hello
i'm looking for a polish radio broadcast, that was emitted twice, 2020 (december) under a Beethovenian Marathon, and 2022 for 85th birthday of polskieradio (February-March)

in those programs they broadcasted this work:
Beethoven's piano concerto op 73, the Emperor

Claudio Arrau
Witold Rowicki
National Polish Sympo-Philharmonic Orchestra

have any of you that recording?

regards

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 1:21:55 PM UTC-7, jagareco wrote:

hello
i'm looking for a polish radio broadcast, that
was emitted twice, 2020 (december) under a
Beethovenian Marathon, and 2022 for 85th
birthday of polskieradio (February-March)

in those programs they broadcasted this work:
Beethoven's piano concerto op 73, the Emperor

Claudio Arrau
Witold Rowicki
National Polish Sympo-Philharmonic Orchestra

have any of you that recording?

Is there any reason that particular
performance is more interesting
than other Arrau performances
of the Emperoar?

I ask the question ....

dk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Not in particular, i'm Arrau´s collector, and don't have it, so it's interesting to me for many reasons

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 5:16:06 PM UTC-7, jagareco wrote:

Not in particular, i'm Arrau´s collector, and don't
have it, so it's interesting to me for many reasons

Arrau performed, recorded, and/or was recorded
performing the Emperoar countless times. Does
this performance have any distinction over all the
others? Please enlighten us.

TIA!

dk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:21:52 -0700, jagareco wrote:

hello
i'm looking for a polish radio broadcast, that was emitted twice, 2020 (december) under a Beethovenian Marathon, and 2022 for 85th birthday of polskieradio (February-March)

in those programs they broadcasted this work:
Beethoven's piano concerto op 73, the Emperor

Claudio Arrau
Witold Rowicki
National Polish Sympo-Philharmonic Orchestra

have any of you that recording?

regards

All I can do is refer you to:

https://arrauhouse.org/content/disc_beethoven_orchestral.htm

or

https://arrauhouse.org/content/unre_unreleasedrecordings.htm

where I don't see it.

The search engines Bing/Google are terrible, so there
might be references to it that aren't being revealed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 6:59:10 PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:

The search engines Bing/Google are
terrible, so there might be references
to it that aren't being revealed.

Please recommend a better search
engine than those named ablve.

TIA!

dk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 3:22:27 PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 03:26:11 -0700, Dan Koren wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 6:59:10???PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:

The search engines Bing/Google are
terrible, so there might be references
to it that aren't being revealed.

Please recommend a better search
engine than those named ablve.

If there are and I knew about it I'd say so.

Then how can one possibly conclude Bing
and Google are "terrible" ?!? Compared to
what? To the "knowledge" in one's head?
Possibly bcause one happens to know
about one item the search engine may
have missed? What an idiocy!

Bing/Google lives only on it's past reputation

People have reputations. Software does
not have "reputations".

when it would display non-mainstream results
without steering away from what you are trying
to find.

If one already knows what one is trying to
find, why would one need to use a search
engine? And if one doesn't know, how would
one know a search engine has missed it ?!?

Since, it has been incredibly dumbed down to
the level of the anti-intellectualism of it's owners.

Sounds farfetched, especially coming from
the dumbest anonymous troll in r.m.c.r.

The "Recorded Richter" file is an example of an
attempt at complete discographies, I have the
February 12, 2017 update, and it's a single file,
not broken up into little web pages, very useful:
It could be even better if it was a plain text file
than whatever rich format it uses.

This has nothing to do with search engines or
their quality. Search engines look for web pages
that include a search phrase. No more, no less,
and nothing else. They do not convert files from
one form to another, split or edit them, etc..

There ought to be files just like it for other artists.

Possibly, but how would one know this for a fact?

There might be, just the search engines won't
show it.

Again, how would one know this for a fact?

I tried to find an update of "Recorded Richter"
and all I see is the file from 2006.

The file or the website may not have been
updated. What makes you so sure it must
have been updated?

You really have unrealistic, unreasonable
expectations. Do you even know how
search engines work? Have you read
the relevant patents granted to Yahoo,
Google, Inktomi or Alta Vista? I doubt it.

dk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <0001HW.29F738930021A9D330620938F@news.giganews.com>,
Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

Bing/Google lives only on it's past reputation when it would display >non-mainstream results without steering away from what you are
trying to find.

Yes, web search is a shadow of what it used to be -- largely useless
now. Even when one knows exactly what one is looking for, it might
not turn up. Trying to find answers to anything but the stupidest
questions imaginable? Forget it. (And even for the stupidest
questions, the answers supplied might be just as stupid.) You're
exactly right, it's a constant topic of conversation among pretty
much everyone I know in tech, and moreover, anyone who blows off
your criticisms likely has a financial stake in keeping the bullshit
flowing, including RMCR's resident clown.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 03:26:11 -0700, Dan Koren wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 6:59:10???PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:

The search engines Bing/Google are
terrible, so there might be references
to it that aren't being revealed.

Please recommend a better search
engine than those named ablve.

If there are and I knew about it I'd say so.
Bing/Google lives only on it's past reputation when
it would display non-mainstream results without
steering away from what you are trying to find.
Since, it has been incredibly dumbed down to the
level of the anti-intellectualism of it's owners.

The "Recorded Richter" file is an example of an attempt
at complete discographies, I have the February 12, 2017
update, and it's a single file, not broken up into
little web pages, very useful: It could be even better
if it was a plain text file than whatever rich format it uses.
There ought to be files just like it for other artists.
There might be, just the search engines won't show it.
I tried to find an update of "Recorded Richter" and all
I see is the file from 2006.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-04-24 22:52:32 +0000, Dan Koren said:

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 3:22:27 PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 03:26:11 -0700, Dan Koren wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 6:59:10???PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:> >

The search engines Bing/Google are> > > terrible, so there might

be references> > > to it that aren't being revealed.> >> > Please
recommend a better search> > engine than those named ablve.

If there are and I knew about it I'd say so.

Then how can one possibly conclude Bing and Google are "terrible" ?!? Compared towhat? To the "knowledge" in one's head? Possibly bcause one happens to knowabout one item the search engine may
have missed? What an idiocy!

<snip>

The "Recorded Richter" file is an example of an> attempt at complete
discographies, I have the> February 12, 2017 update, and it's a single
file,> not broken up into little web pages, very useful:> It could be
even better if it was a plain text file> than whatever rich format it
uses.

This has nothing to do with search engines ortheir quality. Search
engines look for web pagesthat include a search phrase. No more, no
less,and nothing else. They do not convert files fromone form to
another, split or edit them, etc..

You're thinking of AltaVista (remember them?)

Actually, Google and Bing do much, much more. First they broaden your
query to include words you might possibly have misspelled, then they do
a search, and grade each find for relevance to what it thinks you
intended.
Then they sort by relevance. Then they find some advertiser whose
product might be a dim match for what you requested and they put that
in front of your responses. Then they record your request and track
every last damn thing you do from then on, for all posteriors. Then
they cough up all that data whenever the FBI or the Democratic party
want some.

-Owen

P.S. Yes, I know that you knew that.

-O

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:26:30 PM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:

On 2023-04-24 22:52:32 +0000, Dan Koren said:

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 3:22:27 PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 03:26:11 -0700, Dan Koren wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 6:59:10???PM UTC-7, Pluted Pup wrote:> > >>> >> > > The search engines Bing/Google are> > > terrible, so there might >>> be references> > > to it that aren't being revealed.> >> > Please
recommend a better search> > engine than those named ablve.

If there are and I knew about it I'd say so.

Then how can one possibly conclude Bing and Google are "terrible" ?!? Compared towhat? To the "knowledge" in one's head? Possibly bcause one happens to knowabout one item the search engine may
have missed? What an idiocy!

<snip>
The "Recorded Richter" file is an example of an> attempt at complete
discographies, I have the> February 12, 2017 update, and it's a single
file,> not broken up into little web pages, very useful:> It could be
even better if it was a plain text file> than whatever rich format it
uses.

This has nothing to do with search engines ortheir quality. Search
engines look for web pagesthat include a search phrase. No more, no less,and nothing else. They do not convert files fromone form to
another, split or edit them, etc..

You're thinking of AltaVista (remember them?)

I am not thinking of AltaVista, though I remember
them very well. One of my friends was the CTO. I
spent as much time in his office as I spent in my
own. Much closer to Palo Alto coffee and sushi
than my office on the other side of Hwy 101.

Actually, Google and Bing do much, much more.

The may believe they do, but it isn't always what
one needs or wants.

First they broaden your query to include words
you might possibly have misspelled,

I would rather have a stricter mode as the default.
Some people know what they are looking for, more
or less. Some don't. See Pluted for examples of both.

then they do a search, and grade each find for
relevance to what it thinks you intended.

I find the notion Google understands my intent
quite ludicrous. Here are real life examples:

Search for Esteban Sanchez, see what pops up:

https://www.google.com/search?q=esteban+sanchez

Search for Hiromi Uehara, see what pops up:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hiromi+Uehara

Does Google think I am looking for a Mexican
pop singer, or for a Japanese golf player?

Then they sort by relevance. Then they find some
advertiser whose product might be a dim match
for what you requested and they put that in front
of your responses. Then they record your request
and track every last damn thing you do from then
on, for all posteriors.

Yes, but they do not edit/reformat/split/rearrange documents
to Pluted's requirements.

Then they cough up all that data whenever the FBI or the
Democratic party want some.

Google provides the tools to erase one's search history,
however most people do not use them.

dk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-04-25 00:43:41 +0000, Dan Koren said:

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:26:30 PM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:

Then they cough up all that data whenever the FBI or the> Democratic
party want some.

Google provides the tools to erase one's search history,however most
people do not use them.

Just wondering: Do you think Google backs up their data? (Obvious
answer: YES) Do you believe that they purge your history from the
backup data?

-Owen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:01:22 AM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:

On 2023-04-25 00:43:41 +0000, Dan Koren said:

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 5:26:30 PM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:

Then they cough up all that data whenever
the FBI or the> Democratic party want some.

Google provides the tools to erase one's search
history,however most people do not use them.

Just wondering: Do you think Google backs up their
data?

Not in the way one might think.

(Obvious answer: YES)

Not in the way most people think. They do not
make 1:1 physical copies of all the storage. The
cost would be staggering and the time required
to back up and to restore would be enormous.

Google and other hyperscalers store data
using a method known as erasure coding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasure_code

There isn't a 1:1 physical copy of all the data.
The "backup data" is interleaved with the real
data, This allows for data recovery on the fly
without any downtime.

Do you believe that they purge your history
from the backup data?

Read again. In modern large scale storage
systems there are no separate, physically
distinct copies of the data. Erasure coding
is used across servers, racks, data centers,
regions, and globally.

Take care,

dk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-04-25 16:23:30 +0000, Dan Koren said:

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:01:22 AM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:

On 2023-04-25 00:43:41 +0000, Dan Koren said:>> > On Monday, April 24,
2023 at 5:26:30 PM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:> >> >> Then they cough
up all that data whenever> >> the FBI or the> Democratic party want
some.

Google provides the tools to erase one's search> > history,however most
people do not use them.>> Just wondering: Do you think Google backs up
their> data?

Not in the way one might think.

(Obvious answer: YES)

Not in the way most people think. They do notmake 1:1 physical copies
of all the storage. Thecost would be staggering and the time requiredto
back up and to restore would be enormous.
Google and other hyperscalers store datausing a method known as erasure coding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasure_code

There isn't a 1:1 physical copy of all the data.The "backup data" is interleaved with the real
data, This allows for data recovery on the flywithout any downtime.

Do you believe that they purge your history> from the backup data?

Read again. In modern large scale storagesystems there are no separate, physicallydistinct copies of the data. Erasure codingis used across
servers, racks, data centers,regions, and globally.
Take care,

Yes. I had encountered either that or something like it that allowed
one to recreate data even if all the parts are not there. But thanks
for the reference.


Looking at Google's Page:

How Google deletes activity in your account 
When you choose to delete activity manually or activity is deleted automatically based on your auto-delete setting, we immediately start
the process of removing it from the product and our systems.
First, we aim to immediately remove it from view and the data may no
longer be used to personalize your Google experience.
We then begin a process designed to safely and completely delete the
data from our storage systems. 
Along with helping you delete data manually or automatically, Google
may delete some types of activity sooner when it’s no longer useful to improve your experience. 
Learn more about how Google retains data we collect.
-Owen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 11:28:43 AM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:

Looking at Google's Page:

How Google deletes activity in your account
When you choose to delete activity manually or activity is deleted automatically based on your auto-delete setting, we immediately start
the process of removing it from the product and our systems.
First, we aim to immediately remove it from view and the data may no
longer be used to personalize your Google experience.
We then begin a process designed to safely and completely delete the
data from our storage systems.
Along with helping you delete data manually or automatically, Google
may delete some types of activity sooner when it’s no longer useful to improve your experience.

This is just generic, politically correct boilerplate.
It doesn't say anything about how things really
work under the covers.

dk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-04-26 09:04:21 +0000, Dan Koren said:

On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 11:28:43 AM UTC-7, Owen Hartnett wrote:

Looking at Google's Page:>> How Google deletes activity in your account
When you choose to delete activity manually or activity is deleted>
automatically based on your auto-delete setting, we immediately start>
the process of removing it from the product and our systems.> First, we
aim to immediately remove it from view and the data may no> longer be
used to personalize your Google experience.> We then begin a process
designed to safely and completely delete the> data from our storage
systems. Along with helping you delete data manually or automatically,
Google> may delete some types of activity sooner when it’s no longer
useful to> improve your experience.

This is just generic, politically correct boilerplate.It doesn't say
anything about how things reallywork under the covers.

Yes, they claim to have a "process designed to safely and completely
delete the data from our storage systems." Perhaps they do have a
software worm that will borrow through all its data. Probably, as you
can run a program on Google and see just what they saved from you. So,
if they can generate the data, they can probably cull it too.

-Owen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)