Anselm Employee Form: Fill & Download for Free

Romantic, without a doubt - in fact, arguably the arch-romantic of them all.Romanticism in music is commonly regarded as featuring an adventurousness and freedom in the various aspects of musical expression, especially harmony, form, orchestration and long-breathed melodies, as well as a new view of the artist as hero rather than employee, the subject of whose music is themselves, not one allocated by a patron or employer.The movement is commonly regarded as having been kick-started by Beethoven and his younger contemporary Schubert. The second generation of Romantic composers like Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Rossini, Glinka, Donizetti and Schumann carried this strain forward, past the time when its equivalent in literature and painting ran out around 1830. Wagner (up to and including Lohengrin), Verdi and to a lesser extent Liszt also had their “first” periods during this time. Then, around 1850, musical Romanticism seems to have caught its second wind with such composers as Bruckner, Brahms, Tschaikovsky, the new Russian school that included Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin and Mussorgsky, Saint-Saens, Gounod, Bizet and Franck. This lot, along with Verdi, Wagner and Liszt deepened (and in the latter’s case subverted) the stream of Romanticism, further expanding the orchestra and musical forms and pushing the tonal system to breaking point, upon which along came Schoenberg to save the day!Wagner exemplifies these developments, both as an artist and as a person. He was what we would call a “celebrity”, being involved in the 1849 revolution in Dresden and subsequently becoming one of Europe’s most vociferous anti-Semites. He was a “name” in his own right, as well as being regarded (rightly, of course) as the titan of composers after 1850. By then, he had completed an operatic revolution that had begun in Mozart’s time, one that merged aria and recitative into a new blend of “continuous melody” flexible enough to adjust to any dramatic situation from pure action to pure lyricism. Lohengin still occasionally shows the joins of what would previously have been self-contained arias and recitatives, but they are integrated into an unbroken musical flow that lasts from the beginning to the end of each act.It was his “second” period that demonstrates the deepening stream of late 19th-century Romanticism in music. In it, he wrote the mammoth Ring cycle of three operas and a “preliminary evening” that, at two and a half hours, is in itself the longest unbroken stretch of music Wagner ever wrote (indeed, probably the longest in the whole classical repertoire), The Mastersingers of Nuremberg (the longest opera in the standard repertoire, whose last act is longer than Mozart’s entire Don Giovanni), his last work Parsifal, and of course Tristan and Isolde, with its famous “Tristan chord” whose ambiguous function was a crucial step in loosening the bonds of conventional tonality and preparing the way for its complete dissolution.Perhaps the thing that characterises Romantic composers in general and Wagner in particular as “Romantic” is the way they impacted musical history. (What I’m about to say is both a vast generalisation and oversimplification, but perhaps there’s a core of truth in it as an observation.) Music had hitherto proceeded in “developments”, whereas in the 19th century it did so in “revolutions”. The last musical revolution had been around 1600, when tonal harmony started to become organised into keys and the inner parts of compositions lost their polyphonic significance in favour of the treble and bass parts. Proponents of the “stile antico” and the “stile moderno” fought it out with each other for the first couple of decades of the 17th century. After that, music “developed”, in that musical changes happened incrementally and largely uncontroversially, as the result of changes in musical and social demands. An example is the highly undramatic da capo aria, which in 1650 (at least in Italy) was just one of the forms in which operatic composers could write numbers for soloists, but by 1680 had become pretty much the only one. That seems to have occurred because of the public appetite for “star” singers, who required vehicles to strut their vocal stuff, a requirement for which the da capo aria was tailor-made. Another example is Handel’s development of the English oratorio, with that perennial favourite Messiah at its zenith. This catered for a particular taste among a certain section of the public, something he discovered more or less by accident and exploited for all it was worth.Contrast this with 1800, when Beethoven exploded onto the scene. He singlehandedly expanded existing norms to breaking point, transforming them in the process. He and he virtually alone showed what the symphony, the string quartet and the piano sonata were capable of, and opened both listeners’ and composers’ ears to all sorts of possibilities they hadn’t realised before. Not only that, but his music blatantly expressed his own emotions and personality as a worthy subject in its own right. People loved it - and hated it. It might be more accurate to say that he forced his way into people’s ears with his uncompromising attitude towards realising his own musical visions, leading contemporaries and those later in the 19th century to characterise his music as “a crass monster”, “incomprehensible wildness”, “infinitely too lengthy”, “dull and ugly”, “stupid and hopelessly vulgar”, “the upsettings of bags of nails, with here and there an also dropped hammer” and “a raw and undigested mass”. For these people, what Beethoven wrote simply wasn’t music, which echoes the reaction to Monteverdi’s musical revolution after 1600, and their vituperation is of the kind which, had it been uttered in the political sphere, might have seen its subject guillotined by the Committee of Public Safety during the Terror in the French Revolution. You could say that, however striking composers’ innovations were before 1800, they were still “inside the box”, like Messiah (about whose musical language there was nothing new) or Rameau’s Hippolyte et Aricie that provoked this comment: “With a single stroke Rameau destroyed everything Lully had spent years in constructing: the proud, chauvinistic and complacent union of the French around one and the same cultural object, the offspring of his and Quinault's genius. Then suddenly the Ramellian aesthetic played havoc with the confidence of the French in their patrimony, assaulted their national opera that they hoped was unchangeable." That’s mild, and indeed reasonable, compared to the stuff heaped on Beethoven, and caused nothing like the stir he, and later even more so Wagner, did. They didn’t expand boxes so much as break them.Later in the 19th century, Wagner’s music aroused even more violent antipathy for the same reasons. He broke some of the boundaries that Beethoven had left standing, arousing this sort of paroxysm: “Heartless sterility, obliteration of all melody, all tonal charm, all music... This revelling in the destruction of all tonal essence, raging satanic fury in the orchestra, this demoniacal, lewd caterwauling, scandal-mongering, gun-toting music, with an orchestral accompaniment slapping you in the face... the diabolical din of this pig-headed man, stuffed with brass and sawdust, inflated, in an insanely destructive self-aggrandizement, by Mephistopheles' mephitic and most venomous hellish miasma, into Beelzebub's Court Composer and General Director of Hell's Music -- Wagner!"It’s that kind of reaction, unprecedented in earlier centuries, that’s one indicator of Wagner’s status as perhaps the arch-Romantic composer. From about 1850 on, his disciples began to call him “master”. That’s an inversion of the pre-19th century relationship, where those with secular power and wealth - church, state, entrepreneur - were the “masters” and composers, along with footmen and gardeners, were their inferiors. Wagner wasn’t the first or only one to be thus revered and adulated, and it’s that sensibility with which composers were treated that’s perhaps the main hallmark of Romantic composers outside their music. Wagner’s typically Romantic take on his place in the world and on his predecessors is summed up by this comment: “The world ought to give me what I need. I cannot live in a wretched organist’s post like your Meister Bach. Is it an unheard-of demand if I hold that the little luxury I like is my due? I, who am procuring enjoyment to the world and to thousands?” I, for one, would be prepared to grant him a darn sight more than “a little luxury” in return for his glorious music!(Having said all this, perhaps the arch-Romantic composer in terms of making himself the subject of his own music is Gustav Mahler.)

Well, having done all the tutorials for Java that involve employees, cars etc. a long time ago and since then learned a lot more, I must say that OOP is terrible for the purpose it was intented for: trying to model the real world. The things where OOP really is a lifesaver is any piece of code that needs isolation. You can use a class to group related functions together with no state whatsoever or abstract/redirect calls to implement beautiful and elegant APIs - for instance database interfaces that work with methods and attributes instead of raw SQL (sqlalchemy).The classic (and useful!) case where OOP shines are chunks of data that can change (state) which is related to functions operating on that data. For instance, instances of network connections and users that are logged on. In case of network connections, you have state (connected, ip, etc.) and you have methods that operate on that data (close the connection, receive..).However, you really don’t need OOP for any of this - as long as you can put the data into dictionaries and you know what methods apply to what data, it works.But what about inheritance? Maybe one of the more useful features of OOP, but since most languages don’t allow multiple inheritance and you can build more flexible systems with dictionaries, sets and enums to do exactly what you need.. not even that is something you need OOP for.Sorry, OOP may be a useful paradigm to have in the toolbox, but there is no single problem where you really *need* OOP (maybe except nice looking APIs…)

The answer to this question heavily depends what part of NASA you are looking at. If you mean the common employees’ computers, some people have already answered this. Basically, it should be roughly the same as consumer ones.Inside spacecraft, the projects take so long to design and have such strict requirement in terms of failure management, that the hardware used is usually much older than what the public uses, as pointed out by some other answers.Finally, if you consider research topics such as climate or other areas of science, the answer is entirely different. The computers they may use to solve their problems indeed might very well be several decades ahead of the consumer computers at least in terms of aggregated computation speed. As an example, here [1] is a list of the fastest publicly listed supercomputers in the world. The current fastest one, which NASA should have access to, has a total observed speed roughly equivalent to the aggregated speed of over 500.000 consumer laptops (depends which specific ones we consider). Of course, programming such machines is very different than programming a consumer computer.[1]: November 2019 | TOP500 Supercomputer Sites