I am both a Christian and Dyslexic you insensitive cldo!;-)
Acutally, a progressive Christian is one who listens to Progressive Rock Music! After all, aren't most Christian rock albums concept albums of some sort [with the main concept being God]????
There are some free repositories of Copyright Free music out there. I downloaded a copy of Dowlands complete works (he was a Medieval Lutist) from one such site. Can't remember where it was though. It also had Pachelbel's Canon and a few other things. I'm sure if you start googling for ones, you might find some.
'If the church wants to divorce itself from that message, then remove the message from the book.'
Well, a lot of the Old Testament is History. [They even use it when teaching history at some Universities in this country]. Read in context it makes perfect sense, the problem isn't the way the book is written. The problem is that SOME people WANT to interpret it the way they want it to say something. That could happen regardless of what the book said. After all, MOST Muslims, Buddhists, [insert religion here] are normally very peaceful people etc, but I've run into the occassional violent one who wanted to interpret their holy books to allow them to basically do what they want to whomever they want. Athiests and Agnostics, Communists, Capitalists etc[place belief system here] have also been known to interpret things from books how they want, when they want. It's not restricted to just the Bible and Christians. Just, when Christians do it, it makes news [possibly at the present time as Fundies seem to be in power in a few majorly key positions in the world at present... ie GW and friends].
'At the very least, print the thing with annotations that tell the fundies what orders from God are and aren't actually parts of their religion'
I think MOST Bibles do come with footnotes etc explaining things. Some, like 'Study versions' of Bibles also come with long commentaries in specific parts. Most Christians are asked NOT to interpret things unto their own understanding [in fact, I'm pretty sure it's a command in one of the Epistles], but alas, people being people, they tend to read and believe what they want to believe and ignore the rest. I'm sure most Christians also get instruction from Pastors etc. The problem is, when the Pastors etc think they know better and teach inappropriate things.
Like I've been trying to point out, it isn't just restricted to any one belief system. I know from arguing against people that regardless of what something says, if they want to interpret it the opposite to what was said, they just use stupid arguements like, 'Oh, the writer was being sarcastic when they wrote that, they mean the opposite.'
It's like the 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' commandment. In the original Herbew it actually menas 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder', but, I've run into people who will claim that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' means that fly spray should be banned, we all should become vegetarians and even so much as stepping on a cockroach will send people to hell. Then there is the other extreme, where they re-interpret it according to the 'murder' bit from the Hebrew and start making up excuses as to why 'killing' a certain person isn't murder. I mean, the Bible does state the difference between murder and self defence, but it's when people start stating that pre-emptive strikes etc are 'self defence' that we start to have problems.
Removing it also won't make any difference, as all the Fundies will just retain their copies of the 'unremoved' version and claim it as the original and the 'removed' one as an abomination. Personally, I think it should remain in there, as it is part of the entire Bible. As soon as it gets removed you'll also be getting religious grups who claim the REAL Bible has been changed and re-arranged as a result of the omissions. So, taking anything out or adding anything in is just opening a can of worms and won't solve the problem. Leaving it in and explaining it in Church etc is the way to go. That way nobdy can start claiming that the Bible is being rewritten to cover this up [as I'm sure some people will interpret it that way if a removal is performed].
So removing it won't solve the problem it'll in fact cause more I think.
Like Paul Simon once sang, 'A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.' And that's what this is really a case of. If they don't find their excuse for abusing people in the Bible, they'll get it from another source.
Mozart wasn't buried in a Mass grave (as per the movie Amadeus). He was however buried in an UNMARKED grave. SO yes, it is almost impossible to find his grave. [And any spare coinage can be thrown my way, I need it!]:-)
'Not the Bible's fault? It contradicts itself many times. For example, in Genesis 1, man is created after the beasts. But in Genesis 2, man was created before the beasts. Both parts of Genesis cannot be correct.'
NOPE! Gen 2 does NOT say what you said.
The only part in Gen 2 which mentions the beasts is where God brings them before Adam for him to name them and it states:
Gen 2:19 Now the Lord God HAD formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see waht he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
I chucked the BOLD typeface in as my own emphasis. It mentions the God HAD formed them, which refers to a time in the PAST. It doesn't talk about God making them again. Nor does it give an order in which he'd created man and beast the second time.
'fuck the publishers and their perpetual copyrights for dead man works.'
Why are you being so hostile?
As Z34107 has pointed out, YOU CAN GO AND GET copies of the manuscript which is in public domain. In fact, you seem to be repeating some of what X34107 said:
Both You and Z34107 have both said that Mozarts originals are in public domain. Only YOU seemed to be pissed off that you'd have to pay for the published piece that someone has put time and effort into making. As was previously said YOU can go and get copies of the non-copyrighted pieces of your own. Absolutely NO ONE is forcing you to BUY the published pieces. HOWEVER, if you do want to buy the manuscripts which the publisher has put together, then YOU should pay for the effort that was done to make the manuscript.
As Z34107 has stated: 'Arranging and formatting music is extremely difficult and complex. How many people would I have killed for sheet music with better typesetting?'
And as Z34107 Also stated: 'Go get your own - Mozart's original manuscripts are free.'
'everyone else in this thread, is assuming that the only arranged scores available for classical music is the original manuscripts from the composer'
This is certainly NOT the case. As per a previous comment I made, there are other PUBLISHED COPYRIGHT FREE versions of Mozarts works. I find it amazingly arrogant of you to tell the rest of us what we're 'assuming'. Fact is, you've caught yourself OUT in your own assumption that everyone was assuming it, when it's not true. On top of that another comment BEFORE yours stated that eventually other copies of Mozarts published pieces which are copyright free will eventually get scanned by libraries and available for free.
As for the supposed 'perpetual copyright' you seem to think publishers have on 'Dead Man Works', in my country the copyright is FIFTY years from when published. Guess what, that's neither Perpetual, NOR is it possible to Publish something from public domain and put your own copyright on it without adding something to it. In this case, the 'copyrighted' versions have been put together by the publishing staff so that it is legible.
'which btw, in the case of Mozart is really well written.'
Really? You saying this based on your own assumption again? I have to ask this as you previously also stated 'if the original manuscripts survived to this day' Which certainly implies that YOU DON'T KNOW if the manuscripts are around. So,how do you know if ANY originals survived and when did you supposedly see them, and if you see them, then why would you have asked the 'IF' question?
Fact is, your first comment seemed like a legitimate question. This second comment of yours is just a troll. You've contradicted yourself by asking 'IF' the original manuscripts actually exist but also claim that they're REALLY well written. Sorry, which is it? Do they exist? Even if they do exist, you've obviously NOT seen them, so how do you know they are well written? And if they are so good and you know where to see them, why don't you go amke your own FREE copy, like what was suggested rather than ranting and using the 'F' word towards publishers who put time and effort into produce a fine document.
As a classically trained guitarist and cello player, I've actually seen some original manuscripts (not of Mozarts work I don't think), and alot of them are old and faded and need to be kept in special rooms so they don't deteriorate even more. Even if the writing is done by a good hand which is easy to read, some of the aging effects on the manuscripts make it difficult to read. So, the manuscripts you're talking about MAY NOT be in that good a condition. So, if a publishing company takes time digging up old manuscripts, transcribing them, etc etc, then they deserve some reward for effort. After all, they've saved alot of other people time and travel gathering all those different manuscript
'instead of copying out of books, which is technically illegal, but widely done because how else are you going to conveniently give students something that they can look at and analyze and learn from?'
I'm not sure about your countries copyright, but I'm pretty sure that most countries have a Fair Use clause which allows up to 10% of any manuscript to be copied for educational use. [I know my country does].
'Hasn't it been legal all along for someone to create a new collection of Mozart scores and make it available under some sort of public license?'
Yes, this is possible. They could base it on OLD published manuscripts which are in public domain. I'm sure if they could find enough OLD pieces they could do it. As I'm not familiar with what pieces / manuscripts etc are in or out of public domain, I'm not sure how much searching this might take, but if someone could look at some of Mozarts original manuscripts (if they still exist) or ones from around his time, I'm pretty sure most if not all would be in public domain somewhere.
I'm pretty sure it's still only the US which has copyright which goes on almost Ad Infinitum (almost) you should find all of the pieces in public domain in the rest of the world somewhere.
The other way to do it, is because the music itself is in public domain, it might be possible to just LISTEN to someone playing you the piece [not a recording, unless it is a public domain recording] and then transcribe it by ear. Get enough volunteers doing their own transcriptions and you should be able to get the complete works together. Someone might have to co-ordinate the project from a.org type website so that you don't receive 100 copies of 'The Magic Flute' and none of his other works. [If you get my drift].
NOTE, this transcription thing would only work for non-copyrighted pieces [such as Mozart], you couldn't do it for someone like 'The Red Hot Chilly Peppers' whose songs should still be under their own control. You'd have to get permission to transcribe any copyrighted material.
Depends. If a musican/performer etc decides to perform a piece, [any piece of music, not just a Mozart one], they normally have to check with their Performing Rights Association. If the piece is NOT in copyright, then they're free to perform it, otherwise if copyrighted they just get a license to perform the piece. [And that will also include paying the 1 cent or so of the royalties towards the songwriter/s.]
If they perform a copyrighted piece without permission, and they get caught, then they get fined. A good example of this is when Bono from U2 got fined for singing a bit from 'Send in the Clowns' during the 'Under a Blood Red Sky' concert. [Plus having to pay the royalties to the copyright holder of the song]
If a performer keeps performing a piece without getting permission and not paying the fines, then they'll get a nice law suit against them and will either end up with a heftier fine or time in prison. I think the time in prison might result in the 'not performing' the piece for a while. If they continue to perform the piece without permission after that, then, well, what can we say about that person.
If you're just talking about someone performing a piece in their own home privately, then no one really cares.
'How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? If there were just 2 of the animals (dogs for instance) why are they so different now?'
Depends on how they determine what constituted a different animal. They might have included different species of dogs as different animals [remember, the Bible isn't suposed to be a scientific document, and should be interpreted as per 'colloquial' use of the language it is written in, rather than the pedandic nature of how a scientific document would be interpreted]. But, there wasn't just 2 of every animal. If you read, Gen 7 [I think, without actually bothering to look it up], you'll find there were 15 PAIRS of birds, which is a lot of birds. I think there might have been some other numbers of certain animals as well. The 2 of every animal thing is something they tell children, as it's easier and quicker to say than reading out the passage from the Bible.
Not that I'm knocking your point on Creationists. Though, it stands to reason though that a Full on 100% Creationist could claim that the changes are not due to evolution, but due to God. [Remember, the ancient Greeks removed the gods from science for a reason, because anything which wasn't explainable up until then was easily explainable through just claiming a god or goddess performed the function. Such as Zeus chucking lightning bolts to earth, rather than looking at it scientifially and realising there was a potential different between the earth and the clouds whcih caused an electrical discharge.]
Though, the Adam and Eve bit doesn't necessarily mean people would all look the same. One of my brothers has blond hair and brown eyes, while I have dark brown hair and blue eyes. One of my old Chinese friends has an Auntie with naturally blond curly hair. So, even people with the same parents can have genes slighlty different from each other to produce different looking people. [It'd probably mean all the genes would somehow have to be present in Adam and Eve for them to come about. I'm not a biologist, so I have no idea if it is possible to have all the genes present].
As for the fact that Americans have gotten taller, I've heard that's because of the increase in protein in modern peoples diets. [Which is why the Japanese are also getting taller]. That's not necessarily evolution, as nothing has changed genetically to humans to produce that change in height. The human is still the same creature, which means transfering them back to the older medieval diet or something will cause them to reduce in size again. Genetically they're still the same creature and haven't evolved. It's different to what evolution is supposed to be AFAIK.
To quote wikipedia - In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations (influenced by natural selection, genetic drift, or gene flow).
So, the modern population getting taller due to more protein in the diet isn't evolution unless there is a change in the heritable traits. Like I said, from what I understand, if we put people back onto medieval type diets, we'll all start shrinking again to the sizes of humans in the medieval times. It's akin to the fact that Americans are also getting fatter than their ancestors as a result of their diets. Stop them eating excessively bad diets and start them on well balanced diets and they'll go back to normal healthy weights. [With exercise involved]. If the heritable traits haven't changed, then it isn't evolution in action.
I'm sure there is a biologist out there that might have a better example of microevolution in action.
I heard if you get a computer with Vista and just switch it off permanently it'll be less frustrating than running any MS OS to date. It's sort of a permantent hibernation.:-)
'First of all, most bands make most of their money from concerts, T-shits, and stuff.'
That's not so. First of all, most artists are contracted to their recording companies, and it's the recording companies who are mainly in charge of the merchandising. The artists get a royalty fee on the merchandise sold, but in most cases, the recording companies take back the first $1 mil or so that they spent on the adverising etc. As most bands sell more CD's etc than they do T-Shirts, and they get less royalty money from the T-Shirts and posters, it's pretty stupid to think the bands are getting more money.
Their are exceptions to this. Bigger artists like Madonna get to keep larger slices of the merchandise pie (but they also get a larger slice of their CD royalties pie). I think the only band I heard of who were smart enough to sign their first record deal and keep the rights to their own merchandising was the Dave Matthews band. Most other bands aren't given much of an option, sign the standard deal or do deal. [Which means, not much of a slice of the merchandising pie].
Second, concerning concerts, it used to be that most tours actually LOST the artist money. Now-a-days that's changed, which is why it costs over AUD$100 for some seats at concerts now. It used to be you could see artists very cheaply. Artists learned to make money on tour the hard way. Touring is expensive [not just including the set design and production that goes into it]. Remember, they have to pay for about 20+ people on the road with them, who all need to be feed, housed and kept happy. [Plus, lots of incidentals like laundry costs, guitar strings, picks, alcohol, drum skins etc].
Yes, most artists do make profits when they tour now. But remember, Kurt Cobain and Nirvana used to go on tour and come back with only $1000 profit each in their pockets, so it's not like they make millions from every tour. [And I'm talking tours, not Legs of tours].
On one of Nirvana's tours they used University students as Free Roadies in order to cut down the cost of touring. In the end they decided it didn't work too well, as most of the students didn't turn up to help set the gear up, and only showed up for the concert etc with their back stage passes. [A good reason to use REAL ROADIES].
Where most musicians make a lot of profit, is from getting their songs into movies etc. It's one of the reasons Pink Floyd (at one stage) tried to get into being a band which mainly did sound tracks for movies. It's all royalties for their songs being played everytime the movie is played in a Cinema or on TV. PLUS, every time an artists song gets played on the radio, in a disco/nightclub, on MTV or other music program (in theory) they get paid a royalty fee. (More money if they're Madonna or someone with a higher Royalty payment). Imagine a popular song which gets constant radio play and constant TV play, and you're looking at hundreds of thousands to millions coming in. [Of course, the royalties are only paid out every six months, so it might be a wait for the artist if the record company doesn't give them an advance on their royalites].
The big companies are probably the worst for abusing their artists, but they're also the ones who throw the most money to get the artists name out there. Smaller record companies are more artist friendly and usually offer better deals, but a lot of artists can't afford to sign with them as they don't get a lot of exposure, and as such don't make a lot of money. Smaller labels are more likely to allow the artist to keep conrtrol of their merchandising, but, that being said, it's then up to the artist to organise the printing of the T-Shirts, distributions etc, and often they don't have a lot of channels to get their T-Shirts into the big stores etc. If the artists have signed the merchandising over to the record label, then in theory they're not allowed to print their own T-Shirts or do other merchandising.
I was sure when I was doing CS with a Maths major at University that one of my mathematics lecturer claimed that there was already a way to divide by zero using calculus. (Unlike the way we'd been taught in school where we just used very very small values to represent zero). He said he'd show us one day, but he never did.
I'm just wondering if I've missed something in the article. This just seems to be a silly theorem anyway. It doesn't seem to be adding to mathematics to me. I can't think of any use for it that a CS student couldn't have avoided (by having their programs look for divide by zero checks) or anything. Even having a computer accept that a divide by zero becomes a divide by nullity, it doesn't seem to answer anything a computer can use it for. After all, if I have x/0 and the program hits it with x=1223 one time and x=3.556 the next, what sort of answer will the computer throw back if it becomes 1223/nullity or 3.556/nullity. It seems to me that nothing has been answered mathematically and we're not really moving mathematics or computer science any futher ahead in there fields.
Am I missing something? Where does this theorem become practical?
'...skipping the reprehensible blot on the series that was the first.'
How dare you, sir!!!! Yes, the first series was not as funny as the next three, but it is still worth watching. Of course, the next three series were written by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton, while [if my memory serves me correctly], Rowan Atkinsons and two others {and I believe one of them might have still been Richard Curtis) wrote the first series. I particularly like the Witch Hunter episode of the first series.
Let's face it, thought series one is not as funny as series two through four, it is still funnier than a lot of the dribble produced on TV.
Now if you excuse me, I'm off to spend thousands of pounds on the worlds biggest turnip, and to feed my cat Milk, Bloody Milk!
'And where are the studies that show any other conclusion?'
This one was reported by slashdot some time ago. The Swedish Cell Phone Study said there was a 240% incerease in risk for heavy users.
It was done over ten years, and was considered better than previous studies. I think this debate is not over yet, and we'll probably see more studies claiming cancer causing and non-cancer causing over the next ten years plus till something completely conclusive happens, or we humans start using a new form of communication which does away with mobile phones altogether, as it's easier not to lug a mobile phone around. Then the debate might start a new around the new device.
Of course it is when you think about it. I've just worded it badly.
Ironic - characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is;
Replacing a photocopier that isn't working good enough, with one that DOESN'T work at all in the hope that it will solve the problem of not having a working photocopier is ironic. It's also dumb. But the expectation is that the purchasing of the photocopier that doesn't work is going to fix the problem... which of course it won't. Therefore, by definition, there is a poignant difference between the expected result (we get a working photocopier) and what is actually happening (we're buying a photocopier that doesn't work at all).
Ooooo, sounds similar to an experience I had. We had stuff ready to roll on a Sun box, and the software we'd bought was only for Unix, but somehow an IBM sales person convinced a manager we should go with some of their machines. Meant we had to buy the software a second time to run on Windows, buy an operating system and new machines from IBM.
There was a huge arguement over it all, as the Sys. Architect kept trying to explain that the software we'd bought wouldn't run on the stuff IBM was selling, but the manager kept calling the guy a liar and insisted on the IBM stuff as the IBM salesman had claimed the software would run on it. Like I said, we ended up having to buy the software a second time.
Of course, this was the same manager who asked me to find where his programs had vanished to in Win 3.1 He'd minimised his desktop by mistake and it didn't occur to him to click on the little icon on the screen. [Yeah, it was a while ago, before the company moved to NT].
To this day I don't know how that guy was earning half a million plus a year. Oh wait, yes I do, he was mates with the CEO... who also knew bugger all about IT.
They're opposed as the first one is about you getting screwed in as many BAD ways as possible, while the second is giving pleasure in as many GOOD ways as possible while screwing.
I own 'The Red Badge of Courage', Vampire books, and something on Lisp programming. Not surprised about the shopping and knitting books. Who needs to know how to knit now a days and who needs to learn how to shop? THough, I am wondering how many Anti-War Vampires out there program in Lisp... actually, being a geek and a vampire have lots in common. Mainly the pasty dead looking skin that's never seen daylight.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
'What do you mean? A Dyslexic?'
;-)
I am both a Christian and Dyslexic you insensitive cldo!
Acutally, a progressive Christian is one who listens to Progressive Rock Music! After all, aren't most Christian rock albums concept albums of some sort [with the main concept being God]????
There are some free repositories of Copyright Free music out there. I downloaded a copy of Dowlands complete works (he was a Medieval Lutist) from one such site. Can't remember where it was though. It also had Pachelbel's Canon and a few other things. I'm sure if you start googling for ones, you might find some.
'If the church wants to divorce itself from that message, then remove the message from the book.'
... ie GW and friends].
Well, a lot of the Old Testament is History. [They even use it when teaching history at some Universities in this country]. Read in context it makes perfect sense, the problem isn't the way the book is written. The problem is that SOME people WANT to interpret it the way they want it to say something. That could happen regardless of what the book said. After all, MOST Muslims, Buddhists, [insert religion here] are normally very peaceful people etc, but I've run into the occassional violent one who wanted to interpret their holy books to allow them to basically do what they want to whomever they want. Athiests and Agnostics, Communists, Capitalists etc[place belief system here] have also been known to interpret things from books how they want, when they want. It's not restricted to just the Bible and Christians. Just, when Christians do it, it makes news [possibly at the present time as Fundies seem to be in power in a few majorly key positions in the world at present
'At the very least, print the thing with annotations that tell the fundies what orders from God are and aren't actually parts of their religion'
I think MOST Bibles do come with footnotes etc explaining things. Some, like 'Study versions' of Bibles also come with long commentaries in specific parts. Most Christians are asked NOT to interpret things unto their own understanding [in fact, I'm pretty sure it's a command in one of the Epistles], but alas, people being people, they tend to read and believe what they want to believe and ignore the rest. I'm sure most Christians also get instruction from Pastors etc. The problem is, when the Pastors etc think they know better and teach inappropriate things.
Like I've been trying to point out, it isn't just restricted to any one belief system. I know from arguing against people that regardless of what something says, if they want to interpret it the opposite to what was said, they just use stupid arguements like, 'Oh, the writer was being sarcastic when they wrote that, they mean the opposite.'
It's like the 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' commandment. In the original Herbew it actually menas 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder', but, I've run into people who will claim that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' means that fly spray should be banned, we all should become vegetarians and even so much as stepping on a cockroach will send people to hell. Then there is the other extreme, where they re-interpret it according to the 'murder' bit from the Hebrew and start making up excuses as to why 'killing' a certain person isn't murder. I mean, the Bible does state the difference between murder and self defence, but it's when people start stating that pre-emptive strikes etc are 'self defence' that we start to have problems.
Removing it also won't make any difference, as all the Fundies will just retain their copies of the 'unremoved' version and claim it as the original and the 'removed' one as an abomination. Personally, I think it should remain in there, as it is part of the entire Bible. As soon as it gets removed you'll also be getting religious grups who claim the REAL Bible has been changed and re-arranged as a result of the omissions. So, taking anything out or adding anything in is just opening a can of worms and won't solve the problem. Leaving it in and explaining it in Church etc is the way to go. That way nobdy can start claiming that the Bible is being rewritten to cover this up [as I'm sure some people will interpret it that way if a removal is performed].
So removing it won't solve the problem it'll in fact cause more I think.
Like Paul Simon once sang, 'A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.' And that's what this is really a case of. If they don't find their excuse for abusing people in the Bible, they'll get it from another source.
Free Jokes? Where? :-)
Mozart wasn't buried in a Mass grave (as per the movie Amadeus). He was however buried in an UNMARKED grave. SO yes, it is almost impossible to find his grave. [And any spare coinage can be thrown my way, I need it!] :-)
'Not the Bible's fault? It contradicts itself many times. For example, in Genesis 1, man is created after the beasts. But in Genesis 2, man was created before the beasts. Both parts of Genesis cannot be correct.'
NOPE! Gen 2 does NOT say what you said.
The only part in Gen 2 which mentions the beasts is where God brings them before Adam for him to name them and it states:
Gen 2:19 Now the Lord God HAD formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see waht he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
I chucked the BOLD typeface in as my own emphasis. It mentions the God HAD formed them, which refers to a time in the PAST. It doesn't talk about God making them again. Nor does it give an order in which he'd created man and beast the second time.
'Hey, if I commit as many genocides as that guy did, could I get a book of the Bible named after me?'
Too late, they already had a Stephen in the Bible and he got stoned.
'with the edge of the sword.'
Sounds bad, they only had the one sword. Must have been pretty blunt towards the end of it. I'd hate to have been killed last.
'fuck the publishers and their perpetual copyrights for dead man works.'
Why are you being so hostile?
As Z34107 has pointed out, YOU CAN GO AND GET copies of the manuscript which is in public domain. In fact, you seem to be repeating some of what X34107 said: Both You and Z34107 have both said that Mozarts originals are in public domain. Only YOU seemed to be pissed off that you'd have to pay for the published piece that someone has put time and effort into making. As was previously said YOU can go and get copies of the non-copyrighted pieces of your own. Absolutely NO ONE is forcing you to BUY the published pieces. HOWEVER, if you do want to buy the manuscripts which the publisher has put together, then YOU should pay for the effort that was done to make the manuscript.
As Z34107 has stated:
'Arranging and formatting music is extremely difficult and complex. How many people would I have killed for sheet music with better typesetting?'
And as Z34107 Also stated:
'Go get your own - Mozart's original manuscripts are free.'
'everyone else in this thread, is assuming that the only arranged scores available for classical music is the original manuscripts from the composer'
This is certainly NOT the case. As per a previous comment I made, there are other PUBLISHED COPYRIGHT FREE versions of Mozarts works. I find it amazingly arrogant of you to tell the rest of us what we're 'assuming'. Fact is, you've caught yourself OUT in your own assumption that everyone was assuming it, when it's not true. On top of that another comment BEFORE yours stated that eventually other copies of Mozarts published pieces which are copyright free will eventually get scanned by libraries and available for free.
As for the supposed 'perpetual copyright' you seem to think publishers have on 'Dead Man Works', in my country the copyright is FIFTY years from when published. Guess what, that's neither Perpetual, NOR is it possible to Publish something from public domain and put your own copyright on it without adding something to it. In this case, the 'copyrighted' versions have been put together by the publishing staff so that it is legible.
'which btw, in the case of Mozart is really well written.'
Really? You saying this based on your own assumption again? I have to ask this as you previously also stated
'if the original manuscripts survived to this day'
Which certainly implies that YOU DON'T KNOW if the manuscripts are around. So,how do you know if ANY originals survived and when did you supposedly see them, and if you see them, then why would you have asked the 'IF' question?
Fact is, your first comment seemed like a legitimate question. This second comment of yours is just a troll. You've contradicted yourself by asking 'IF' the original manuscripts actually exist but also claim that they're REALLY well written. Sorry, which is it? Do they exist? Even if they do exist, you've obviously NOT seen them, so how do you know they are well written? And if they are so good and you know where to see them, why don't you go amke your own FREE copy, like what was suggested rather than ranting and using the 'F' word towards publishers who put time and effort into produce a fine document.
As a classically trained guitarist and cello player, I've actually seen some original manuscripts (not of Mozarts work I don't think), and alot of them are old and faded and need to be kept in special rooms so they don't deteriorate even more. Even if the writing is done by a good hand which is easy to read, some of the aging effects on the manuscripts make it difficult to read. So, the manuscripts you're talking about MAY NOT be in that good a condition. So, if a publishing company takes time digging up old manuscripts, transcribing them, etc etc, then they deserve some reward for effort. After all, they've saved alot of other people time and travel gathering all those different manuscript
'instead of copying out of books, which is technically illegal, but widely done because how else are you going to conveniently give students something that they can look at and analyze and learn from?'
I'm not sure about your countries copyright, but I'm pretty sure that most countries have a Fair Use clause which allows up to 10% of any manuscript to be copied for educational use. [I know my country does].
'Hasn't it been legal all along for someone to create a new collection of Mozart scores and make it available under some sort of public license?'
.org type website so that you don't receive 100 copies of 'The Magic Flute' and none of his other works. [If you get my drift].
Yes, this is possible. They could base it on OLD published manuscripts which are in public domain. I'm sure if they could find enough OLD pieces they could do it. As I'm not familiar with what pieces / manuscripts etc are in or out of public domain, I'm not sure how much searching this might take, but if someone could look at some of Mozarts original manuscripts (if they still exist) or ones from around his time, I'm pretty sure most if not all would be in public domain somewhere.
I'm pretty sure it's still only the US which has copyright which goes on almost Ad Infinitum (almost) you should find all of the pieces in public domain in the rest of the world somewhere.
The other way to do it, is because the music itself is in public domain, it might be possible to just LISTEN to someone playing you the piece [not a recording, unless it is a public domain recording] and then transcribe it by ear. Get enough volunteers doing their own transcriptions and you should be able to get the complete works together. Someone might have to co-ordinate the project from a
NOTE, this transcription thing would only work for non-copyrighted pieces [such as Mozart], you couldn't do it for someone like 'The Red Hot Chilly Peppers' whose songs should still be under their own control. You'd have to get permission to transcribe any copyrighted material.
Depends. If a musican/performer etc decides to perform a piece, [any piece of music, not just a Mozart one], they normally have to check with their Performing Rights Association. If the piece is NOT in copyright, then they're free to perform it, otherwise if copyrighted they just get a license to perform the piece. [And that will also include paying the 1 cent or so of the royalties towards the songwriter/s.]
If they perform a copyrighted piece without permission, and they get caught, then they get fined. A good example of this is when Bono from U2 got fined for singing a bit from 'Send in the Clowns' during the 'Under a Blood Red Sky' concert. [Plus having to pay the royalties to the copyright holder of the song] If a performer keeps performing a piece without getting permission and not paying the fines, then they'll get a nice law suit against them and will either end up with a heftier fine or time in prison. I think the time in prison might result in the 'not performing' the piece for a while. If they continue to perform the piece without permission after that, then, well, what can we say about that person.
If you're just talking about someone performing a piece in their own home privately, then no one really cares.
'How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? If there were just 2 of the animals (dogs for instance) why are they so different now?'
Depends on how they determine what constituted a different animal. They might have included different species of dogs as different animals [remember, the Bible isn't suposed to be a scientific document, and should be interpreted as per 'colloquial' use of the language it is written in, rather than the pedandic nature of how a scientific document would be interpreted]. But, there wasn't just 2 of every animal. If you read, Gen 7 [I think, without actually bothering to look it up], you'll find there were 15 PAIRS of birds, which is a lot of birds. I think there might have been some other numbers of certain animals as well. The 2 of every animal thing is something they tell children, as it's easier and quicker to say than reading out the passage from the Bible.
Not that I'm knocking your point on Creationists. Though, it stands to reason though that a Full on 100% Creationist could claim that the changes are not due to evolution, but due to God. [Remember, the ancient Greeks removed the gods from science for a reason, because anything which wasn't explainable up until then was easily explainable through just claiming a god or goddess performed the function. Such as Zeus chucking lightning bolts to earth, rather than looking at it scientifially and realising there was a potential different between the earth and the clouds whcih caused an electrical discharge.]
Though, the Adam and Eve bit doesn't necessarily mean people would all look the same. One of my brothers has blond hair and brown eyes, while I have dark brown hair and blue eyes. One of my old Chinese friends has an Auntie with naturally blond curly hair. So, even people with the same parents can have genes slighlty different from each other to produce different looking people. [It'd probably mean all the genes would somehow have to be present in Adam and Eve for them to come about. I'm not a biologist, so I have no idea if it is possible to have all the genes present].
As for the fact that Americans have gotten taller, I've heard that's because of the increase in protein in modern peoples diets. [Which is why the Japanese are also getting taller]. That's not necessarily evolution, as nothing has changed genetically to humans to produce that change in height. The human is still the same creature, which means transfering them back to the older medieval diet or something will cause them to reduce in size again. Genetically they're still the same creature and haven't evolved. It's different to what evolution is supposed to be AFAIK.
To quote wikipedia - In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations (influenced by natural selection, genetic drift, or gene flow).
So, the modern population getting taller due to more protein in the diet isn't evolution unless there is a change in the heritable traits. Like I said, from what I understand, if we put people back onto medieval type diets, we'll all start shrinking again to the sizes of humans in the medieval times. It's akin to the fact that Americans are also getting fatter than their ancestors as a result of their diets. Stop them eating excessively bad diets and start them on well balanced diets and they'll go back to normal healthy weights. [With exercise involved]. If the heritable traits haven't changed, then it isn't evolution in action.
I'm sure there is a biologist out there that might have a better example of microevolution in action.
I heard if you get a computer with Vista and just switch it off permanently it'll be less frustrating than running any MS OS to date. It's sort of a permantent hibernation. :-)
Irony - Full or iron. Like Conan's sword. :-)
'First of all, most bands make most of their money from concerts, T-shits, and stuff.'
That's not so. First of all, most artists are contracted to their recording companies, and it's the recording companies who are mainly in charge of the merchandising. The artists get a royalty fee on the merchandise sold, but in most cases, the recording companies take back the first $1 mil or so that they spent on the adverising etc. As most bands sell more CD's etc than they do T-Shirts, and they get less royalty money from the T-Shirts and posters, it's pretty stupid to think the bands are getting more money.
Their are exceptions to this. Bigger artists like Madonna get to keep larger slices of the merchandise pie (but they also get a larger slice of their CD royalties pie). I think the only band I heard of who were smart enough to sign their first record deal and keep the rights to their own merchandising was the Dave Matthews band. Most other bands aren't given much of an option, sign the standard deal or do deal. [Which means, not much of a slice of the merchandising pie].
Second, concerning concerts, it used to be that most tours actually LOST the artist money. Now-a-days that's changed, which is why it costs over AUD$100 for some seats at concerts now. It used to be you could see artists very cheaply. Artists learned to make money on tour the hard way. Touring is expensive [not just including the set design and production that goes into it]. Remember, they have to pay for about 20+ people on the road with them, who all need to be feed, housed and kept happy. [Plus, lots of incidentals like laundry costs, guitar strings, picks, alcohol, drum skins etc].
Yes, most artists do make profits when they tour now. But remember, Kurt Cobain and Nirvana used to go on tour and come back with only $1000 profit each in their pockets, so it's not like they make millions from every tour. [And I'm talking tours, not Legs of tours].
On one of Nirvana's tours they used University students as Free Roadies in order to cut down the cost of touring. In the end they decided it didn't work too well, as most of the students didn't turn up to help set the gear up, and only showed up for the concert etc with their back stage passes. [A good reason to use REAL ROADIES].
Where most musicians make a lot of profit, is from getting their songs into movies etc. It's one of the reasons Pink Floyd (at one stage) tried to get into being a band which mainly did sound tracks for movies. It's all royalties for their songs being played everytime the movie is played in a Cinema or on TV. PLUS, every time an artists song gets played on the radio, in a disco/nightclub, on MTV or other music program (in theory) they get paid a royalty fee. (More money if they're Madonna or someone with a higher Royalty payment). Imagine a popular song which gets constant radio play and constant TV play, and you're looking at hundreds of thousands to millions coming in. [Of course, the royalties are only paid out every six months, so it might be a wait for the artist if the record company doesn't give them an advance on their royalites].
The big companies are probably the worst for abusing their artists, but they're also the ones who throw the most money to get the artists name out there. Smaller record companies are more artist friendly and usually offer better deals, but a lot of artists can't afford to sign with them as they don't get a lot of exposure, and as such don't make a lot of money. Smaller labels are more likely to allow the artist to keep conrtrol of their merchandising, but, that being said, it's then up to the artist to organise the printing of the T-Shirts, distributions etc, and often they don't have a lot of channels to get their T-Shirts into the big stores etc. If the artists have signed the merchandising over to the record label, then in theory they're not allowed to print their own T-Shirts or do other merchandising.
I was sure when I was doing CS with a Maths major at University that one of my mathematics lecturer claimed that there was already a way to divide by zero using calculus. (Unlike the way we'd been taught in school where we just used very very small values to represent zero). He said he'd show us one day, but he never did.
I'm just wondering if I've missed something in the article. This just seems to be a silly theorem anyway. It doesn't seem to be adding to mathematics to me. I can't think of any use for it that a CS student couldn't have avoided (by having their programs look for divide by zero checks) or anything. Even having a computer accept that a divide by zero becomes a divide by nullity, it doesn't seem to answer anything a computer can use it for. After all, if I have x/0 and the program hits it with x=1223 one time and x=3.556 the next, what sort of answer will the computer throw back if it becomes 1223/nullity or 3.556/nullity. It seems to me that nothing has been answered mathematically and we're not really moving mathematics or computer science any futher ahead in there fields.
Am I missing something? Where does this theorem become practical?
What are you talking about? Of course it's real. Though, first time I read this article it was a lot more informative! :-)
'...skipping the reprehensible blot on the series that was the first.'
How dare you, sir!!!! Yes, the first series was not as funny as the next three, but it is still worth watching. Of course, the next three series were written by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton, while [if my memory serves me correctly], Rowan Atkinsons and two others {and I believe one of them might have still been Richard Curtis) wrote the first series. I particularly like the Witch Hunter episode of the first series.
Let's face it, thought series one is not as funny as series two through four, it is still funnier than a lot of the dribble produced on TV.
Now if you excuse me, I'm off to spend thousands of pounds on the worlds biggest turnip, and to feed my cat Milk, Bloody Milk!
'And where are the studies that show any other conclusion?'
This one was reported by slashdot some time ago. The Swedish Cell Phone Study said there was a 240% incerease in risk for heavy users.
It was done over ten years, and was considered better than previous studies. I think this debate is not over yet, and we'll probably see more studies claiming cancer causing and non-cancer causing over the next ten years plus till something completely conclusive happens, or we humans start using a new form of communication which does away with mobile phones altogether, as it's easier not to lug a mobile phone around. Then the debate might start a new around the new device.
Of course it is when you think about it. I've just worded it badly.
... which of course it won't. Therefore, by definition, there is a poignant difference between the expected result (we get a working photocopier) and what is actually happening (we're buying a photocopier that doesn't work at all).
Ironic - characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is;
Replacing a photocopier that isn't working good enough, with one that DOESN'T work at all in the hope that it will solve the problem of not having a working photocopier is ironic. It's also dumb. But the expectation is that the purchasing of the photocopier that doesn't work is going to fix the problem
The Demo for Battlefield 2142 didn't run on my laptop. That was enough for me to decide never to buy it.
'How many minutes does it take to cook a human?'
:-)
Why do I feel a Hannibal Lecter quote coming on?
Ooooo, sounds similar to an experience I had. We had stuff ready to roll on a Sun box, and the software we'd bought was only for Unix, but somehow an IBM sales person convinced a manager we should go with some of their machines. Meant we had to buy the software a second time to run on Windows, buy an operating system and new machines from IBM.
... who also knew bugger all about IT.
There was a huge arguement over it all, as the Sys. Architect kept trying to explain that the software we'd bought wouldn't run on the stuff IBM was selling, but the manager kept calling the guy a liar and insisted on the IBM stuff as the IBM salesman had claimed the software would run on it. Like I said, we ended up having to buy the software a second time.
Of course, this was the same manager who asked me to find where his programs had vanished to in Win 3.1 He'd minimised his desktop by mistake and it didn't occur to him to click on the little icon on the screen. [Yeah, it was a while ago, before the company moved to NT].
To this day I don't know how that guy was earning half a million plus a year. Oh wait, yes I do, he was mates with the CEO
They're opposed as the first one is about you getting screwed in as many BAD ways as possible, while the second is giving pleasure in as many GOOD ways as possible while screwing.
I own 'The Red Badge of Courage', Vampire books, and something on Lisp programming. Not surprised about the shopping and knitting books. Who needs to know how to knit now a days and who needs to learn how to shop? THough, I am wondering how many Anti-War Vampires out there program in Lisp ... actually, being a geek and a vampire have lots in common. Mainly the pasty dead looking skin that's never seen daylight. :-)