So while he may 'have a sense' of beat, tempo and melody, sit yourself down at fruity loops and mess around. You'll be pleasantly surprised that after a few hours, you have something that sound cool to you. After a few days, something that might sound cool to others.
A few months and who knows?
The man is skilled. Skilled at sampling and editing. He's not, however, a skilled musician.
I'm sorry, you're mistaken.
The only things your argument establishes is that he is not a talented drummer or pianist. A musician is someone who makes music, and for the purposes of defining the term, I couldn't give a shit how it's made.
The Richard D. James Album by Aphex Twin contains, in my opinion, some of the most beautiful "music" made in the last decade using techniques very similar, in principle, to the ones this guy is using. I'm thrilled to see that new tools are allowing different people to become musicians in brand new ways.
I actually used the Sony to finally answer a question that I've been wondering about for a while. What happens what you try and watch an HDCP encrypted movie on a display without HDCP? I hooked up a bog standard 17in, 1,280 x 1,024 display and tried to play a movie. The supplied InterVideo WinDVD BD software started to play and then stopped - and that was that. So there you go - the disc won't even play.
Buy a movie ticket and you have a chance of being barred because they hit capacity.
hrm, I worked at movie theatres in Toronto and the surrounding area off and on from 1990 to 1996. Every single one of them kept data on number of tickets sold, number of seats in theatres, and maintained a gap of about 5% total number of seats to comply with fire regulations.
I'm skeptical that business on teh internets can't be done in a similarly sane way.
`Conventional view' according to article you keep referring to and quoting (but are unable to understand):
warming since 1850 brings us back on track to `normal temperatures'.
Reasons to think that the conventional view is wrong, and `simply a convenient assumption' in the minds of morons, I mean people who deny global warming, as stated in the parts you quote from the article:
-it is merely a `convenient assumption' for those who deny global warming
-it offers no way to understand why the Earth has warmed so much *since* that period
-it is part of a picture that requires more cooling than observed for the last 3000 years
Can you understand that the part about warming since 1850 brings us back on track is part of a view considered and then rejected in the very passage you quote?
Explains a hypothesis according to which global warming is not due to human activity
Argues that this hypothesis generates harder to answer questions than the ones that it solves
I'm only feeding the troll here because of the misguided moderation that will make people think `hey, maybe there is really a lack of scientific consensus here'. I'm sorry your prediction about being flamebait turned out to be falsifiable.
The Saddam regime was never connected to terrorism.
I'm sorry, that's false.
I know that terrorism against Israelis doesn't usually count as terrorism in the world's eyes, but Saddam Hussein most definitely sponsored oodles and oodles of suicide bombers - by rewarding their families. The BBC, no friend to Israel, details the sponsorship here.
I am not suggesting this justified massive American military action in Iraq, but I do get tired of the 'no link between Saddam and terrorists' line. There are more terrorists in the world than those who attack the continental U.S.
Wow - didn't know that. Here in Nova Scotia, they've been behaving respectably (at least with broadband, can't speak for any of their other services). Sorry to hear that. Do you have an alternative over there?
One thing I've done since I switched away from a packet shaping network is told all my non-geeky friends who are deciding what service to get to STAY AWAY from it [Eastlink] and switch to the good guys in my area [Aliant].
Maybe we can hurt these companies through word of mouth.
Has anyone found themselves unable to use BT because of this?
Yes - Eastlink in the maritimes in Canada uses Ellacoya servers to shape bandwidth. Not only would BT grind to a halt, everything else slowed down, including http. Needless to say, I switched to Aliant.
One thing that gets me is that Eastlink has very loud, obnoxious advertising in which they hit you over the head with 10 Mb/s over and over again. "We are faster than everyone else in your area".
Of course, they makes not a damn bit of difference if the protocol I want to use that bandwidth for gets shut down. Aliant gives me up to 350 kb/s downstream using BT, same price, no download limits. I'm happy to live in a place with an alternative.
I wonder: is packet shaping more common in Canada than the U.S. because of our relaxed legal status with respect to filesharing?
My kneejerk reaction was extremely critical of the ISP's actions. Upon further consideration however, the position of being asked to violate your clients confidentiality and hand over IPs to the RIAA or whoever certainly wouldn't be an appealing one.
Are you really this pretentious? I really was trying to be civil and understand what the hell you're on about. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm not defending God - in fact, I said that I found most of your other comments helpful. Do you always insult people who try to engage in discussion with you?
Tell me, God, ``Yes'' or ``No,'' will you answer, ``No''?
For the last time, what question, in this scenario, is God supposed to be answering?
So, there we have it. A question that even God can't answer.
Is the existence of unanswerable questions supposed show that omniscience is incoherent?
Omniscience is concerned with knowledge, not questions.
Or, if you're not sure of the significance of the ditty, think of what either answer means.
Now you've totally lost me. What is the `ditty' you're referring to? `Ditty' is English for `a short song'.
I'm going to try to inject some sense into this part of your otherwise sensible post. Turing, from the assumption that all problems are solvable by some recursive procedure, derives a contradiction. I'm guessing, from the meagre comments you made, that you are thinking of asking God this question:
Does the machine that Turing constructs, in his reductio, halt when given its own index as an input?
Of course, either answer, yes or no, leads to a contradiction. So, we reject the assumption that all problems are solvable by a recursive procedure.
This has about as much to do with the problem of an omniscient mind as the following.
Ok, smartypants God, suppose I construct a box with the following properties: there is a monkey in it if and only if you don't exist, and there is no monkey in it if and only if you are a guy from New Jersey named Jimmy who pumps gas, is a moron, and is about as omniscient as a rock.
Well, is there a monkey in my box? Remember, God has to answer yes or no.
And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:
Tell me God, ``yes'' or ``no,'' will you answer, ``no''?
(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')
Hmm.. I'm with you on the rest of that stuff, but you lost me there. Are you supposing that God is recursive, and therefore his solving the halting problem leads to a contradiction?
Explain to me, scientifically, why your viewpoint is the right way to interpret this evidence, and mine is incorrect.
I know you weren't addressing me (perhaps the second person is not the best voice for slashdot), but here's your answer:
His viewpoint has something to do with a science, whereas yours doesn't.
This is a website that, run through volunteers, has put together basic information on something called "Sedimentology" in which really smart folks, instead of staring at their driveways, lawns, etc., use a really neat method for figuring out how our planet's surface settles over time.
I know this sounds elitist, but I'd hate to think all those advanced degrees those sedimentologists could be replaced by a little home improvement.
In comparison, PureVideo has never been free. It starts off at $20 for the "bronze" edition with basic SPDIF out support or 2 channel audio, $30 for the gold version with 5.1 analog out, and $50 for the platinum version with DTS support. When price shopping for a new GPU, if you're going with NVIDIA you need to factor in the extra $20 that you wouldn't have to with a built-by-ATI card.
The only thing it won't do is support other people's DRM.
As has been stated numerous times in the broader discussion, this is false when 'playing music' is defined in user friendly terms that doesn't require fiddling. So, if someone rents some music from Napster, then their iPod won't (barring some involved fiddling) play the music.
Indisputable proof that it's not greedy, monopolistic, unethical, or anti-music industry. Just plain sensable business.
Ok - now I see where the disagreement is. You take protection of profits and prevention of others from entering into markets one is competing in, or engaging in 'sensable [sic] business' to imply that one is not greedy, nor monopolistic, nor unethical. That is obviously not the case.
I have no chance of getting any positive mods at this point, so I'll say my piece one more time. Apple has its hands in two, arguably distinct markets: producing handheld music players, and supply online content. It is engaged in practices in one of those markets (handheld music players) to prevent competition in the other market (supplying online content).
I won't bore you with the history in which doing things that fit this general mold have been accused of each of the bad things that I mentioned above. We can disagree about general political principles (like, should we have a mixed-market system at all?), but I'm afraid that it is far from obvious that Apple is just doing the sensible, business-savvy thing here.
Clearly people don't want another monthly fee, or don't want one for something they never had to pay monthly for before.
I have no interest in Napster's DRM model - at least, no interest in sending my money its way. I agree with you about the likely behavior and preferences of consumers.
One other thing is certain. Napster's model doesn't make Apple any money, so why should Apple support it?
A few parent posts ago, I suggested some reasons implied by the article - not to do so might be greedy, monopolistic, unethical, or anti-music industry. To be honest, I don't buy any of the arguments in support of these claims. I just think its inarguable that there is a competition being fought here over the future of DRM that is being won due to hardware issues. Is that a good thing? Dunno. We'll see.
If their business model is one that nets more cash for the music industry out of your pocket, which are you going to choose?
Unless I own stock in a 'music industry' company, the one that provides me with the greatest utility for the lowest price. I'm a little confused - does Napster cost more than iTunes? What if you don't want to own your content, but merely rent unlimited quantites?
Slashdot Mirror
A few months and who knows?
The man is skilled. Skilled at sampling and editing. He's not, however, a skilled musician.
I'm sorry, you're mistaken.
The only things your argument establishes is that he is not a talented drummer or pianist. A musician is someone who makes music, and for the purposes of defining the term, I couldn't give a shit how it's made.
The Richard D. James Album by Aphex Twin contains, in my opinion, some of the most beautiful "music" made in the last decade using techniques very similar, in principle, to the ones this guy is using. I'm thrilled to see that new tools are allowing different people to become musicians in brand new ways.
Ouch -- troll?
I am shocked -- shocked that I wasn't modded funny. He said prices would fall by 100%! That's a funny, arithmetic mistake!
Maybe people missed the italicized `free' and just thought I was bitter about HD formats.
Seriously? I won't buy one these HD Blue-crap things even when they're free.
Buy a movie ticket and you have a chance of being barred because they hit capacity.
hrm, I worked at movie theatres in Toronto and the surrounding area off and on from 1990 to 1996. Every single one of them kept data on number of tickets sold, number of seats in theatres, and maintained a gap of about 5% total number of seats to comply with fire regulations.
I'm skeptical that business on teh internets can't be done in a similarly sane way.
no, no you can't read.
:
`Conventional view' according to article you keep referring to and quoting (but are unable to understand): warming since 1850 brings us back on track to `normal temperatures'.
Reasons to think that the conventional view is wrong, and `simply a convenient assumption' in the minds of morons, I mean people who deny global warming, as stated in the parts you quote from the article
-it is merely a `convenient assumption' for those who deny global warming
-it offers no way to understand why the Earth has warmed so much *since* that period
-it is part of a picture that requires more cooling than observed for the last 3000 years
Can you understand that the part about warming since 1850 brings us back on track is part of a view considered and then rejected in the very passage you quote?
are we done yet?
- Explains a hypothesis according to which global warming is not due to human activity
- Argues that this hypothesis generates harder to answer questions than the ones that it solves
I'm only feeding the troll here because of the misguided moderation that will make people think `hey, maybe there is really a lack of scientific consensus here'. I'm sorry your prediction about being flamebait turned out to be falsifiable.where did you find it in Canada for $199? NCIX seems to be charging more.
and gee, I can't think of why that might be. Go here, about halfway down, to read up on poverty. Or, go here to read up on poverty and access to food.
Oh wait, I remember now how to deal with professional trolling organizations...
The Saddam regime was never connected to terrorism.
I'm sorry, that's false.
I know that terrorism against Israelis doesn't usually count as terrorism in the world's eyes, but Saddam Hussein most definitely sponsored oodles and oodles of suicide bombers - by rewarding their families. The BBC, no friend to Israel, details the sponsorship here.
I am not suggesting this justified massive American military action in Iraq, but I do get tired of the 'no link between Saddam and terrorists' line. There are more terrorists in the world than those who attack the continental U.S.
In other news, I'm still using Winamp 2.0 because it's so much better than 5.0
Did you forget about the intervening versions of Winamp that prove that upgrades sometime suck?
Wow - didn't know that. Here in Nova Scotia, they've been behaving respectably (at least with broadband, can't speak for any of their other services). Sorry to hear that. Do you have an alternative over there?
One thing I've done since I switched away from a packet shaping network is told all my non-geeky friends who are deciding what service to get to STAY AWAY from it [Eastlink] and switch to the good guys in my area [Aliant].
Maybe we can hurt these companies through word of mouth.
Has anyone found themselves unable to use BT because of this?
Yes - Eastlink in the maritimes in Canada uses Ellacoya servers to shape bandwidth. Not only would BT grind to a halt, everything else slowed down, including http. Needless to say, I switched to Aliant.
One thing that gets me is that Eastlink has very loud, obnoxious advertising in which they hit you over the head with 10 Mb/s over and over again. "We are faster than everyone else in your area".
Of course, they makes not a damn bit of difference if the protocol I want to use that bandwidth for gets shut down. Aliant gives me up to 350 kb/s downstream using BT, same price, no download limits. I'm happy to live in a place with an alternative.
I wonder: is packet shaping more common in Canada than the U.S. because of our relaxed legal status with respect to filesharing?
My kneejerk reaction was extremely critical of the ISP's actions. Upon further consideration however, the position of being asked to violate your clients confidentiality and hand over IPs to the RIAA or whoever certainly wouldn't be an appealing one.
False dichotomy.
Are you really this dense?
Are you really this pretentious? I really was trying to be civil and understand what the hell you're on about. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm not defending God - in fact, I said that I found most of your other comments helpful. Do you always insult people who try to engage in discussion with you?
For the last time, what question, in this scenario, is God supposed to be answering?
So, there we have it. A question that even God can't answer.
Is the existence of unanswerable questions supposed show that omniscience is incoherent?
Omniscience is concerned with knowledge, not questions.
Or, if you're not sure of the significance of the ditty, think of what either answer means.
Now you've totally lost me. What is the `ditty' you're referring to? `Ditty' is English for `a short song'.
I'm going to try to inject some sense into this part of your otherwise sensible post. Turing, from the assumption that all problems are solvable by some recursive procedure, derives a contradiction. I'm guessing, from the meagre comments you made, that you are thinking of asking God this question:
Of course, either answer, yes or no, leads to a contradiction. So, we reject the assumption that all problems are solvable by a recursive procedure.
This has about as much to do with the problem of an omniscient mind as the following.
Well, is there a monkey in my box? Remember, God has to answer yes or no.
Oh wait - no he doesn't.
And, it just so happens, Mr. Turing disproved omniscience with his little halting problem. Don't believe me? Then try this on for size:
(And do keep in mind that ``Will this program ever halt?'' can only be answered with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'')
Hmm.. I'm with you on the rest of that stuff, but you lost me there. Are you supposing that God is recursive, and therefore his solving the halting problem leads to a contradiction?
Explain to me, scientifically, why your viewpoint is the right way to interpret this evidence, and mine is incorrect.
I know you weren't addressing me (perhaps the second person is not the best voice for slashdot), but here's your answer:
His viewpoint has something to do with a science, whereas yours doesn't.
This is a website that, run through volunteers, has put together basic information on something called "Sedimentology" in which really smart folks, instead of staring at their driveways, lawns, etc., use a really neat method for figuring out how our planet's surface settles over time.
I know this sounds elitist, but I'd hate to think all those advanced degrees those sedimentologists could be replaced by a little home improvement.
In comparison, PureVideo has never been free. It starts off at $20 for the "bronze" edition with basic SPDIF out support or 2 channel audio, $30 for the gold version with 5.1 analog out, and $50 for the platinum version with DTS support. When price shopping for a new GPU, if you're going with NVIDIA you need to factor in the extra $20 that you wouldn't have to with a built-by-ATI card.
Here's a link to nVidia's PureVideo that seems to confirm that it
The iPod will play anybody's music.
The only thing it won't do is support other people's DRM.
As has been stated numerous times in the broader discussion, this is false when 'playing music' is defined in user friendly terms that doesn't require fiddling. So, if someone rents some music from Napster, then their iPod won't (barring some involved fiddling) play the music.
Indisputable proof that it's not greedy, monopolistic, unethical, or anti-music industry. Just plain sensable business.
Ok - now I see where the disagreement is. You take protection of profits and prevention of others from entering into markets one is competing in, or engaging in 'sensable [sic] business' to imply that one is not greedy, nor monopolistic, nor unethical. That is obviously not the case.
I have no chance of getting any positive mods at this point, so I'll say my piece one more time. Apple has its hands in two, arguably distinct markets: producing handheld music players, and supply online content. It is engaged in practices in one of those markets (handheld music players) to prevent competition in the other market (supplying online content).
I won't bore you with the history in which doing things that fit this general mold have been accused of each of the bad things that I mentioned above. We can disagree about general political principles (like, should we have a mixed-market system at all?), but I'm afraid that it is far from obvious that Apple is just doing the sensible, business-savvy thing here.
Clearly people don't want another monthly fee, or don't want one for something they never had to pay monthly for before.
I have no interest in Napster's DRM model - at least, no interest in sending my money its way. I agree with you about the likely behavior and preferences of consumers.
One other thing is certain. Napster's model doesn't make Apple any money, so why should Apple support it?
A few parent posts ago, I suggested some reasons implied by the article - not to do so might be greedy, monopolistic, unethical, or anti-music industry. To be honest, I don't buy any of the arguments in support of these claims. I just think its inarguable that there is a competition being fought here over the future of DRM that is being won due to hardware issues. Is that a good thing? Dunno. We'll see.
If their business model is one that nets more cash for the music industry out of your pocket, which are you going to choose?
Unless I own stock in a 'music industry' company, the one that provides me with the greatest utility for the lowest price. I'm a little confused - does Napster cost more than iTunes? What if you don't want to own your content, but merely rent unlimited quantites?
god's party is the majority of his favorite country
Since when were Republicans touched by his noodly appendage?