What is starting to bug me about this project is that the Kickstarter sold it as about making the music of Bach free, and the soloist responsible was given secondary importance, but when you go to download the music from the artist's page, the download page claims it was 'er fans wot dun it. Sure, clearly part of the deal for her was the opportunity to make more of a name for herself in a space where there are very few household names, but she's claiming that the backers and downloaders who came thanks to the "open" project are "her fans", selling herself in the name of people who are perhaps indifferent to her.
But that's also part of the "whither piano" question -- this was a vehicle for her to show her mastery, and she's a pianist, and the grand piano gives her much more opportunity to put her individual stamp on the piece than she would have had with a harpsichord. Again, it's about her. (Although it is a fantastic recording, and one I will no doubt listen to a lot.)
She might yet get stung by unexpected contractual glitches in the international market though -- it has happened before that recording artists have released material for free, only for collections agencies in certain countries to declare that their contract with the artist (pre-dating the release) gives them exclusive rights to collect royalties on the artist's recordings, making the free release a breach of contract. Messy.
Indeed. You have to look at the history of music and know that the first pianos were made before the book was published. (Bartolomeo Cristofori's pianos appeared at the turn of the century, c 1700; book 1 was published in 1722.) Bach didn't back pianos until later on (Wikipedia says 1747, and I have no reason to doubt that). But it is widely held that The Well-Tempered Clavier was pivotal to the popularisation of the piano, even though it would originally have been performed mostly on harpsichord (due to the quietness of the clavichord).
Personally, I would have preferred a period-instrument version, with perhaps the piano version as a stretch goal, but there's nothing all that inappropriate in using a piano, all told.
That is the rule, hence "If you make a work *for-hire*" in my original post. There is a BIG distinction between making a work as a contractor and making one as an employee--and you don't need an employment contract to be working as an employee. Working for a company and not providing your own contract or being willing to take the time to provide one suggests employee, although there may be other facts supporting a finding that he made the work as an IC.
But the guy you were talking to wasn't work-for-hire -- did you even read his post?
Hey, I'm all in favor of people having the chance to be who they want to be. I just don't believe it's possible for a male to become female, or vice versa.
Saying, "Hey everybody, BarbaraHudson is pretending to be female, let's all pretend with him!" doesn't make it fact.
I'm not asking you to do that. I'm just asking you not to be a dick about it. I don't believe in god, I don't believe in market liberalism, I don't believe Apple deserves its reputation as "cool"... but I don't go around trolling people anonymously for disagreeing with me on that.
It would be different if you were to raise a rational argument around the therapeutic value of gender realignment surgery, with reference to published statistics... but even then, it would still be very much off-topic for the discussion.
Sorry -- "for museums" is the last refuge of the person who doesn't have a market for his product. Why would the museum want it? Which principles of music does it demonstrate? What point in the history of music technology does it depict? If you can't answer these questions, it's not a product for museums.
All I hear is "step sequencer" and "easy", which is not enough (IMO)
The technology he describes behind the buttons is unnecessary, in that you could do this all with Arduino or Raspberry Pi for less money, and then it would be not a museum exhibit, but a build-your-own-instrument-kit.
Yes, but his point is that the video appears to have no clear point. It's a guy talking about a product without really making it that clear what it is.
Didn't miss much. It's just another person trying to suggest that step-sequencers are somehow interesting to non-musicians. Even as a musician myself, I quickly find things get muddy and confusing very quickly, as the connection between action and music is so abstract that I never feel like it's me making the noise.
And I also find it difficult to see how we can allow people to submit to irreversible surgery without having physical symptoms to diagnose, but A) I do not know whether any particular transgendered individual I encounter has a clinically diagnosed intersex disorder or not, and B) even if I was talking to someone who was entire self-identified as "transgender", I still wouldn't want to be a dick, so I wouldn't be talking about "Legal-Fiction-Land" or other such judgemental claptrap.
But once you legalise a profession, you have that (t)horny issue of public benefits and "willingness to work". Right now, people are forced into working in the shittiest places, for the shittiest bosses, because if they don't accept the job, they'll lose their unemployment benefit. There are very few reasons you can object, and this means that market forces don't force the employers to improve their working conditions.
If sex work was legal, eventually people would be "sanctioned" for refusing to interview for it.
Your current society is "permissive" and "socially liberal", and also it is a "free market economy". These links are not necessarily causal, however. The free market does discriminate, as employers are free to give lucrative jobs to there friends, and insurance companies can refuse to cover people as they're too high risk. If you look at any country with a state-controlled healthcare system, you'll see that they are by definition less discriminatory -- as the popular meme goes, Walter White would never have turned to making drugs in any country but the US.
I was expecting to see this view come up, but I thought it would be under the heading "FIRST PSOT!!!11!!1!!"
Basic coding skills are a good thing, people. Every day as an IT guy, I would see intelligent people do things in a remarkably stupid, labour-intensive way, because they didn't understand how to automate repetitive tasks.
What fraud? If I want to buy that water, and you have some to sell, and we both know exactly what it is, how can that be fraud?
I guess you'll say the fraud is in the claim itself. Are people not allowed to be wrong?
Ah; maybe it's okay to be wrong, as long as long as you don't profit from it?
Yes. Fraud is about lying for person gain. But fraud isn't just about "lying" in the normal sense -- willful ignorance is enough in most countries for actions to be considered fraudulent. If the science says your claims are utterly fallacious, and you disregard the science, you're being willfully ignorant.
What about $100 HDMI cables? Would you have the FCC forbid that? Set a maximum price with specs to which manufacturers are forced to adhere? Come down on them like a ton of Federal bricks?
Remember, both the buyer and the seller swear that the picture is better.
A) HDMI cables aren't a matter of life and death, unlike medicine. B) Why the heck not? It's deceitful practice for commercial gain -- fraud.
I don't ignore homeopathy -- wanting to have it banned as fraudlent quackery is quite the opposite of ignoring. In fact, I suspect I know more about it than you do. I understand Hahnemann's reaction to Paracelsus's use of highly toxic base salts as medication. I understand that debate between the idea of a quantised, discrete universe and a continuous one wasn't quite finalised. Homeopathy was a legitimate hypothesis at the time, but its predicates quickly became unproven. Pharmacology moved away from base salts and back to herbal derivatives (aspirin comes from willow bark, for example). The discrete model of matter was proven, and atoms discovered, proving that homeopathic remedies were devoid of any active incredients. Thus was the scientific basis of homeopathy undermined, and nothing remained but the empirical evidence, and as per TFA, there's none of that, either.
How do you propose regulating "medical" treatments that have no proven effects... or indeed that provably have no effects?
Reports claim the right sugars will absorb ethyl alcohol to 60% of their own weight. Your 10ml of ethanol is 7.89g, and multiplying that by 10/6 gives 13.15g of sugar needed. This is clearly why it only makes sense as a premixed cocktail -- no spirits have that sort of ratio of sugar to alcohol.
It still sounds interesting as a drycure ingredient.
Yup. The bee detectors they were showing on TV with were trained for drugs and explosives, and targeted at the airport market.
As for cancer, if they can isolate the scent, they could probably grow tissue samples from cancer biopsies and train the insects from extracts taken from the tissue samples.
You're better with 98% alcohol. It's impossible to get pure alcohol by freezing or distillation alone, and for the sake of that 2% water, you end up adding some pretty nasty substances to entrap the water.
"Palcohol" is not ethanol, but the highly intoxicating 2-methyl, 2-butanol, which is about 30x as potent at causing intoxication as ethanol. Despite being termed one of the "toxic alcohols", it probably has lower chronic toxicity than ethanol, as being a tertiary alcohol, it cannot be oxidised to toxic aldehydes/ketones.
Seriously? Traditionally, powdered alcohol has been made by trapping ethanol inside cyclodextrins. Why would anyone produce a non-ethanol based powdered alcohol when there are much safer alternatives already known and understood. Oh, wait... because the pre-existing method is out of patent, and they want patent protection... right?
Slashdot Mirror
What is starting to bug me about this project is that the Kickstarter sold it as about making the music of Bach free, and the soloist responsible was given secondary importance, but when you go to download the music from the artist's page, the download page claims it was 'er fans wot dun it. Sure, clearly part of the deal for her was the opportunity to make more of a name for herself in a space where there are very few household names, but she's claiming that the backers and downloaders who came thanks to the "open" project are "her fans", selling herself in the name of people who are perhaps indifferent to her.
But that's also part of the "whither piano" question -- this was a vehicle for her to show her mastery, and she's a pianist, and the grand piano gives her much more opportunity to put her individual stamp on the piece than she would have had with a harpsichord. Again, it's about her. (Although it is a fantastic recording, and one I will no doubt listen to a lot.)
She might yet get stung by unexpected contractual glitches in the international market though -- it has happened before that recording artists have released material for free, only for collections agencies in certain countries to declare that their contract with the artist (pre-dating the release) gives them exclusive rights to collect royalties on the artist's recordings, making the free release a breach of contract. Messy.
Indeed. You have to look at the history of music and know that the first pianos were made before the book was published. (Bartolomeo Cristofori's pianos appeared at the turn of the century, c 1700; book 1 was published in 1722.) Bach didn't back pianos until later on (Wikipedia says 1747, and I have no reason to doubt that). But it is widely held that The Well-Tempered Clavier was pivotal to the popularisation of the piano, even though it would originally have been performed mostly on harpsichord (due to the quietness of the clavichord).
Personally, I would have preferred a period-instrument version, with perhaps the piano version as a stretch goal, but there's nothing all that inappropriate in using a piano, all told.
That is the rule, hence "If you make a work *for-hire*" in my original post. There is a BIG distinction between making a work as a contractor and making one as an employee--and you don't need an employment contract to be working as an employee. Working for a company and not providing your own contract or being willing to take the time to provide one suggests employee, although there may be other facts supporting a finding that he made the work as an IC.
But the guy you were talking to wasn't work-for-hire -- did you even read his post?
I know prefer to work in a free environment than an English manufacturing company where the union was in control....
...which dates you even more accurately than radioactive carbon isotope decay.
Surely such an amendment would be unconstitutional, in that the wording mislead the people...?
Hey, I'm all in favor of people having the chance to be who they want to be. I just don't believe it's possible for a male to become female, or vice versa.
Saying, "Hey everybody, BarbaraHudson is pretending to be female, let's all pretend with him!" doesn't make it fact.
I'm not asking you to do that. I'm just asking you not to be a dick about it. I don't believe in god, I don't believe in market liberalism, I don't believe Apple deserves its reputation as "cool"... but I don't go around trolling people anonymously for disagreeing with me on that.
It would be different if you were to raise a rational argument around the therapeutic value of gender realignment surgery, with reference to published statistics... but even then, it would still be very much off-topic for the discussion.
So basically you're trolling.
Sorry -- "for museums" is the last refuge of the person who doesn't have a market for his product. Why would the museum want it? Which principles of music does it demonstrate? What point in the history of music technology does it depict? If you can't answer these questions, it's not a product for museums.
All I hear is "step sequencer" and "easy", which is not enough (IMO)
The technology he describes behind the buttons is unnecessary, in that you could do this all with Arduino or Raspberry Pi for less money, and then it would be not a museum exhibit, but a build-your-own-instrument-kit.
Also, museums shouldn't be wasting money on point-to-point wired boutique electronics -- they have a lot of other things to spend money on.
Yes, but his point is that the video appears to have no clear point. It's a guy talking about a product without really making it that clear what it is.
Didn't miss much. It's just another person trying to suggest that step-sequencers are somehow interesting to non-musicians. Even as a musician myself, I quickly find things get muddy and confusing very quickly, as the connection between action and music is so abstract that I never feel like it's me making the noise.
You scream "F*** BETA" and claim the moral high ground as it crushes you and drowns you in mud.
I wonder why some of the Nouns in his Blurb have capital Letters and other nouns have small letters....
And I also find it difficult to see how we can allow people to submit to irreversible surgery without having physical symptoms to diagnose, but A) I do not know whether any particular transgendered individual I encounter has a clinically diagnosed intersex disorder or not, and B) even if I was talking to someone who was entire self-identified as "transgender", I still wouldn't want to be a dick, so I wouldn't be talking about "Legal-Fiction-Land" or other such judgemental claptrap.
But once you legalise a profession, you have that (t)horny issue of public benefits and "willingness to work". Right now, people are forced into working in the shittiest places, for the shittiest bosses, because if they don't accept the job, they'll lose their unemployment benefit. There are very few reasons you can object, and this means that market forces don't force the employers to improve their working conditions.
If sex work was legal, eventually people would be "sanctioned" for refusing to interview for it.
How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade
Sex work should not be criminal, period.
Why not?
Your current society is "permissive" and "socially liberal", and also it is a "free market economy". These links are not necessarily causal, however. The free market does discriminate, as employers are free to give lucrative jobs to there friends, and insurance companies can refuse to cover people as they're too high risk. If you look at any country with a state-controlled healthcare system, you'll see that they are by definition less discriminatory -- as the popular meme goes, Walter White would never have turned to making drugs in any country but the US.
I live in society, where transgendered people are accepted as people.
Hear, hear. If you don't want to refer to a transgendered person by their choice of pronoun, the polite thing is to avoid pronouns at all.
I was expecting to see this view come up, but I thought it would be under the heading "FIRST PSOT!!!11!!1!!"
Basic coding skills are a good thing, people. Every day as an IT guy, I would see intelligent people do things in a remarkably stupid, labour-intensive way, because they didn't understand how to automate repetitive tasks.
What fraud? If I want to buy that water, and you have some to sell, and we both know exactly what it is, how can that be fraud?
I guess you'll say the fraud is in the claim itself. Are people not allowed to be wrong? Ah; maybe it's okay to be wrong, as long as long as you don't profit from it?
Yes. Fraud is about lying for person gain. But fraud isn't just about "lying" in the normal sense -- willful ignorance is enough in most countries for actions to be considered fraudulent. If the science says your claims are utterly fallacious, and you disregard the science, you're being willfully ignorant.
What about $100 HDMI cables? Would you have the FCC forbid that? Set a maximum price with specs to which manufacturers are forced to adhere? Come down on them like a ton of Federal bricks?
Remember, both the buyer and the seller swear that the picture is better.
A) HDMI cables aren't a matter of life and death, unlike medicine. B) Why the heck not? It's deceitful practice for commercial gain -- fraud.
I don't ignore homeopathy -- wanting to have it banned as fraudlent quackery is quite the opposite of ignoring. In fact, I suspect I know more about it than you do. I understand Hahnemann's reaction to Paracelsus's use of highly toxic base salts as medication. I understand that debate between the idea of a quantised, discrete universe and a continuous one wasn't quite finalised. Homeopathy was a legitimate hypothesis at the time, but its predicates quickly became unproven. Pharmacology moved away from base salts and back to herbal derivatives (aspirin comes from willow bark, for example). The discrete model of matter was proven, and atoms discovered, proving that homeopathic remedies were devoid of any active incredients. Thus was the scientific basis of homeopathy undermined, and nothing remained but the empirical evidence, and as per TFA, there's none of that, either.
How do you propose regulating "medical" treatments that have no proven effects... or indeed that provably have no effects?
It still sounds interesting as a drycure ingredient.
Ooops. I hadn't thought about the volatility of alcohol. Turns out sugar-encapsulated alcohol evaporates very, very easily.
Reports claim the right sugars will absorb ethyl alcohol to 60% of their own weight. Your 10ml of ethanol is 7.89g, and multiplying that by 10/6 gives 13.15g of sugar needed. This is clearly why it only makes sense as a premixed cocktail -- no spirits have that sort of ratio of sugar to alcohol.
It still sounds interesting as a drycure ingredient.
Yup. The bee detectors they were showing on TV with were trained for drugs and explosives, and targeted at the airport market.
As for cancer, if they can isolate the scent, they could probably grow tissue samples from cancer biopsies and train the insects from extracts taken from the tissue samples.
You're better with 98% alcohol. It's impossible to get pure alcohol by freezing or distillation alone, and for the sake of that 2% water, you end up adding some pretty nasty substances to entrap the water.
"Palcohol" is not ethanol, but the highly intoxicating 2-methyl, 2-butanol, which is about 30x as potent at causing intoxication as ethanol. Despite being termed one of the "toxic alcohols", it probably has lower chronic toxicity than ethanol, as being a tertiary alcohol, it cannot be oxidised to toxic aldehydes/ketones.
Seriously? Traditionally, powdered alcohol has been made by trapping ethanol inside cyclodextrins. Why would anyone produce a non-ethanol based powdered alcohol when there are much safer alternatives already known and understood. Oh, wait... because the pre-existing method is out of patent, and they want patent protection... right?