And I wonder what this will do to the next generation of musicians?
Separate the wheat from the chaff, perhaps.
Someone who figures out how to play a song by listening to it and using his own ear is well on his way to becoming a much better musician than the person who learns it by downloading TAB from the internet. Especially considering that most of the TAB on the internet is utter crap.
monkeydo, you are missing the point so utterly that it's hard to know where to begin. Sure, there are lots of ways you can limit queries to a database. You can completely disallow queries to the database, if you want to, and you'll have an electronic voting system pretty much like what we have today. Congratulations.
Giving people access to the data is the whole point. That's what makes this work. As soon as you start talking about ways to hide the data, you are no longer talking about the same scenario as the rest of us. Revealing the data is a requirement of this system.
Yes, there are perfectly good reasons why you wouldn't want people to go mucking about with querying the original, sacrosanct voting records, just as you wouldn't want to give people easy access to crates filled with paper ballots. But you seem to forget that computer data can easily be copied. There is absolutely no risk in letting people query a copy of the voting data, or of simply publishing the data outright.
Now, just to make myself totally clear, I'm not really crazy about this solution, though it does have its merits. But your criticisms of it are so wide of the mark as to be irrelevant.
He's talking about a system that would return the correct vote to any individual who decides to check theirs, or to any small number of grouped requests. And he's also talking about a system that would return completely false aggregate numbers.
Okay, Mr. Reading Comprehension. As the GP pointed out, the entire database would have to be available and correct; even if you have to query for the votes one at a time, you can still obtain a complete, correct set of data. Once you have that, you simply count the votes yourself and compare your results to the system's aggregate numbers. Now do you get it?
Think of taking this pill as Paternity Insurance. When some random girl you hooked up with one night...
If this is how you live your life, you might want to give some thought to STD Insurance. You're not going to get any from a pill, no matter which partner takes it.
If 10,000 people each flipped a coin ten times in a row, chances are good that nine or ten of them would have it land heads-up each time. Have identified the "expert" coin-tossers, then? I don't think so.
Why does everyone forget this cornerstone of the legal system, an accused person is innocent unless proven guilty.
Slashdot is not the legal system. We can declare him guilty, or not guilty, any time we feel like it. Of course, we don't actually have the power to do anything about it, so you can relax; his rights are still protected.
Give everyone their chance and let the legal system do its job.
Would you care to explain how "everyone knows" Foley's party affiliation, and therefore couldn't possibly be fooled by this "typo," when most people can't even name their own state's senators? Do you realize how silly you sound?
Parties have nothing to do with the "well-rounded" education that college is meant to provide. Otherwise, they would offer them for credit.
Cut the guy some slack... The fact that partying might have been important to you does not mean that it's important to everyone, nor is it the only way to enjoy college. There's nothing wrong with being an introvert.
But my line of thinking is that we may be so used to the equal tempered tuning that we will intonate the same way on our 'fretless' anyway.
It doesn't quite work like that. Musicians adjust intonation to slow down and/or eliminate the audible "beats" that occur when an interval is out of tune. All equal-tempered intervals, apart from the octave, create audible beats. We tend to resist playing them.
No, you missed the point. A good woodwind player will naturally resist playing in equal temperament, even if his/her instrument is designed for it, because equal temperament is audibly out of tune.
I've got news for you... Woodwind players don't play in equal temperament any more than string players do. String players make adjustments with their fingers, you make adjustments with your embouchure and breathing.
That's only an issue for instruments with fixed intonations
No it's not. (?)
Yes it is. Two good trumpeters (or violinists, or flutists, or singers, etc.) can play a major third in perfect tune if they listen to each other and adjust their intonation. But a pianist *cannot* play play a major third in perfect tune on an equal-tempered piano, period.
I remember that if you keep playing perfect fifths you end up half a note sharp when you get back to your starting note.
This is true, but it's a non-issue for most instruments. The performers aren't stuck with whatever frequency the instrument gives them; they can adjust it on the fly. It is only a problem for fixed-pitch instruments like the piano.
The problem lies with the idiots who can't differentiate between opinion shows and news shows.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the line between opinion and news is blurry by design. Insofar as there will always be a lot more "idiots" than smart people, insofar as they have the same voting rights as anyone else, and insofar as they really can't help being "idiots," I tend to think that it should be considered the responsibility of the producers of opinion shows to make the distinction as clear and "idiot-proof" as possible. But, of course, that would defeat their purpose.
There is no such thing as an "objective" documentary, nor could there be. Even the decision to make a documentary is a result of the filmmaker's subjective point of view. It is inescapable.
You cannot exclude Michael Moore's work from a genre that includes, for instance, the documentaries of Werner Herzog. Believe me, Michael Moore has nothing on Herzog in terms of deviating from "objective" facts! So for you to pick on Moore, of all people, is actually quite amusing, and reveals both your ignorance of film and your purely political motivation. Somehow I doubt that you would be so consumed by the issue of what makes an "authentic documentary" if Moore had applied his "subjective" approach to penguins or dirty jokes instead of GWB and the NRA.
I can't help to think that 3D hasn't taken off yet because, to date, there hasn't been a really good movie to take advantage of the process
Not even one? Or even two or three? And that's not even counting classic horror films like House of Wax and Creature from the Black Lagoon.
Granted, it was half a century ago, but it would be hard to argue that 3-D was never given a chance. Maybe those movies were really good in 3-D, but they are also really good in 2-D, and I can't imagine that there's really that much difference between the two viewing experiences.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you not realize that you still burn calories even when you're not exercising?
Separate the wheat from the chaff, perhaps.
Someone who figures out how to play a song by listening to it and using his own ear is well on his way to becoming a much better musician than the person who learns it by downloading TAB from the internet. Especially considering that most of the TAB on the internet is utter crap.
Just to keep it in context, "Google has a near-monopoly on web searches" was the GGP's claim. The GP was simply responding to this.
That is perhaps the best strawman/false dichotomy combo I've ever seen. You should get a medal.
monkeydo, you are missing the point so utterly that it's hard to know where to begin. Sure, there are lots of ways you can limit queries to a database. You can completely disallow queries to the database, if you want to, and you'll have an electronic voting system pretty much like what we have today. Congratulations.
Giving people access to the data is the whole point. That's what makes this work. As soon as you start talking about ways to hide the data, you are no longer talking about the same scenario as the rest of us. Revealing the data is a requirement of this system.
Yes, there are perfectly good reasons why you wouldn't want people to go mucking about with querying the original, sacrosanct voting records, just as you wouldn't want to give people easy access to crates filled with paper ballots. But you seem to forget that computer data can easily be copied. There is absolutely no risk in letting people query a copy of the voting data, or of simply publishing the data outright.
Now, just to make myself totally clear, I'm not really crazy about this solution, though it does have its merits. But your criticisms of it are so wide of the mark as to be irrelevant.
The point is that if I am able to query for individual votes one at a time, and you return accurate information for each query, you can't stop me.
Okay, Mr. Reading Comprehension. As the GP pointed out, the entire database would have to be available and correct; even if you have to query for the votes one at a time, you can still obtain a complete, correct set of data. Once you have that, you simply count the votes yourself and compare your results to the system's aggregate numbers. Now do you get it?
If this is how you live your life, you might want to give some thought to STD Insurance. You're not going to get any from a pill, no matter which partner takes it.
If 10,000 people each flipped a coin ten times in a row, chances are good that nine or ten of them would have it land heads-up each time. Have identified the "expert" coin-tossers, then? I don't think so.
Slashdot is not the legal system. We can declare him guilty, or not guilty, any time we feel like it. Of course, we don't actually have the power to do anything about it, so you can relax; his rights are still protected.
Who's stopping it? We couldn't if we tried.
Would you care to explain how "everyone knows" Foley's party affiliation, and therefore couldn't possibly be fooled by this "typo," when most people can't even name their own state's senators? Do you realize how silly you sound?
Parties have nothing to do with the "well-rounded" education that college is meant to provide. Otherwise, they would offer them for credit.
Cut the guy some slack... The fact that partying might have been important to you does not mean that it's important to everyone, nor is it the only way to enjoy college. There's nothing wrong with being an introvert.
Someone who claims not to care what other people think, posting a list of some of his favorite musicians on slashdot -- with the karma bonus, no less.
It doesn't quite work like that. Musicians adjust intonation to slow down and/or eliminate the audible "beats" that occur when an interval is out of tune. All equal-tempered intervals, apart from the octave, create audible beats. We tend to resist playing them.
No, you missed the point. A good woodwind player will naturally resist playing in equal temperament, even if his/her instrument is designed for it, because equal temperament is audibly out of tune.
I've got news for you... Woodwind players don't play in equal temperament any more than string players do. String players make adjustments with their fingers, you make adjustments with your embouchure and breathing.
Yes it is. Two good trumpeters (or violinists, or flutists, or singers, etc.) can play a major third in perfect tune if they listen to each other and adjust their intonation. But a pianist *cannot* play play a major third in perfect tune on an equal-tempered piano, period.
This is true, but it's a non-issue for most instruments. The performers aren't stuck with whatever frequency the instrument gives them; they can adjust it on the fly. It is only a problem for fixed-pitch instruments like the piano.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the line between opinion and news is blurry by design. Insofar as there will always be a lot more "idiots" than smart people, insofar as they have the same voting rights as anyone else, and insofar as they really can't help being "idiots," I tend to think that it should be considered the responsibility of the producers of opinion shows to make the distinction as clear and "idiot-proof" as possible. But, of course, that would defeat their purpose.
Sweet.
You and the mods. 'Tards, all.
Don't be an ignoramus. He wouldn't have to actually DO any of those things in order to POST about doing them.
You cannot exclude Michael Moore's work from a genre that includes, for instance, the documentaries of Werner Herzog. Believe me, Michael Moore has nothing on Herzog in terms of deviating from "objective" facts! So for you to pick on Moore, of all people, is actually quite amusing, and reveals both your ignorance of film and your purely political motivation. Somehow I doubt that you would be so consumed by the issue of what makes an "authentic documentary" if Moore had applied his "subjective" approach to penguins or dirty jokes instead of GWB and the NRA.
Granted, it was half a century ago, but it would be hard to argue that 3-D was never given a chance. Maybe those movies were really good in 3-D, but they are also really good in 2-D, and I can't imagine that there's really that much difference between the two viewing experiences.
"For the love of God, Montresor!"