist, composer and sometime clarinetist. A few years ago, he made a strong mark as a performing partner of cellist Pieter Wispelwey. More recently, his claim to fame was turning Brahms's violin concerto into something dubbed "Piano Concerto No. 3," which he recorded with the Atlanta Symphony earlier this year. The feat ranks somewhere on the "because it's there" spectrum of human achievement: attention-getting, large scale and a little empty.
His recital of Chopin and Schubert on Saturday was unfortunately on the same spectrum. The selection of those two composers is usually a way to demonstrate a pianist's sensitivity as well as his virtuosity. This performance, though, kept one eye fixed on monumentality. Some of the pieces, such as Chopin's Scherzo No. 2, sounded less like light solo piano works than an attempt to rival the volume of a concerto with full orchestra. This scherzo became cartoon-like in its lurches from minutely small to very, very large.
It's not that Lazic isn't sensitive - or profoundly gifted. The very first notes of Chopin's Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise Brillante at the start of the program signalled that he can do anything he wants at the keyboard, detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet. Again and again, throughout the afternoon, he showed what a range of colors he could get out of the instrument, switching from hard-edged percussiveness to creamy legato, crackling chords to a single thread of sound. The sheer technical ability was, at first, a delight.
Soon, though, all of the finesse started to seem like an end in itself. Every nuance of the music was underlined visibly with a host of concert-pianist playacting gestures: head flung back at the end of a phrase; left hand conducting the right hand; or a whole ballet of fingers hovering over keys and picking out their targets before an opening note was even struck at the start of Chopin's Ballade No. 3. There were fine moments, but they stubbornly refused to add up to anything more than a self-conscious display of Fine Moments. The final movement of Chopin's Second Piano Sonata was in a way the most successful part of the program: sheer virtuosity, and perfectly unhinged.
Schubert's B-flat Sonata, D. 960, was a chance to shift into another gear and show a more reflective side, but it was a chance Lazic didn't quite take. The notes, again, were exquisitely placed, and there were things to like, but the human side fell short. All of the precision didn't help bring across the lyricism of the first movement's theme, or the threat of the bass growl that keeps warning off ease from the bottom of the keyboard. The second movement, instead of being a searching, tugging quest, was reduced to merely very pretty music.
The pianist was received with reasonably warm applause, but it didn't last long enough to draw an encore - which ought to get his attention. He's a pianist of prodigious gifts, and he's too good not to do better, to move beyond the music's challenges and into the realm of its soul.
Fourthed.
Or you could think that your comment is clever.
this is one of the stupidest /. stories ever -- it is not one line of code, and it is a loop, as you and many others point out.