[Finale] Re: Andrew Stiller
At 10:41 PM -0800 2/18/08, Nick Carter wrote: Latest news on Andrew Stiller... His wife says that he's back in hospital and feeling rather dispirited so if anyone feels like calling to cheer him up, his no. at the Uni. of Penn hospital is 215 615 4534. Hi Nick, I don't like the 'dispirited' bit. We need him more 'spirited' so he comes out okay. I'd like to try to cheer him up, but I don't want to wake him up with a call. Could you give us a specific address to send cards and letters? Thanks, -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Andrew Stiller?
At 1:43 PM -0500 1/31/08, Darcy James Argue wrote: Has anyone heard anything further regarding Andrew's health? It has been a long time and I would like to know as well. Nick Carter?? You asked me for Ernie's address on 9/16/07, and Ernie hasn't contacted me since 9/13. Please tell us what the situation is, if you know. -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: OT Micro$oft Word [was: Re: [Finale] OT A brief heads-up]
At 9:05 AM -0400 9/17/07, David W. Fenton wrote:
But a journal accepting submissings for publication has to be more
versatile in what it can accept,
But, if they have acceptance standards, why can they not enforce them?
To put it in very Victorian terms: If their standards say that they
accept only typewritten copy, should they accept hand-written script
on a pack of envelopes?
since many times the end users of Microsoft products are not
actually aware of the document format
issues involved.
I think somebody could feel insulted by that.
It's probably just end users of Microsoft products who are not
actually aware, so I guess it's not something I should worry about.
why shouldn't they also accept the new MS Word format?
Because it impairs their workflow and they find the new format unnecessary?
To allow .docx would require them to change their workflow. That's
an expensive choice when the option is to merely disallow .docx.
It doesn't necessarily change their workflow.
Their workflow does not incorporate .docx.
To incorporate .docx in their workflow would change their workflow by
adding translators and/or other programs.
How does the inclusion of .docx not necessarily change their workflow?
Without a _full_ description it _cannot_ become an international standard.
I haven't followed the details, but I thought the objectsion were
not to the documentation but to the capabilities of it (or maybe the
implementation details).
Microsoft has posited .docx as an international standard.
To be accepted as an international standard any submission must be
entirely transparent: It's documentation must totally, fully and
completely describe it.
The .docx submission did not pass this test.
IMHO that seems totally imbecilic on Microsoft's part. ISO
recognition and recommendation is too important to flub.
The only conclusion I can draw is that Microsoft doesn't fully
understand the format themselves.
(Or that they are playing a typical Microsoft game and trying to
sneak through a standard that others won't be able to fully
replicate, so that they can use some obscure hooks in it with the
next generation of their OS and programs.)
Huh. I have assisted with two different academic music journals and
neither of them was automated at all.
You might want to check out JOSA (a/b), JAMA, APS (Phys. Rev. A..E,
etc.), Nature, Science, Physics Today, etc.
They are extremely automated in their journal production.
Normal human beings don't need to deal with extraneous hassles for
which they see no benefit.
Which is exactly why the journals should accept docx, so that those
submitting articles don't need to worry about it.
Thus the supplicant should be exempted from the rules of the master?
The *.docx format serves a completely different purpose than PDF
That is not my interpretation of Microsoft's repeated assertions.
MS has a completely different portable document format whose name I forget.
I'd appreciate knowing it.
To the best of my knowledge .docx was the format that would knock
Adobe off it's pedestal and conquer the world as the Great New
Document Language...
It's called XPS (i.e., XML Paper Specification). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Paper_Specification
I had never heard of it before.
I do like the header notation from Wikipedia:
quote
This article or section is written like an advertisement.
Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view.
Mark blatant advertising for speedy deletion, using {{db-spam}}.
/quote
Regardless, what I have repeatedly read in the trade press is that
Microsoft was positioning .docx as the undoing of PDF.
Since .docx is XML and XPS is an XML Paper Specification and .docx
is a paper specification it looks to me like this is just a new PR
wrapper around .docx to rename it XPS.
And, as I said, it serves a completely different purpose than docx
and all the other Office file formats -- it's a page description
format for portability, not a data storage format specific to
specific applications.
That is contrary to what I've read in the press:
Microsoft was promoting .docx as a self-contained and portable
alternative to PDF. Now it is (apparently, though not vociferously)
promoting XPS, but I see no difference other than the name.
And all that said, PDF is not an open format, either. It was easy to
reverse engineer, precisely because PostScript is a plain-text
page-description language, but it is no more an ISO standard than
docx.
PDF has been fully described..
Adobe first published the complete PDF specification for use without
restriction in 1993
See: http://www.adobe.com/pdf/release_pdf_faq.html
Is it an ISO standard?
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/X
Best wishes,
-=-Dennis
.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
Re: OT Micro$oft Word [was: Re: [Finale] OT A brief heads-up]
At 7:25 PM -0400 9/16/07, David W. Fenton wrote: Thus, in the original context, you should have called the preference for doc over docx a stupid difference that makes no difference. David -- I entered the conversation with Ken's note about (to my understanding) Microsoft's losing in its attempt to make .docx an international standard. Regardless the original context I would not call the preference for .doc over docx a stupid difference that makes no difference. I wouldn't touch .docx for communication with others, simply because the latest version of Word is not pervasive. And it's what the journals are choosing for submissions in preference to docx Why wouldn't they? For simple documents, without the graphs and diagrams that require PDF, they have a workflow that puts .doc submissions into their page-layout programs on an automated basis and then composes them for transfer to their printer as PDF. To allow .docx would require them to change their workflow. That's an expensive choice when the option is to merely disallow .docx. Is there not a DTD for the docx XML format? If not, yes, that's a problem I have no idea what a DTD is in this context, but ISO looked at the .docx proposal and declared that the format was not fully described. Without a _full_ description it _cannot_ become an international standard. To the people who were saying don't send us documents in docx format it was definitely the case that they said instead use the old doc format, If the original post was about your inability to get journals/other-people to accept your .docx documents, and requesting .doc, then I can't command much sympathy. -- I can read .docx, but it's an unnecessary pain in the a$$ when the originator could have just sent me .doc. I really see no difference between doc and docx, except that there's the minor issue of needing to acquire the docx converters. Workflow. And personal pain in the a$$. Journals are as automated as they can be. A converter disrupts the script/program. Normal human beings don't need to deal with extraneous hassles for which they see no benefit. The *.docx format serves a completely different purpose than PDF That is not my interpretation of Microsoft's repeated assertions. MS has a completely different portable document format whose name I forget. I'd appreciate knowing it. To the best of my knowledge .docx was the format that would knock Adobe off it's pedestal and conquer the world as the Great New Document Language... -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: OT Micro$oft Word [was: Re: [Finale] OT A brief heads-up]
At 1:40 PM -0400 9/14/07, David W. Fenton wrote: It's not about converters. It's about assured, accurate and complete readability of the original files. Then that criticism applies the the Microsoft Word *.doc format more than it does to *.docx, Yes. But, though many use .doc, .docx was proposed as an ISO standard. The difference is conceptional: .doc is a common interchange format, but it relies on Microsoft's decoding of a proprietary format. .doc has become a user-standard because of its ubiquitousness, but it cannot be an international-standard because elements of its structure are hidden. Thus .doc is _not_ a standard, just a widely used format. since *.docx is an XML-based (i.e., plain-text) format, so it's more accessible than a binary format like *.doc Yes. It is more _readable_, but that does not mean that it is more _translatable_. The whole question revolves around translation. Physical readability is superfluous and assumed. Programmatic readability is trivial. Translatability is the problem. Without a clear, complete and total description of the data structures, published in the public domain, no independent program can hope to adequately and completely translate the data. I thought the point was that MS's old format was OK, but the new format was not No. The old format (.doc) was not fully documented in the public domain. As such it could never be an international standard -- No matter how may people used it there was no guarantee that it could be read and properly reproduced in the future; its translation depended on Microsoft's software, or other's incomplete guesses. Microsoft proposed .docx as a standard, but did not fully and completely reveal its internal structure in their proposal (as determined by ISO and many others). That means that .docx cannot (in ISO's opinion) be fully, completely and totally interpreted and reproduced by others. Thus it cannot be an international standard: It has been deemed, by definition, _proprietary_ and unacceptable as a standard. And the alternative format that publications are using (*.doc) is not even close to being public I'd like to see a list of publications that are sending .doc to their printers. I don't know of any magazines that are using anything other than PDF with their printers. Whether they are letting individual correspondents send their stories in in .doc is pretty irrelevant. The *.docx format serves a completely different purpose than PDF That is not my interpretation of Microsoft's repeated assertions. -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: OT Micro$oft Word [was: Re: [Finale] OT A brief heads-up]
At 12:43 PM +0200 9/14/07, shirling neueweise wrote: __In perpetuity.__ this is a utopic ideal that so far has seen no concrete reality 7-bit ASCII. Works now, always has and always will. It will be understood until the fall of civilization. After that no one will give a squat about computer files. It doesn't matter that converters can translate the files today. What matters is whether the files can be reliably, completely and accurately read ten, twenty, fifty, one-hundred years from now. probably only through migration. And your point is? This is about world-wide and perpetual standards. Implicit and certain migration, at any time, is the point. DesignStudio 2194 has to have the ability to read and render the document as originally intended in 2007: From digital data found in 2194, but created in 2007. To do this it has to rely on standards created in 2007. Standards that are fully and completely entered into the public domain, so that the programmers of DesignStudio 2194 can incorporate them into their program. I think the whole question's moot anyway: PDF is the only real standard out there. so were cassettes once. (Neither of us are that stupid. Please don't try obfuscating into the ridiculous.) Cassettes are a physical medium. PDFs are data, regardless of a physical medium. The format of PDF is (to my knowledge) _completely_ published. It is out in the wild and used and supported by numerous programmers. From this I posit that PDF documents found two-hundred years hence will not only be decipherable, but be replicated exactly as they were originally intended. Any printer who takes anything other than a PDF is just waiting for the lawyers to swarm. that's a bit over the top, don't you think? No. It's not. PDF into a color-managed output workflow on CMYK presses can do a very good job of matching RGB contract (signed) proofs. Any other format is up in the air, most of them damn-bad on their policies. Microsoft's has been all over the planet with their renditions of doc and picts. Advertisers sue publishers every day over color constancy and correctness. I wouldn't take anything other than a color-managed PDF for any reason. -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: OT Micro$oft Word [was: Re: [Finale] OT A brief heads-up]
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm shocked that people are so ill-informed that they'd just reject these file formats when the converters are so easily available for so many different versions of Word. Nuh Uh. It's not about converters. It's about assured, accurate and complete readability of the original files. __In perpetuity.__ By any software that employs the stated algorithms. It doesn't matter that converters can translate the files today. What matters is whether the files can be reliably, completely and accurately read ten, twenty, fifty, one-hundred years from now. MicroSloth's petition was rejected because it was insufficient: It was idiotically long, obviously and intentionally obtuse and ambiguous, and did not place the document format __entirely__and__completely__ into the public domain. ISO can never allow any format the aegis of standard when it is not completely, fully and irrevocably described. I think the whole question's moot anyway: PDF is the only real standard out there. Any printer who takes anything other than a PDF is just waiting for the lawyers to swarm. When the colors and the fonts go bad they're toast. -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Andrew
All -- Ernie wrote me today to tell me how Andrew is doing. He is in the hospital at U of Penn. They did an R heart cauterization, which I assume means a right-ventricle cath, and left the cath in to monitor his heart pressure. Ernie says he feels OK, but it is obvious that his condition is very serious. He may need a transplant. Even if you're not a praying kind of person it'd be nice if you could spare a second or two to think of our friend, and wish him the best. I'll let you know anything else Ernie tells me. -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] 2008 must be on the way
At 10:26 AM -0700 6/27/07, Chuck Israels wrote: I just got an automatic order email from MM for the 2008 upgrade. Great Now I'll be nine years down the upgrade path. When MM abandons their incredibly offensive phone-home copy-protection scheme I will upgrade. Until then I will not. If they do not reverse their idiotic policy, and if it causes them to go bankrupt, I will be heartened. Phone-home copy-protection is the most egregious threat to the continued use of owned programs that I can imagine. What if your essential program requires a connection to company A, but company A has gone out of business? Your program AND ALL OF ITS FILES are useless. Unless company B has come to your rescue Which it will, of course, do for free, because B cares so much about you. Uh huh. If you're lucky enough to have company B rescue you, something unlikely to happen, then they'll make you pay through the nose. I will never tie any of my data to a phone-home copy-protection scheme. Good luck to any who do. Watch your back. (When I was growing up my dad always said You make your own luck. To my mind avoiding phone-home copy-protection is one of those lucky actions.) -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] [OT] Condolences to Dr. Howell....
John -- I am so sorry for your loss. You have my greatest condolence. -=- Dennis Manasco . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: John Cage's first national TV appearance (1960)
At 7:42 PM -0400 5/24/07, Darcy James Argue wrote:
It's perhaps a bit ironic that John Cage's first TV appearance is
funnier than Frank Zappa's. (I wanted to link to the YouTube of a
very young Frank Zappa's appearance on the Steve Allen show, in
which he plays a bicycle, but the copyright mujahideen have
managed to get it removed.)
http://www.devilducky.com/media/48434/
(
but the copyright mujahideen have managed to get it removed
May the Mickey Mouse Copyright-Protection-Laws burn in {wherever}
with all their sponsors.
Ridiculous application of them is destroying our cultural heritage.
Not that Zappa on Steve's show is a paragon of American cultural
heritage but
Hopefully worldwide replication of storage, duplication and
distribution of media will shake off this idiocy.
)
It should be noted that Cage was on a show on which he was treated
with respect (albeit humorously).
Zappa was on with Steve Allen, whose job was to generate as many
laughs per minute as possible.
-=- Dennis
.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] mozart
At 7:21 PM -0500 1/13/07, Andrew Stiller wrote: I would only add that in the English-speaking world (and in a number of other traditions), opera was never mass entertainment because it was almost invariably performed in a foreign language. Quite truthfully: I cannot abide opera that is _not_ in a (personally unintelligible) foreign language. That said: There is much opera that I love. (Though it's words are personally unintelligible.) I do not believe that my taste is a universal aberration. -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT (and kind of depressing): Piano selections for afuneral?
At 3:42 PM -0500 1/12/07, Michael L. Meyer wrote: ... I've been asked to play for the service... At 6:49 PM -0500 1/12/07, Kim Patrick Clow wrote in reply: Handel: I Know My Redeemer Liveth (from Messiah). Yes. Bach: Sheep May Safely Graze. Darn! That was going to be my suggestion. I'd also work The Old Rugged Cross and Amazing Grace back in before the end of the service. (Perhaps as the finale pieces, and in that order.) The Old Rugged Cross could provide a thematic transition from the more (bland), you know, light classical, to more spiritual music. Amazing Grace may seem cliche to some, but its simple melody and progression make it one of the most spiritual (and comforting) songs of all to many. Best wishes, and my condolences on your family's loss, -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Be impossible to misunderstand.
Chuck, if you go to the memorial in January, please convey to those there how grateful I we am are to Bill for sharing his hard work. even with those of us who only met him on paper and sound. -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: OT bekakte
At 6:19 PM -0400 10/6/06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: ... Nicely defined here: http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/dictionary/display.php?action=searchtype=romword=farkakte ... Oops... After a quick scan of subject lines I was ready to opine about Bakelite... Never mind... But thanks for the link. Now I can get my goy* mind around all the Yiddish slang in the F. Paul Wilson Repairman Jack novels and Paul Levine's Solomon vs. Lord stuff (and maybe the Lassiter books, but I haven't gotten to them yet). Thanks again and best wishes, -=-Dennis * I can't say I'm too happy that golem is apparently a variation of goylem (dummy, an artificial human), and that goylem is obviously derived from goy (as is meshugener). Ouch! I'd feel better about that if I was eight feet tall and made of hard-fired clay... ;-) Though, if I read both http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/golem.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Mesopotamian_units_of_measurement right, the original golem was about half-again as long as a cigarette. Huh?? . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another Jazz Chord Question!
At 10:19 PM -0400 6/24/06, Darcy James Argue wrote: If the specific triadic G-over-F voicing is crucial, and it's above slash marks, G-over-F is your best bet. If the precise arrangement of notes in the voicing can be left to the discretion of the player, or if it's just a label above a piano part that's already fully-written out, F6/9(#11) is better. What he said. But: I mean which would a musician understand better As a guitarist I would immediately recognize and be able to play F6/9(#11), but I would have to sit around and think about the G-over-F notation. I obviously can't speak for other guitarists on this, but it's a notation I've seen early and often. I think that most keyboard players (of which I am minimally one) would recognize either notation, but would assume that you were asking specifically for a particular voicing (F chord in the bass and G chord in the treble) with the G-over-F notation. Specifying the target instrument and musical genre might help someone provide a more definitive answer. Best wishes, -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Another Jazz Chord Question!
At 3:07 AM -0500 6/25/06, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: Specifying the target instrument and musical genre Oops -- meant to erase the musical genre part before I sent. That should have been pretty evident from the subject line. Sorry, -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: MP3 Compression Comparison
At 4:21 PM -0400 9/25/05, David W. Fenton wrote: Does anyone hear any significant differences between the two? I can convince myself that I do, but it seems only psychological. David -- I can hear a very minor difference, but shouldn't your reasoning include your target audience? That is, shouldn't you consider whether or not they are the sort of people who would be able to tell the difference, and whether they would care in the context of their reason for listening to the recordings? Personally I like 160 kbps for importing CDs for my MP3 use, and consider it a good trade-off. I have no idea how that setting would affect files from your sound card, compared to 128 and 192. At 5:04 PM -0400 9/25/05, David W. Fenton wrote: Of course, if I save the intermediate WAV file, I can generate MP3s of any quality at a later date, but I was hoping to skip that step so that I wouldn't have all those big WAV files littering my hard drive (which has a mere 2GBs of free space left). If it was me I'd litter a few CDs with the WAV files in case I needed them at a later date, save the midi files to a data CD in case I wanted to use them when synth technology had greatly improved, and erase it all from my hard drive. By the way: If audio quality is really important to the people who will be listening to these files, why not just send them audio CDs with WAVs/AIFFs on them? Best wishes, -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Unable to post --Test--
Testing whether my Earthlink account is blocked. (Sorry for the wasted bandwidth if you chose to read this, or had to download it) -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
RE: [Finale] Blowing O.T.
At 1:46 PM +1000 7/17/05, keith helgesen wrote:
I think I agree with you! After all, (to sail VERY close to the
wind), the assertion is around that the acronym for File Under
Carnal Knowledge used to be placed on Police files- thus creating
the slang term for- well, you know!
I suspect that story is a load of rubbish!
As Darcy has pointed out, that particular story is rubbish.
But, just for the record:
The earliest citation in the OED of the word being used as a verb is
from a 1503 poem by Dunbar (with a wildly variant spelling: Be his
feiris he wald haue fukkit. *).
Its spelling gyrates wildly until about 1680, whence it stabilizes in
its current form and makes its first appearance as a noun, doing both
in the Anonymous Rochester's Poems on Several Occasions. (Much
Wine had past with grave discourse, Of who F--ks who, and who does
worse. and Thus was I Rook'd of Twelve substantial F--ks. **)
[Though both 1680 quotations are from 1950 re-transcriptions, the c.
1683 quotations of both verb (from Sodom II: Hee {sic.} F--ks to
please his will, but I for need.) and noun (from Sodom: A little
f--k can't stay our appetite. ***) usage are from the original
source, and I suspect the Rochester original-source had the modern
spelling.]
The etymology indicates that the word is of early Modern English
origin with a supposed derivation from a Middle English type
*fuken, of which no original documentary evidence apparently remains.
A relationship to the Synonymous G. (Gaelic? German? ) ficken
cannot be substantiated.
Interestingly enough, there are __no__ citations prior to 1922
(Joyce, who else *) of the word being used as slang or idiom.
That is, in all previous citations the word is used to _specifically_
refer to the _act_ of copulation, not incorporated into
figurative/metaphorical/allusive/allegorical/etc. usages similar to
F--k this. or The day was f--ked. or He doesn't know f--ck. or
etc., etc.
Best wishes,
-=-Dennis
. * If anyone knows what this translates to in Post Modern
English, I'd like to know.
. ** This latter quote has _got_ to make you want to find the
original poem, just so you can figure out what it means in context.
. *** This is from the Epilog, and is spoken by a character named
(I'm not making this up) F--kadilla. And it was written in 1683?!
This might explain a few things about the Puritans, or even suggest a
few things about what the Victorians have to answer for, depending on
your point of view
. I can't find my OED abbreviations book, so reading the
etymologies is challenging.
. * This I will not quote, as some would find it quite
offensive; even with removed characters. The heading in the
dictionary is, Used profanely in imprecations and exclamations as
the coarsest equivalent of damn.
n.b.: Dashes in words (--) are my replacements of the original letters.
.
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 2:46 PM -0400 7/11/05, David W. Fenton wrote: On 11 Jul 2005 at 2:01, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: I do however send back those little postage-paid upgrade offers every time I get one, with a note saying that I'd love to upgrade as soon as they get rid of the stupid tethered-copy-protection. I figure that since it's their dime I can make the effort to beat my favorite dead horse. Unfortunately, chances are good that no one at MakeMusic ever sees these, as these likely go to a contracted outside organzation for processing. The only thing you're doing to MakeMusic is costing them the postage. David, You are almost certainly correct. Though it is _possible_ that someone at Coda might be informed that upgrade notices are coming back with specific refusals. I thought this view implicit in my original post. Regardless, I consider this (_very_minor_) act of Civil Disobedience a useful, and worthwhile, ploy in the campaign to eventually eradicate phone-home copy-protection. It is one I employ against other agencies, for other reasons, as well Like I said: It's their dime. If they're going to offer it, I'll spend it to give them my opinion. If they don't read it, that's their problem. Best wishes, -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Sibelius - Dynamic Parts
At 7:41 AM -0400 7/10/05, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 01:52 PM 7/10/05 +1000, Rocky Road wrote: You might be a different Dennis but I'm sure there was a Dennis on this forum swearing he'd never upgrade software that used Challenge-Response copy protection. Isn't Sibelius CP even more Draconian? He was a different Dennis. I'm that Dennis. And here's what I wrote on July 5 in response to David Fenton: Yes, David, you've caught me in a distasteful ethical compromise, and it embarrasses me even now. I mentioned this on the list back on May 5. I had capitulated back in April, when Finale 2005 was required by a client. The client paid for it, so it was kind of a backroom deal. I still resent it and feel slimy about it, and do work first in 2003 so I always have a recoverable copy. But I have been bought. (The other) Dennis It was also this Dennis, and I am still using Finale 2003. It works okay for what I need, and I don't do phone-home copy protection. I do however send back those little postage-paid upgrade offers every time I get one, with a note saying that I'd love to upgrade as soon as they get rid of the stupid tethered-copy-protection. I figure that since it's their dime I can make the effort to beat my favorite dead horse. Best wishes, -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT - Apple move to Intel
At 3:23 PM -0400 6/6/05, David W. Fenton wrote: Basically, according to the speculation in these articles, it's all about DRM (Digital Rights Management) and the movie industry, and repositioning the Mac as the premier platform for delivery of on-demand movies/video. I fear that this really is what it's all about: Jobs wants to create the iMovie Download Store and copy-protection-on-the-chip is the bait to get the big movie houses to agree. That bothers the h377 out of me. Apple has always been pretty laissez-faire about copying for personal-use. If this is a sea-change then it bodes ill for our ability to use owned material for any purpose, so long as we do not redistribute it. The Supreme Court delineated personal-usage rights when they decided that we could make tapes for our cars. Now the big studios want to deprive us of the right to tape shows from HDTV for later viewing. I'm pretty sure that the slimeballs are winning and I don't like it one damn bit. At 11:58 PM -0400 6/6/05, Darcy James Argue wrote: I don't know of any other actively-developed commercial app that took longer releasing a native OS X version than Finale. It was such a great race to be last... Who _did_ win? Was it Quark or MM? I can't remember :-! -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Firefox
At 10:38 AM -0400 5/15/05, Andrew Stiller wrote: This *was* the OSX version, and it behaved as described. I don't doubt that Andrew, but it didn't happen for me. I usually use IE, Safari and OmniWeb, but I thought I would try Firefox after seeing your message. I downloaded the latest version to my computer (Spring 2002 dual 1G G4 1.5G RAM, 30G free drive space, OS X 10.3.8) (SWB/Yahoo DSL). I went and played around on Buy.com with Firefox, Safari and IE for about ten minutes, clicking in random areas and doing searches. I never found a page that took over 2 seconds to load. My impression was that Safari was marginally snappier, but that's just a casual impression. I wonder if the problem isn't with browsers and sites, but your ISP (and maybe some of your settings). Best wishes, -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] FinMac2005b Tiger problem
At 9:32 AM -0400 5/5/05, A-NO-NE Music wrote: Yup, we are all waiting for DW 3.0.3 updater for Tiger compatibility. Did you notice this may be the first DW which is not new OS compatible? Even DW2 was compatible with OSX back then. They probably don't want to endorse a version that screws up the new filesystem metadata paradigm; though it's not really new, just widely overlooked. I suspect that everyone in the directory-polishing community got caught with their pants down. If they really like the Mac they're probably happy about it anyway, this new focus on metadata opens up a lot of possibilities. Check this out: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/6. I had no idea that generic HFS+ could handle this sort of expansion. I thought they'd have to do another reformat/wrapper thing, like they did from HFS to HFS+, to expand metadata facility.* Hopefully this means we can continue to rely on metadata, and forget about filename extensions and the preposterous ambiguities they create. I can't figure out how this will affect the translation problems inherent in moving Mac data to DOS/*NIX-formatted file systems. It'll probably just mean a further proliferation of those annoying and redundant little files, with expanded naming conventions. To bring this, marginally, back toward a Finale List topic: Conceivably, Coda could implement its file-saving structure so that its files not only contained TYPE and CREATOR in their metadata, but also an ETF version, a PDF version, a font list, a compressed character-used file (a la Acrobat), and an arbitrarily numerous number of other etceteras. Or not. All inclusions could easily be controlled by the user with a well thought out interface. The important point is: They would all be in the same file. All of them would be moved, or otherwise acted upon, whenever the master file was moved or acted upon, but that would not affect the ability of simpler filesystems to open the basic .mus files. Best wishes, -=-Dennis * I think they might go ahead and universally implement HFSX eventually, it could solve some niggling problems left behind in HFS+. If case-sensitive filenames are the price, I'll pay it. But I won't be happy. I personally think that case-sensitive filenames are a pain in the posterior, but the lack of them is an unnecessary hassle when porting from *NIX to X-11 or X, for some (IMHO poorly written) applications. . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] FinMac2005b Tiger problem
At 11:46 AM -0400 5/4/05, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Finale fonts are not recognized by _this_ Tiger. When I run Verify
Fonts, all the Finale fonts are grayed out. Ack!
Hiro --
Did you try deleting all of the font caches?
Try something like Tiger Cache Cleaner
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/16494,
with cache cleaning set on the deep level. This is a good step when
installing any OS upgrade anyway -- slower restarts and app starts
for a (very) short time, but flushes out the left-over crud.
(After FIRST doing the obvious: Single user mode disk check {restart,
hold down command-s, type fsck -fy [ret] reboot [ret]}, Disk
Utility Repair Permissions, and (if they have Tiger-compatible
versions yet) a directory rebuild with DiskWarrior and a directory
and filesystem check with Tech Tool Pro.)
Also: If you are using Suitcase you might want to search the last few
days of http://www.macfixit.com. There seem to be some teething
problems with Suitcase under Tiger, but I don't remember the details
since I'm not a Suitcase user and just skimmed the articles.
Best wishes,
-=-Dennis
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: What to look for in a TFT monitor?
At 3:55 PM -0400 5/1/05, David W. Fenton wrote: If I can get monitor calibration software so that we can get scans of white/beige/cream colors that don't have a red hue, then that will solve the client's problem. David -- (I missed the start of this discussion so I don't know your exact requirements.) If you need to profile monitors under XP you might want to look at this product. http://www.chromix.com/colorgear/shop/productdetail.cxsa?toolid=1119-session=tx:445B0DA80c41d02738jwhY785E2C I've used the Eye-One Display (Not 2) and recommend it with some reservations. According to people I respect, the Eye-One Display 2 is greatly improved and probably one of the best monitor profilers available. Note that the Eye-One Display is a colorimeter and not a spectrophotometer. There are those who say a colorimeter is better than a spectrophotometer for profiling displays, and there are those who disagree. The arguments are highly technical, and may be a case of both sides being right, depending on the situation. Spectrophotometers are however _much_ more expensive than colorimeters. Regardless, a colorimeter like the Eye-One Display 2 is designed to only measure emissive targets so, for all practical purposes, it can only profile a monitor. The manufacturer is here: http://www.gretagmacbeth.com/pc/index.htm, but the guys at Chromix are a pleasure to work with, and can talk you through almost anything if you do a little research before calling them. If you also need to profile the scanner you will either need a spectrophotometer, like the Eye-One Pro, and an appropriate software package (for example: http://www.chromix.com/colorgear/shop/productdetail.cxsa?toolid=1131-session=tx:445B0DA80c41d02738jwhY785E2C ), or a program that allows you to scan a calibrated target and then profiles the scanner based on that scan. SiverFast Ai (http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast/en.html) will let you do that, but I believe it is Mac only. I don't know about similar programs for the PC, but I know that there are some. Hope this helps, -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 6:46 AM -0500 3/12/05, dhbailey wrote: Somewhere in that license are several phrases which include words such as anybody associated with Coda -- that would include the board members, I would think. So the license which every end user agrees to has already absolved not only the company but individuals associated with the company. As a corporate principal myself, in a comparatively small way, I wish this were true. It is not. Contracts, including (but not limited to) licenses, entered into with a corporation do not provide an impermeable shield against the personal liability of principals. Incorporation provides a protection against personal liability of the principals for (most of) the debts of the corporation. This is one of the primary reasons for incorporation. It does not provide a blanket protection against personal liability from malfeasance or maleficence by a corporate officer. This dictate is well established in law and decision. It's only the gnarly edges of what is, and what is not, culpable behavior that is poorly defined. Gratuitous bizarre scenario: Bob creates a company to make widgets. It is incorporated and Bob is the president. All customers and transporters of the widgets sign a contract that explicitly states that they are responsible for any accidents or widget malfunctions which occur while the widgets are either in their possession or are being shipped by their designated delivery agents. By Bob's own authority, and against the recommendation of highly qualified advisors, he makes a change to the widgets' design which makes them highly unstable. FooCo orders a shipment of widgets to be delivered by BarCo. Both companies sign the contracts described above and proceed with the purchase and transportation of the widgets to FooCo's warehouse. The widgets, being highly unstable, explode causing the untimely demise of not only the BarCo driver but a busload of nuns and school children. Bob's company immediately files for bankruptcy protection and most of the corporate officers book flights to Hispaniola with a connecting flight to (apparently) Mars. Who, or what, is legally responsible for the millions of dollars that it will take to make this yesterday's news? My bet is that Bob (if he's still around and didn't book all of his ready cash into a Jamaican bank) is going to be living out of a cardboard box when he gets out of prison. Your suggested lawsuit would be a very interesting test of the end-user license agreements we have all made. (Sadly perhaps) no. As I see it the only question would be the legal culpability of the principal involved. -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Authentication schemes
At 8:30 AM -0500 3/11/05, dhbailey wrote: (In reply to my thesis that a corporate principal might be found liable for actions taken that deprive a litigating class of their source of income:) The license you agree to when you use the software (even the pre-tethered versions) states pretty clearly that the company is NOT responsible for any loss of income, nor is the product guaranteed to work at all for any purpose. Please carefully re-read my original message. I did not posit _corporate_ liability resulting from the users' inability to make use of the software should the _corporation_ declare bankruptcy. The user-license may (or may not) absolve the corporation from liability for lost income. The strictures encoded in bankruptcy law would almost certainly do so. My thesis was that corporate officers, or other principals with corporate authority, might be found __personally__ liable for the lost income of an affected class which suffered due to their decisions. This thesis is by no means far-fetched and is the reason why any marginally sane corporate officer carries a personal rider. These riders are usually sufficient to cover liability decisions (however unwarranted) from minor claims. But: Being on the board of a corporation that owns a grocery store and breathing easy over a __personal__ lawsuit from a customer who fell down because an employee forgot to put out the piso mojado sign is a lot different from being sued by an entire class of affected users suffering lost income. -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Mini
At 8:06 PM -0800 1/14/05, Eric Dannewitz wrote: In my existance with computers, which has been 20 of my 30 years, I have had FOUR Ram chips die. And they were dead before I put them in a computer (probably my fault, but I doubt it). The DOA vs. non-DOA RAM ratio isn't a valid criterion for selecting memory for Apple computers under OSX. The only useful criterion is _absolute_ adherence to (and usually surpassing of) required specifications. Apple has been running the RAM sticks close to their timing tolerances (and heat tolerances) since OSX was introduced, and continually ramping up the timing requirement. Every major iteration of the OS seems to bring out a new set of people complaining on MacFixIt that it killed their RAM. Invariably these complaints are resolved when the RAM is replaced with better quality stuff. We only use RAM directly from Apple or from one of Apple's OEM suppliers. I would _never_ consider sticking generic RAM in one of our machines: Timing and heat related failures are just too time consuming to diagnose. Spending 20, or even 40%, more for a RAM stick is a lot cheaper than paying me to spend a week trying to figure out why the computer works perfectly except when doing some processor-intensive task like repairing a directory (and destroying an entire HD -- What? It hadn't been backed up since Wednesday?) or running a PhotoShop filter. Even if I guess that it's the RAM I still have to rip out all the cords, move the machine, pop it open, etc. etc.; a major pain. To be fair to Apple, running at the edge of the specs and having problems with generic memory is nothing new: Back in the mid 80s we had a Dell in the accounting department that was covered by an on-site repair contract. I added some fairly reputable third-party memory to it and it seemed to work fine. Then it got flakier and flakier. I called Dell and they sent out a tech from DEC. (No kidding! Apparently the on-site was sub-contracted to Digital Equipment Corporation at the time.) He spent two full days futzing with the thing using all sorts of diagnostic equipment. In the end he popped a couple of Dell memory modules in it and it worked fine. I'm glad I had the contract -- I figure Dell paid about four times, at least, what I paid for the three-year service contract for his work. -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Who are you?
Dennis Manasco, b. 9/26/57. I'm a long-time guitarist, mostly jazz, blues and folk. I also play a number of other stringed and plucked instruments. I play piano, organ, synth, clarinet and saxophone with enthusiasm, and varied results. I've used Finale on the Macintosh since version 3.2.1. I primarily use Finale for personal arrangements and teaching arrangements for others. I'm a graduate of the Photographic Science and Instrumentation department of R.I.T. Besides music I fill my free time with photography, personal and in-house software development and hardware implementation, and a voracious reading habit. For my day job I own and manage a medium-sized rental property in my hometown of Tulsa Oklahoma and pursue other business interests. I've been married for almost ten years to a wonderful nurse named Cheryl and have a 20-year-old step-daughter. Best wishes to all and Happy New Year, -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] TAN: 'Classical music' what is it?
At 4:44 am -0400 10/16/04, dhbailey wrote: Classical music is music you have to get dressed up all fancy to go sit in a concert hall for, where you don't applaud after the solos, don't applaud everytime the music stops, don't get up and dance, where they don't serve beer while it's being played, isn't usually performed in sports facilities, and if you don't follow the unwritten rules the blue-haired folks around you will glare at you as if you were an ugly insect. Oh yes, and where you have to turn off your cell phones and pagers or the entire audience as well as the conductor and other performers will all glare at you if it rings. So basically 'Classical' music is music that happens when you're wearing uncomfortable clothes, can't figure out when to clap, have to hang around with people you'd never like, can't do anything fun, and can't even have a drink for consolation. Sounds like I'd hate it. Except for the cell phone part. Now if we could just get rid of the glaring and go directly to fully automatic weapons -=-Dennis . ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] TAN: Olympic Star Spangled Banner
At 4:29 pm -0400 8/28/04, Darcy James Argue wrote: No, that's not what I meant at all. What I meant was, Brad seemed to be having trouble putting himself in the shoes of an Iraqi olympian who has lost thousands of his countrymen and finds his country occupied by a foreign power. Oh. That one. The one who can no longer look forward to Uday's perverted tortures on days when he underperforms. I can certainly see why _he'd_ want Saddam and the kids back... After all, sometimes you need someone who can show you how to break down the barriers and perform your best. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7242_920360,001800090001.htm http://www.google.com/search?hl=enie=ISO-8859-1q=%2Buday+%2Bsaddam+%2Bolympic+%2Btorture -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Domain Name Registration
At 12:43 am -0400 7/20/04, Darcy James Argue wrote: Okay, it's time to register a domain name for my band and start designing the website. Does anyone have any opinions about the various domain name registration services? Darcy -- I have been very happy with Domain Direct (http://www.domaindirect.com/) for my domain names. They offer web hosting, web forwarding, email, email forwarding, multiple accounts, etc., etc. They are part of Tucows. I've had no hassle or grief with them over the last three years, and they offer a lot more options than I use. They've been increasing their default mail and hosting space over the last few months, but I've never had any problems with spotty service, even when they were re-configuring the mail accounts and domains. Web users were reportedly affected for a short time, but I never saw it when I checked. Whatever. I like them and they don't have the predatory and creepy feel of Network Solutions. You can probably find registrars and hosts that are cheaper, but if you need the features that DD gives you, you probably won't find a nicer company to work with. Best wishes, -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: Ooh, gmail!
At 8:38 am -0700 7/8/04, Brad Beyenhof wrote: On Thursday, Jul 8, 2004, at 01:49 America/Vancouver, Dennis W. Manasco wrote: Isn't anyone else concerned about the privacy violation implicit in letting google's robots paw through a gigabyte of their mail, everything from list subscriptions to personal mail to order receipts, in order to 'categorize the user' for google's advertisers? It doesn't categorize the user. It's on a message-by-message basis, and ads only pertain to what is currently on the screen... not some conspiratorial user profile they're making behind your back. The idea of some advertiser-driven company analyzing all of that information about my interests and contacts makes me feel absolutely creepy. Again, they don't analyze it in bulk. They just target ads to the message currently shown on the screen, like the Google Ads that you see all over the Web. Brad, I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that they don't aggregate the user's information and categorize the individual across a large personal-interest matrix. I acknowledge that the ads appearing with an individual message are almost certainly dictated primarily by the content of that message. To do otherwise would be antithetical to basic marketing principles: The mark is interested in (in this case reading about) some subject. Try to sell him something that relates to that interest. However, the only conceivable purpose in allowing such a huge amount of storage for each user is to better improve the granularity of the message response. (1GB times how many million potential subscribers?) That's basic customer analysis: e.g. The mark is reading about sports. Does he like baseball, but deletes all messages about soccer? What about football? Is he a little league coach? Does he buy his team's equipment? Is he into sports betting? Is his wife a tennis nut with an upcoming birthday? If I were running the show I would be analyzing that whole GB of storage to better categorize my ad targets. I would also have analyzed all of the targets' deleted mail to better fill out the individualized profiles. To do anything else would be a stupid waste of valuable data and, whatever else I think about google, I would never accuse them of being stupid when it comes to marketing and advertising. It would truly shock me if google's business plan, as presented to their potential advertisers and financiers, did not include the promise of extremely fine-grain message-derived analysis of their subscribers. To do otherwise would risk having all but the most inept marketeers walking away from the table shaking their heads and pocketing their checkbooks (and the investment bankers screaming bloody murder). Best wishes, -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] OT: typographic standards [was: FinMac2004 crashes]
At 6:57 am -0400 7/7/04, dhbailey wrote: You must have had the same typing teacher I did -- that's what I was taught, too. Most of us did, at least those of us in the US. She was one of the unsung heroes of the 20th century. Capable of existing in multiple locations by almost instantaneously shifting between them this graying 50-something crusader could terrify students into abject subjugation to her edicts with a single scornful look... I can still feel the pain in my left ring finger from the infamous Too Light Ss incident. At the time two spaces after the period was considered the standard. I followed it for many years even though I thought if looked ugly: _particularly with the mono-spaced fonts of the day's typewriters_. With today's proportional fonts, on a screen, for quick viewing, the difference is almost indiscernible. I changed over to (what I felt) was the more natural feeling, and looking, single space after a period when it became more acceptable in the 80s. Part of my reason was very pragmatic. When typing on a computer I sometimes hit the space bar twice (or hold it long enough to register twice) when typing. Because of this I usually search a document for two spaces and replace with one before sending it out. Two spaces after a period totally screws that up. The ultimate purpose of typing is to communicate the ideas clearly, not to nitpick over whether a person uses two spaces or one space after a sentence. Isn't it? I should think so. I don't even notice two spaces after a period unless I have to view a message in a non-proportional font to see a table or something. Worrying about spaces after a period seems more petty than useful. The immediacy of the web causes all sorts of typo-grammatical anomalies. Better we should focus on those than conventions which may, or may not, improve readability. Or maybe we shouldn't focus on syntactic/punctuational/grammatical errors that don't obfuscate the meaning of the person speaking and just reply to the gist of the message in the hope of furthering the exchange of useful information. Nah...That would make too much sense (and wouldn't be near as much fun ;) -=-Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
