icarus_drowning

Where I think you err is in stating that music doesn't give us "new insights into the world we live in". It is precisely because music is emotion/physiological/psychological that it gives us a great deal of insights into not only individual human beings, but the movements and ideas of entire societies.

Stravinsky, who's "Poetics of Music"[1] is one of the more brilliant treatises on the importance of "high" music, once famously stated the "music doesn't have the power to express anything at all"-- his entire belief is that music is a reflection of the people and societies in which it develops. He above all placed music in a higher realm because of what it uniquely taught about people

The belief that there is an objectivity to judging music isn't a popular one, but it is one that I believe to be rather self-evident. Certainly the depth of emotional response to the opening of Beethoven's 9th Symphony[2] should be dramatically different from the response to the latest Britney Spears single. Certainly Bob Dylan's music teaches us something far more complex and valuable about the culture in which it arose than does a jingle from a car commercial.

Indeed, looking through the major musical time periods, it is clear that the representative "geniuses" of each are are elevated as such precisely because their music teaches us something about that time period. Bach's music is unerringly rational, but always highly ornamented. His greatest works are often religious, and reflect the emerging force of Protestantism. Mozart's contrast greatly, with emphasis on balance and elegance, and are often more "absolute" (and thus "secular", although this distinction is somewhat artificial). Etc. Etc.

Simply contrast two symphonies: Beethoven 3[3] with Copland 3[4]. I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that the boisterous triumphalism of the former doesn't crystalize the specific emotions, cultural trends, and overall ideas of the Napoleonic era, or that the latter could have emerged from any culture other than that of individualist America.

And this is just scratching the surface. I haven't even mentioned the dedecophonic serialism of Schoenberg and its clear roots in the modernist era, and I skipped completely the Romantic era from which Chopin, the original topic of discussion, sprung.

All of which to say, is: I think you are short-changing one of the single most powerful elements of human culture, and in doing so, genuinely short-changing yourself out of both greater pleasure and understanding.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Poetics-Music-Lessons-Harvard-paperbac... [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg5vABFHgpU [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL2ha18i5w [4]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGVvsh8BKO8 (Not the best performance, but largely competent)

In college, my music history teacher always told us that "every instrumentalist harbors a secret desire to be a singer". (It was always startling when he said this-- he was the school's orchestra conductor and a semi-famous Cellist, and was often dismissive of singers as "lazy musicians").

More than any other composer (at least for piano), Chopin seems most gifted in his ability to write music that, for all intents and purposes, is singing with the piano.

I too think this will be key. If I can "remote control" Facebook through Diaspora, I will switch in a heartbeat. If I can't experience the same level of interaction as Facebook with the same number of people, I'll still probably switch, but gradually stop using it, I'm sure.

I teach music for a living (theory/voice), and I have to say, I feel like this validates a lot of my techniques when working with students.

Virtually all of my students want to sing pop/rock/etc. music when they first come in. My usual approach is to agree to work primarily in the genre of their choice, but to have some "classical" training as well. I largely due this in order to promote healthy singing, whatever the genre, so that no matter what kind of music they want to sing, they are at least not harming their voices.

Notice that almost all of Friedlander's comments focus on the relaxation of the vocal mechanism ("Like the first singer, he performs with perfect legato, clear diction, and a consistent, organic vibrancy. He arranges his resonance space to create a shallow snarl without setting up any resistance for his breath", etc). I've found that, above all, some classical training seems to reinforce this, allowing students to create resonance rather than merely screaming, to avoid straining at the edge of their ranges, and to approach all genres with a strong grasp of basic music skills. Of course, all of this also improves their basic technique immensely-- pitch, diction, and aural skills are usually highly improved as well.

"...will almost certainly see linkage on Daring Fireball."

Yup: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/08/23/google-carriers

Gruber then asks: "What high ideals, though? Actions, or merely words?", as if to suggest that he isn't aware of Google's open-sourcing of Android, which at least to me seem to sum up the "high ideals" Hiner mentions.

I'm sad to see that the market has apparently decided against Google's own offering. The prospects of a Google-controlled, Android reference phone available to all consumers on all networks was just plain nifty.

Having said that, I have several family members with HTC, "Sensified" Droid Incredibles, and it doesn't seem to be that bad. (Then again, there is no NASCAR app either...)

This seems like a much more balanced, nuance view of the scenario-- note that it is vastly different from "Android is closed because its open" tone present in the article-- or the insistence by some (see comment below) that providers not have access to the Android source.

EDIT: Some clarification and grammatical fixes.

This strikes me as a pretty contradictory position: why users but not mobile providers? The Apache license doesn't make that distinction, and as such, I fail to see why Google should.

I also get a hint of "open for me but not for thee" here: we're supposed to believe the Android's openness (which began as an asset) is now a liability because carriers shouldn't be allowed to modify it.

So who is to be the judge of who gets to modify Android? Google? Jason Hiner?

He also mischaracterizes a lot of the modifications that have happened to Android: sure, the uninstallable NASCAR app on the EVO was decidedly crapware, but to simply lump the Sense interface in with it is a deliberate mischaracterization. (Especially after many reviewers noted that they believed Sense improved on stock on Android-- an opinion I don't share, but a debate worth having).

So my question is thus: does Jason Hiner think Google should rescind its open-source license for most of Android? Does he think that such a move would honestly be more "open" than it is now?

Because it certainly appears that he does.

Quote: "I know some people think that blogs are conversations, but I don't. I think they're publications. And I think the role of comments is to add value to the posts. If you want to rebut a post, then you can create your own blog and post your rebuttal there."

Something about this rubs me the wrong way-- probably the fact that it assumes that rebutting a post doesn't add any value. If I (or Dave Winer) post about something and completely mischaracterize what it is, how it functions, what it means, etc., a comment that rebuts that mistake is certainly quite valuable. It gives the author a chance to revise or reconsider his opinion or take on the matter.

A blog post disagreeing with a high-profile author like Dave Winer is unlikely to have the same kind of impact, especially when it comes from a low-profile site (which, let's face it, most blogs are). It is far too easy for an author to ignore dissenting posts at other sites than it is a highly-visible comment that appears directly under the post in question.

IMHO, Dave Winer is a particularly bad comment moderator-- he routinely removes comments that disagree with his opinions simply because of that disagreement. Anecdotally, I no longer comment at Scripting News precisely because he banned my OpenID from the site when I disagreed with one of his more volatile political posts. Not particularly strong evidence, I know, but it is a routine event at SN to see Winer completely shut down or remove posts that differ with his opinions.

Now, as Winer is fond of saying, those dissenters are certainly capable of starting a free blog an any number of free services (or going so far as to transform an old PC into a Wordpress site of their very own), but, as I've mentioned before, this certainly doesn't merit the same level of visibility that posting a comment does.

All of which is to say: I read the above and don't necessarily see Winer trying to "improve" his site. I see him trying to justify marginalizing those who disagree with him.

Thank you for this. I've been trying to figure out the "big picture" of this, and it is helpful to have someone explain it who understands the minute details.

I (and many others who weren't angered by the Google proposal) agree. But laws are often very specific things. A net neutrality law for wireless networks could very well impose significant, specific restrictions that address our current wireless networks while harming those in the future. And there may be no way of knowing what those "bad" restrictions might be.

The most important point here is their defense of the wireless exemption.

Agree with it or not (I'm on the fence, and most people seem to disagree with it), it is deliberately temporary, and most importantly, subject to annual review and debate. So if you don't like it, please disagree, but do note that this is not meant to be a permanent provision.

Or perhaps a command to re-flow document invoked by the user?

I have consistently argued that, although I find these compromises entirely fair, that others are perfectly reasonable to challenge them on their merits.

In general, most of the criticisms that I have read start with the assumption that any compromise is a bad thing, rather than addressing the specifics of this proposal. Such thinking is an entirely unfair, and in many instances begs the question. (Google's compromises are evil because only evil companies compromise on this issue, because compromise is evil).

Far better critics (see the EFF's rational and reasonable critique of the policy proposal) are being drowned out by the extremists, and, as a result, I suspect they are going to marginalize themselves and (tragically) their more reasonable peers.

On the contrary, their goal is to make money for their shareholders. At this time, we are worried that they will do so by disadvantaging internet properties they don't own. But the answer to that doesn't by neccessity mean that some reasonable compromise is a bad thing.

Why shouldn't there be?

What I think is missing from articles like this are clear suggestions on how else to compromise with telcos and the FCC. The latter party has already had significant trouble in their attempts to enforce neutrality, and telcos have fought it vigorously.

It seems clear that some sort of compromise was worth inspecting. Whether or not you agree with the Verizon/Google deal, it is worth criticizing it realistically (I thought the EFF's response is the best so far), rather than using charged language like "A paper trail of betrayal".

Well thought out analysis, and, most importantly, rational criticism that avoids some of the hyperbole and childish rhetoric we've seen. (No "carrier humping surrender monkey" language here).

While I share the EFF's concerns about loopholes in any proposal, I have to give them some pushback on their criticisms of the "lawful content" provision. While it may be true that this part of the policy could be abused, this clause has to be in any proposal-- I can't imagine Google or Verizon's legal departments would sign off on anything different.

Having said that, the EFF's claim that "lawful content" is insufficiently vague does seem fair. (Although I'd argue that it is pretty self-explanatory as-is).

Overall, what makes this analysis different than so many other is its emphasis on giving Google/Verizon clear suggestions on how to make their proposal better, rather than simply decrying its very existence.

This article is absolutely ridiculous. Wired should be ashamed -- it is sensationalist, unrealistic, and absolutely dishonest in its characterization of the Google/Verizon policy proposal. The salient mistakes:

1. "Google and Verizon announced Monday, as part of their bilateral net neutrality trade agreement they want Congress to ratify, that open wireless rules were unneccessary.

“We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wire-line world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly,” the joint statement said. “In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless-broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the [Net Neutrality] wire-line principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement.”

That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet again won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you — as an American — have lost."

The proposal[1] specifically notes that the wireless exemption is time-limited-- it is noted that "at this time" these rules would not apply. The proposal includes an annual review of this position, and the transparency requirement attempts to ensure that this review could be conducted fairly and with good information.

2. "Google could have fought. It had plenty of tools at its disposal. It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans."

Really? And destroyed any hope of Android ending up on those carriers in the future? Does anyone really think this is a sane proposition? (Does anyone believe that Google wouldn't be painted as a litigious bully by the very same critics throwing around such absurd language as "carrier-humping surrender monkeys"?)

3. "The FTC would have had a reason to pry into unfair business practices. Google could have eschewed online-only selling and partnered with the many independently owned mobile phone shops around the country, so that potential customers could play with the device before plunking down $500."

The reasons for the Nexus One's failures are complex, but I certainly think that one of them was that many consumers don't want to pay $500 for a device, and are more than happy to sign multi-year contracts in order to get a subsidy on a smartphone.

4. "Google easily could have attached conditions to all Google-powered Android phones, banning carrier software that can’t be removed just as easily as any other app. (Try getting rid of Sprint’s Nascar app on the EVO — if you don’t have root, it can’t be done.). These conditions also could have banned the blocking of Android 2.2’s built-in ability to be a Wi-Fi hot spot, which both Sprint and Verizon have crippled."

I know the "open" crowd isn't a fan of these management policies-- I'm not either-- but it seems hypocritical to assert that certain kinds of customizations shouldn't be allowed on open-source software. The author essentially wants Google to be the arbiter of what "openness" means, and moreover, to apply an unequal standard to customers versus carriers.

Boo-hoo, right? Verizon certainly can deal with getting the short end of that stick. But the way they would most likely do that is to drop Android altogether. At which point no one gets to customize it at all.

I am continually mystified by the legions of Google critics who expect that, because they are huge, they can do whatever they want-- completely ignoring the fact that they are huge because they often don't do what they want to. Android is a success precisely because it balances openness with pragmatism. At times I disagree on the balance that Google has chosen, but I don't for a minute believe that Google can simply ignore reality and force carriers to accept a model of the internet that they fundamentally disagree with.

We can argue about the merits of particular Google decisions (like, say, the wireless exemption in the current policy proposal), but I don't think we get anywhere by mis-characterizing them and using the kind of polarizing, childish language like "carrier humping surrender monkeys".

[1]: http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/goog...

I didn't speak against net neutrality. I spoke against regulations on wireless internet to enforce it at the current time. (For what its worth, I would be against any proposal that insisted that net neutrality regulations could never be implemented).

Tabling the issue for wireless networks for now might be the wrong position. (I don't think it is, but I could be wrong). But it is hardly the same as implementing policies that would forever block neutral wireless networks-- most of the critics I've read over the past few days have characterized the Google/Verizon deal as a total loss of neutrality on wireless networks, forever. It specifically outlines an annual review of the current policy.

That's hardly language of a "surrender monkey" (as Wired so inarticulately put it).

Moreover, I've yet to understand most of the arguments against their policy proposal, beyond disappointment that they excluded wireless internet from regulation. (Which I think is a good thing for now).

Regulation is a form of power for the government. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but government and corporations certainly share a desire to be as powerful as possible. Giving either power should thus be a carefully considered move. In some instances, it makes sense. In some it doesn't. But one can be sure that, either way, the entrenched institutions will not willingly give up any power granted to them.

I think the most salient factor here is that regulation requires good information on how that industry/space works. I don't think its questionable that we are not sure what future the wireless/mobile internet holds, only that it big. Regulating it properly right now seems like a dubious proposition-- either through the traditional kind of government regulation or through the "self-regulation" of large corporations, who will naturally shape such self-regulation to their own advantage.

But its the tone of that response that's the problem. Even if the fact that the WSJ chose to publish it is worthy of comment, its certainly worthy of more thoughtful comment. MJ looks as bad as the WSJ by responding to a clumsy op-ed with such a petty, ad-hom piece.

Garbage in, garbage out? The original piece wasn't particularly impressive (rather than blame taxes for business problems, why not suggest targeted tax cuts offset by targeted tax increases?), but this somehow manages to be worse.

The ostensible reason the op-ed was crap was that Micheal Fleisher is related to someone who served in the Bush Administration. Now, while I agree that not divulging that information was a mistake on the Journal's part, I hardly think that shores up MJ's argument. It is necessarily fallacious-- his point is wrong because he was wrong in the past, because he was associated with people we don't like, and because his business is in trouble. It is certainly possible that these things might be true, but they have little bearing on the (equally bad) arguments in his op-ed, which are: taxes are slowing job growth-- see, just look at my business!

MJ notes that the original article wasn't worth much comment. Why they decided to then ignore their own conclusion and comment on it anyway is a mystery to me.

The least they could have done was try to raise, rather than lower, the already miserable tone of the debate.

I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a regulated Internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing either. Now, if it is regulated properly, that's a feature, not a bug, but that's a big if.

I'm certainly not one of those individuals who believe that any regulation is bad regulation, but there is a not-insignificant chance that regulating the nascent wireless space before it has truly matured will result in bad regulation. And once bad regulation is in place, it can be very difficult to change in a meaningful way.

It seems to me that there is danger in both approaches: an entrenched base of huge corporations pushing an unregulated tiered wireless internet is a bad future. Likewise, an improperly regulated wireless internet is an equally bad scenario.

As I understand it, this deal does not sacrifice a neutral wireless internet for a neutral wired one, it merely eschews applying neutrality rules to the wireless internet while proposing neutrality rules for the wired one. Which is very different from the assertion that this deal puts a tiered wireless internet in place.

Which, given its nascent status, seems like the most prudent approach.

While I agree that a large part of the blame for Wave's failure falls on Google, I think its hard to make the case that it "solve[s] problems [people] don't have".

Anyone who's ever dealt with the horror of a multi-user email thread (>>>>>This sort of thing, or perhaps "My_Doc_CASEY'sVERSION.doc")knows that Wave at least solves that problem fairly well.

Of course, no one really cares about that if you can't get your whole team onto Wave in the first place.

I haven't found many. A vast majority are "natural law" arguments, which I think are exceedingly weak.

A better approach (from a conservative/libertarian side) is to just ask the question why government is defining marriage in the first place.

This really makes me sad. I work in media, and I have found that the collaborative aspects of Wave really made that process easier. I scored an entire film earlier this year, and the producers and I only used Wave as our collaboration space. It was beautiful. Keeping track of various versions of each cue was easily 10x easier than my usual mode (email/FTP/Skype/Phone/etc).

We started off with a collaborative list of every cue needed during the first run through, and then let that list grow bigger and bigger with inline replys. Wave's built-in media features meant that I could paste mp3's into the space and let the filmmakers hear my work immediately, and then download the file to put into the project. This meant that when it came time to FTP the big, uncompressed files, it was only the finals, which made things a lot easier.

Likewise, collaborating with temp music was a breeze-- the filmmakers even scored a few sections of the film with temp music and then put the video right into the conversation. (No more folders full of giant quicktime files with different scores).

I know that I'm going to miss that experience. Oh well. Perhaps someone will take the open-source'd code from Google and build a better product.

I'm not holding my breath.

Has anyone done a comparison on how well the kerning/hyphenation/etc. compare to TeX's? As I understand it, even some commercial packages that are designed for this sort of thing still fail to match TeX's. I could be wrong there, however.