Interval mnemonics can be helpful, but I've found that for sight-singing it's important to have a good sense of the tonic and the key, and to keep that in mind throughout the piece. That not only helps in sight reading, but also with intonation. If you remember where the tonic is, you don't usually have to think in terms of individual intervals, which in and of themselves have no context. Rather, think of how each note relates to the tonic, and where things resolve. Also, solfeggio can be very useful (you know, "do-re-mi", where "do" is the tonic of the key/mode you're in) because it does just what I described. It also helps with singing in different clefs.
I suggest that you find an intro to music theory course at your local community college, which should provide a basic understanding of keys, intervals, chords, voice leading, sight reading, ear training, etc. I'm not saying that formal music theory is necessarily a prerequisite for being a good musician, but for the type of music you're likely to be singing, will probably make things much easier and more enjoyable than simply learning by rote.
Ok, here's something I've wondered about for a long time. The storm names usually seem very European, or dare I say "white", with the occasional Hispanic name thrown in. Why don't we ever see names like Latrelle, Tanisha, Akbar, etc? Would that be politically incorrect and if so, why? Those are just as valid names as any other. Personally I think Shaniqua would be a great name for a hurricane!
And the beauty of it is, that in exchange for giving up our liberties, we get even more bureaucracy and government incompentance in return. So in the end we still have same terrorist threat, but also fewer rights and larger government.
We're seeing something similar now with the hurricane response. The first thing everyone does is cry "where was the federal government, why didn't they send troops right away?" Next thing you hear is people talking about the federal government needing more ability to deploy troops domestically, having funding set aside in advance for dealing with things like this natural disaster, etc. What will happen, of course, is that we allow the federal military to gain power at the expense of the states, let politicians have access huge slush funds for their pet projects, and still the same incompentance and red tape that we have today.
Keep in mind that everything a politician does or says has one motivation behind it: power. As people clamor for the government to take care of them, politicians take the opportunity to sieze more of our rights and property. It doesn't matter which party, a politician is a politician and that's what they do.
Why putting down Indians while an average Indian is definitely intelligent than your American president who is elected by the majority of the Americans.
Two corrections - first, he was not elected by the majority of Americans, but rather, the majority of Americans who voted. Big difference. Second, in the 2000 election he wasn't elected by the majority of Americans who voted. Just like in tennis... you can win the match without winning the majority of the games.
On another note, I don't see how complaining about not being able to understand someone's accent is inherently racist or putting them down. Race and accent have nothing to do with one another.
Capitalism isn't about equality, but rather, equality of opportunity. It's a risk/reward based system. Those who take advantage of opportunities and take risks tend to reap the rewards. Most of the rich in this country are people who started their own business, and that involves a lot of risk and hard work, which a lot of people aren't willing to do. Sure, it's not a perfect system because it's made up of human beings who are by nature greedy and selfish. But that's true of any system.
I don't think chromatic aberration is inherent in digital cameras. I have a 300D and some Canon L lenses and have never seen it using that equipment, and the same is true with the non-L lenses I have. The only chromatic aberration I've noticed was with my previous camera, an HP 945 when I used a cheap teleconverter with it. That was the fault of the TC, not the camera, although I don't know if it would have had the same effect on a film camera.
Using the 300D, the only post processing I usually have to do is some sharpening, some color saturation and some noise reduction. The first two are a result of shooting RAW, and the latter is that the Rebel is somewhat noisy at anything above ISO 200 (I usually use ISO 400). From what I understand, the 20D is substantially better in that regard, and that will be my next camera.
Corporations are made up of greedy, power-hungry people. Governments are made up of greedy, power-hungry people. The goal of both is to achieve, maintain, and increase their power... generally by taking your money. The difference is, that a politician can hold a gun to your head take your money, whereas a corporate employee can't.
If you think that anyone in goverment is there to "help" people, then you are the true moron here. Any politician that says he's trying to help you, is only telling you what you want to hear in order to further his one and only goal: power. And tomorrow, if he needs to screw you over to "help" someone else, he'll do it in a heartbeat.
I've always wondered about this... people who believe being gay is a choice, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you make the choice yourself to be gay, so you're speaking from personal experience? Or have you discussed this issue with enough gay people that you'd consider yourself an expert on the topic?
It's always seemed funny to me that the people who have a problem with homosexuality seem to know so much about it, to the point of knowing what's going on in someone else's head and in their lives. I, on the other hand, can speak from first hand experience when I say it wasn't a choice for me. And I think I know myself a little better than you do.
And speaking of choice... if that should be the determining factor as to whether it's ok to discriminate, then certainly religion would be a prime candidate for discrimination. After all, we're not born with that, are we?
More than that, I don't want my kids knowing that you like to pound your putt into someone with the same organs.
Now, with that reference to your kids you just threw your orientation into MY face. Maybe I don't really care to know that you "pound your putt" into someone with different sex organs. And that's the whole point, just making a simple statement like that reveals a lot about a person. If you can talk about your kids, why I can't I talk about how my partner and I just bought a house?
Here's a challenge for you. Go a full week without making any type of reference in conversation or doing any sort of action that would let anyone know your sexual orientation. That means not talking about your family or any activity you did with them, not appearing in public with them, not letting anyone see any photos of your kids, taking off your "My child is an honor student" bumper sticker off your minivan, etc. Try that and then get back to us on how that went, Ok? Because remember, any of those things is throwing your sexual orientation in someone else's face, who really doesn't care and doesn't want to hear about it.
Hey, just because you were doing stupid things as a teenager doesn't mean the rest of us were. At 18 I was a straight-A college student. After undergrad I was in graduate school. And after that, I wasn't out joining cults, doing drugs, getting pregnant, and stealing stuff. Instead I managed to travel abroad, learn alot, have fun, and then get a job, buy a house, etc. Skipped the "stupid" phase. Of course, maybe it's just a gender thing.
How about changing it to governmental greed, and then you'll really be right. The only goal of government is to gain more power, doing so through its exclusive right to use force. Corporate greed wouldn't be possible without the greed of government. So for every act of corporate greed, remember that there had to be some greedy, power-hungry politician there first to enable it.
And while it does enumerate cerain individual rights, that does not imply that we do not have rights that are not specifically stated, as mentioned in Amendment 9:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
However, Amendment 10 specifically limits the powers of the federal government to only those listed in the Constitution, all others belonging the states or individuals:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Unfortunately although these two amendments are very clear and easy to understand, they are conveniently overlooked and abused more and more as time goes on.
And yet in its wisdom, during the same period of time the government bussed kids literally an hour across town to force racial integration. I spent a lot of time in the dark at bus stops in the 70's and 80's because of that.
I agree with that approach. Earning respect requires being consistent and firm within the boundaries of your authority. Set a standard from day one and be very clear with people about it. Had you let him get away with that incident, it would have been very difficult to come back later and change his behavior. Not only that, other people would have seen that and realized that you weren't going to enforce the policy. I've found that people generally rise or sink to the standard that's set for them. Setting a high standard won't necessarily gain you friends, but respect and friendship are not nessesarily the same thing.
I always thought there was nobility in failing a few classes in college. If you didn't fail a few, you weren't really pushing yourself hard enough. My transcript represented this worldview pretty well.
I couldn't disagree more with this statement. As a student, the more difficult the class was, the more motivated I was and the harder I worked. I tended to slack off in the easier classes due to boredom or lack of interest. Either way, I rarely made anything less than an A, through a bachelors and two masters degrees.
As an instructor on the college level myself, invariably the people who failed did so for stupid reasons like not showing up, not caring and not turning in the assignments. Then they would whine about losing some scholarship or have their parents call and complain as if it were my fault. I saw that as pathetic, not something noble.
Oh and by the way, I'm a female who graduated summa cum laude, without cheating or doing any sort of "favors" that some of you guys like to imagine that successful women do. I would rather fail than cheat, but I'm not stupid enough to wait until the end of the semester to figure out that I wasn't doing well in the class. And if anyone ever suggested to me that there was a way I could get around receiving a bad grade, he would quickly regret that.
I agree with others, it's best to keep up the momentum. Taking a year off to work won't necessarily accomplish all that much, because being a young HS grad you won't be earning very much money. Plus you'll likely start accumulating a lot of bills and responsibilities, which won't leave a lot of time for travel and fun. On the other hand, as a college student you'll have alot of freedom and choice, while not so "real world" responsibility. If you wait to go to college, you'll miss out on that unique time in your life that can never be reclaimed. Even just waiting a year or two, you'll be older than your classmates, and that does make a difference at that age.
You can always work while in school, and there are lots of travel opportunities to take advantage of. Someone mentioned studying abroad, which is great because you get to travel and you can often get someone else to pay for it - I did, spent a year in Germany on scholarship. I also spent a summer travelling and camping all over the western US and Candada as part of a geology program for non-majors, earning credit for 3 science classes in the process and having an amazing experience. In marching band (proud UGA alum here!) I travelled to some great bowl games and also SEC and NCAA basketball tourneys. Great memories and lots of fun I doubt I would have had if I had been busy working some McJob right out of high school.
Don't forget that gravity is just a theory. I, for one, believe that a giant invisible hand is pushing everything down to earth, and you can't prove otherwise.
Even if that is the "general perception," that doesn't mean it's correct. When I applied to the University of Georgia, I applied to the School of Music there, did an audition and started from day one with a majority of my classes being in my major. On top of that, took all the regular core curriculum (history, literature, science, etc.), as well as three years of German. Music is a very rigorous, specialized major, and I know people who double majored in music and other specialized fields. I'll put my level of coursework and degree specialization up against any UK degree anytime.
But the tradition of marriage has always been changing. It used to be that polygamy was an accepted and necessary norm. It used to be that once a woman was married, she lost all property rights. It used to be that interracial marriage was illegal. It used to be that marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons. It used to be that people who committed adultery were stoned. It used to be that divorce was not an option.
So exactly which tradition of marriage do you want to preserve?
Well, if we fight for civil unions, then we need to fight for all of the other legal benefits of Marriage. It's a much longer road. Why not grant the same rights at the start?
Simply put, because the majority of Americans have a hangup about the term "gay marriage" and are opposed to it. Of course, this doesn't excuse their hypocracy, because anyone who's really concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage would be pushing for a constitutional amendment banning divorce. But that's simply the way things are.
I also think gay activists are hung up on the term "marriage," as if nothing else would be acceptable. Personally I don't care whether it's called "marriage" or whatever term you want to use. And yes, it's a long road, but major cultural changes like this don't happen overnight. Forcing the issue through the court system is not working.
But this is the same Bush who wanted to mess with the Constitution.
Yes, that's true, and I completely disagree with his stance on this issue. A lot of Republicans do as well, including people like Bob Barr and John McCain. But recall that when this whole marriage thing heated up this year, Bush was silent for a long time on the topic. He caught a lot of flack from social conservatives for saying nothing. Finally he came out in support of this amendment after he had no choice. I don't condone him for doing that, but I do recognize that the left used this as a political issue in an attempt to force his hand and hurt him, just as the right uses it as a political issue.
Why on earth would you vote for him? Really, I'm curious.
Because I don't vote on a single issue. I agree with much more of what Bush says than what Kerry says, on issues from taxes to the economy to national security, which are all more important to me than gay marriage.
And why were those measures on the ballot in so many states? Because of the so-called gay rights activists who tried to force the issue of gay marriage down everyone's throat by going to the courts. These measures won by sizeable majorities, so it wasn't just the bible thumpers who voted for it. Even in ultra-liberal Oregon. Face it, the majority of people in this country, both Republican and Democrat, are against gay marriage. Remember who signed the Defense of Marriage Act?
I blame this on the activists, who instead of fighting for actual rights in the form of civil unions, tried to turn it into a political issue to hurt Bush. It backfired and now we are worse off than before. Social conservatives will take this 11 state victory as a mandate to continue to push for an amendment to the US Constitution. If it passes Congress and goes to the states, now there is a precedent in these 11 admendments that just passed. Thanks for nothing, GLAAD.
I just hope that there are enough sensible conservatives/moderates left who understand that the Constitution should not be messed with lightly.
And what credible evidence do you have to back up that claim? The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights didn't find any in its 6-month investigation. Neither did the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest that you find an intro to music theory course at your local community college, which should provide a basic understanding of keys, intervals, chords, voice leading, sight reading, ear training, etc. I'm not saying that formal music theory is necessarily a prerequisite for being a good musician, but for the type of music you're likely to be singing, will probably make things much easier and more enjoyable than simply learning by rote.
Ok, here's something I've wondered about for a long time. The storm names usually seem very European, or dare I say "white", with the occasional Hispanic name thrown in. Why don't we ever see names like Latrelle, Tanisha, Akbar, etc? Would that be politically incorrect and if so, why? Those are just as valid names as any other. Personally I think Shaniqua would be a great name for a hurricane!
We're seeing something similar now with the hurricane response. The first thing everyone does is cry "where was the federal government, why didn't they send troops right away?" Next thing you hear is people talking about the federal government needing more ability to deploy troops domestically, having funding set aside in advance for dealing with things like this natural disaster, etc. What will happen, of course, is that we allow the federal military to gain power at the expense of the states, let politicians have access huge slush funds for their pet projects, and still the same incompentance and red tape that we have today.
Keep in mind that everything a politician does or says has one motivation behind it: power. As people clamor for the government to take care of them, politicians take the opportunity to sieze more of our rights and property. It doesn't matter which party, a politician is a politician and that's what they do.
Please, I prefer the term "European-American."
Two corrections - first, he was not elected by the majority of Americans, but rather, the majority of Americans who voted. Big difference. Second, in the 2000 election he wasn't elected by the majority of Americans who voted. Just like in tennis ... you can win the match without winning the majority of the games.
On another note, I don't see how complaining about not being able to understand someone's accent is inherently racist or putting them down. Race and accent have nothing to do with one another.
Capitalism isn't about equality, but rather, equality of opportunity. It's a risk/reward based system. Those who take advantage of opportunities and take risks tend to reap the rewards. Most of the rich in this country are people who started their own business, and that involves a lot of risk and hard work, which a lot of people aren't willing to do. Sure, it's not a perfect system because it's made up of human beings who are by nature greedy and selfish. But that's true of any system.
Using the 300D, the only post processing I usually have to do is some sharpening, some color saturation and some noise reduction. The first two are a result of shooting RAW, and the latter is that the Rebel is somewhat noisy at anything above ISO 200 (I usually use ISO 400). From what I understand, the 20D is substantially better in that regard, and that will be my next camera.
Speaking of digital photography, here's a shameless plug for my bird photos.
If you think that anyone in goverment is there to "help" people, then you are the true moron here. Any politician that says he's trying to help you, is only telling you what you want to hear in order to further his one and only goal: power. And tomorrow, if he needs to screw you over to "help" someone else, he'll do it in a heartbeat.
I pay taxes on my vehicles each year ... does that mean I'm just renting them? I pay income tax on my salary, does that mean it doesn't belong to me?
I've always wondered about this ... people who believe being gay is a choice, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you make the choice yourself to be gay, so you're speaking from personal experience? Or have you discussed this issue with enough gay people that you'd consider yourself an expert on the topic?
It's always seemed funny to me that the people who have a problem with homosexuality seem to know so much about it, to the point of knowing what's going on in someone else's head and in their lives. I, on the other hand, can speak from first hand experience when I say it wasn't a choice for me. And I think I know myself a little better than you do.
And speaking of choice ... if that should be the determining factor as to whether it's ok to discriminate, then certainly religion would be a prime candidate for discrimination. After all, we're not born with that, are we?
More than that, I don't want my kids knowing that you like to pound your putt into someone with the same organs.
Now, with that reference to your kids you just threw your orientation into MY face. Maybe I don't really care to know that you "pound your putt" into someone with different sex organs. And that's the whole point, just making a simple statement like that reveals a lot about a person. If you can talk about your kids, why I can't I talk about how my partner and I just bought a house?
Here's a challenge for you. Go a full week without making any type of reference in conversation or doing any sort of action that would let anyone know your sexual orientation. That means not talking about your family or any activity you did with them, not appearing in public with them, not letting anyone see any photos of your kids, taking off your "My child is an honor student" bumper sticker off your minivan, etc. Try that and then get back to us on how that went, Ok? Because remember, any of those things is throwing your sexual orientation in someone else's face, who really doesn't care and doesn't want to hear about it.
Hey, just because you were doing stupid things as a teenager doesn't mean the rest of us were. At 18 I was a straight-A college student. After undergrad I was in graduate school. And after that, I wasn't out joining cults, doing drugs, getting pregnant, and stealing stuff. Instead I managed to travel abroad, learn alot, have fun, and then get a job, buy a house, etc. Skipped the "stupid" phase. Of course, maybe it's just a gender thing.
How about changing it to governmental greed, and then you'll really be right. The only goal of government is to gain more power, doing so through its exclusive right to use force. Corporate greed wouldn't be possible without the greed of government. So for every act of corporate greed, remember that there had to be some greedy, power-hungry politician there first to enable it.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
However, Amendment 10 specifically limits the powers of the federal government to only those listed in the Constitution, all others belonging the states or individuals:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Unfortunately although these two amendments are very clear and easy to understand, they are conveniently overlooked and abused more and more as time goes on.
And yet in its wisdom, during the same period of time the government bussed kids literally an hour across town to force racial integration. I spent a lot of time in the dark at bus stops in the 70's and 80's because of that.
I agree with that approach. Earning respect requires being consistent and firm within the boundaries of your authority. Set a standard from day one and be very clear with people about it. Had you let him get away with that incident, it would have been very difficult to come back later and change his behavior. Not only that, other people would have seen that and realized that you weren't going to enforce the policy. I've found that people generally rise or sink to the standard that's set for them. Setting a high standard won't necessarily gain you friends, but respect and friendship are not nessesarily the same thing.
And I'm not surprised that the people who are making stupid gender-related comments are male.
I couldn't disagree more with this statement. As a student, the more difficult the class was, the more motivated I was and the harder I worked. I tended to slack off in the easier classes due to boredom or lack of interest. Either way, I rarely made anything less than an A, through a bachelors and two masters degrees.
As an instructor on the college level myself, invariably the people who failed did so for stupid reasons like not showing up, not caring and not turning in the assignments. Then they would whine about losing some scholarship or have their parents call and complain as if it were my fault. I saw that as pathetic, not something noble.
Oh and by the way, I'm a female who graduated summa cum laude, without cheating or doing any sort of "favors" that some of you guys like to imagine that successful women do. I would rather fail than cheat, but I'm not stupid enough to wait until the end of the semester to figure out that I wasn't doing well in the class. And if anyone ever suggested to me that there was a way I could get around receiving a bad grade, he would quickly regret that.
You can always work while in school, and there are lots of travel opportunities to take advantage of. Someone mentioned studying abroad, which is great because you get to travel and you can often get someone else to pay for it - I did, spent a year in Germany on scholarship. I also spent a summer travelling and camping all over the western US and Candada as part of a geology program for non-majors, earning credit for 3 science classes in the process and having an amazing experience. In marching band (proud UGA alum here!) I travelled to some great bowl games and also SEC and NCAA basketball tourneys. Great memories and lots of fun I doubt I would have had if I had been busy working some McJob right out of high school.
Don't forget that gravity is just a theory. I, for one, believe that a giant invisible hand is pushing everything down to earth, and you can't prove otherwise.
Even if that is the "general perception," that doesn't mean it's correct. When I applied to the University of Georgia, I applied to the School of Music there, did an audition and started from day one with a majority of my classes being in my major. On top of that, took all the regular core curriculum (history, literature, science, etc.), as well as three years of German. Music is a very rigorous, specialized major, and I know people who double majored in music and other specialized fields. I'll put my level of coursework and degree specialization up against any UK degree anytime.
So exactly which tradition of marriage do you want to preserve?
Simply put, because the majority of Americans have a hangup about the term "gay marriage" and are opposed to it. Of course, this doesn't excuse their hypocracy, because anyone who's really concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage would be pushing for a constitutional amendment banning divorce. But that's simply the way things are.
I also think gay activists are hung up on the term "marriage," as if nothing else would be acceptable. Personally I don't care whether it's called "marriage" or whatever term you want to use. And yes, it's a long road, but major cultural changes like this don't happen overnight. Forcing the issue through the court system is not working.
But this is the same Bush who wanted to mess with the Constitution.
Yes, that's true, and I completely disagree with his stance on this issue. A lot of Republicans do as well, including people like Bob Barr and John McCain. But recall that when this whole marriage thing heated up this year, Bush was silent for a long time on the topic. He caught a lot of flack from social conservatives for saying nothing. Finally he came out in support of this amendment after he had no choice. I don't condone him for doing that, but I do recognize that the left used this as a political issue in an attempt to force his hand and hurt him, just as the right uses it as a political issue.
Why on earth would you vote for him? Really, I'm curious.
Because I don't vote on a single issue. I agree with much more of what Bush says than what Kerry says, on issues from taxes to the economy to national security, which are all more important to me than gay marriage.
You assume I am male. Your assumption is incorrect.
I blame this on the activists, who instead of fighting for actual rights in the form of civil unions, tried to turn it into a political issue to hurt Bush. It backfired and now we are worse off than before. Social conservatives will take this 11 state victory as a mandate to continue to push for an amendment to the US Constitution. If it passes Congress and goes to the states, now there is a precedent in these 11 admendments that just passed. Thanks for nothing, GLAAD.
I just hope that there are enough sensible conservatives/moderates left who understand that the Constitution should not be messed with lightly.
By the way, I am gay and I voted for Bush.
And what credible evidence do you have to back up that claim? The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights didn't find any in its 6-month investigation. Neither did the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.