Actually, I was being sarcastic. Every single professional I've ever met has thought that they were better than every other person in their workplace, and thus refuse to unionize, because it means they're admitting that they're like THAT GUY. Even when it would make their lives much better and prevent relentless screwing by their employer.
Here's the attitude. I was telling this straight out of college Randroid I worked with at my last contract about how my dad's union (USWA) was what kept him employed and us in food/shelter when I was growing up. His reply: "I think I'd have a little more faith in your dad, but that's just me." Like my dad couldn't do it without the union. This is what people have come to think about unions. That they are nothing but crutches for the incompetent and that they paint everyone with the least common denominator brush. It's disgusting.
On the other hand, you have the teachers' unions, and my local post office is the kind of place that turns normal compassionate people into Thatchers and Reagans vis-a-vis unions.
That's funny. My current contract has me in a tiny software shop with that "loading dock" attitude that I described. The whole company seems to have that culture, though. They take it too far, but it's kind of refreshing after spending the rest of my career working for faceless multinationals where it was all about who put on the best show.
Isn't that an aspect of what unions are for? Protection from "Change in working conditions" or whatever they call it?
These people aren't in any union! Professionals hate unions! Unions cause them to be considered as the equivalent of the Other Guy, who is never as competent or dedicated or, well, as SPECIAL as the professional. No amount of protection is worth being thought of as THAT GUY, my god what kind of horrible suggestion is that? We are all perfect unique snowflakes, just like everyone else
Either the authorities will engage in racial profiling, which will affect Americans of Middle Eastern descent, or they'll do this kind of half-assed correlation game based on a person's tastes, which affects Americans who like chickpeas and tahini.
How many John Walker Lindhs are out there? Tim McVeigh didn't shop at Omar's Halal Grocery...
Thanks to the internet, you can also publicly announce the brand names of the things you own. That way fellow brand owners will validate you for owning them or non-owners will be duly impressed with your wealth.
Interestingly though, in the 80's, it was socially acceptable to have a drink during lunch. Now it is taboo to drink during work hours at all.
Stems from liability issues (employee has a beer or three at lunch, comes back, deletes the database, the company gets sued and loses because they have drunks on the clock..)
I can't believe that nobody's tried to make a System Shock movie yet. It's the classic Hollywood horror movie formula. A "star" in the middle of a hostile environment, interacting with remote people who may or may not be real, hunted by an omniscient evil overlord.
I want to go to the theater and when the trailers come on I want a black screen with Terry Brosius' voice, saying, "L-l-look at you, hacker... a pathetic creature of meat and bone...."
And then, the cortex reavers, the invisible mutants, Edward Diego... geez, it's practically written already.
I would argue yes, because you've taken the determinism out of the narrative. There's no singular vision there anymore. It's "ok, here are some scenes, now you go screw around and feel like you've accomplished something for a little while."
The difference between art and craft is in the intent of creation. If 50 people come together to create something that does nothing more than express a shared thought, that's art. If those same 50 people create something that is intended to sell a million copies and make them all rich, it's not art. Even the most creative parts of the effort are just craft when there's no honest emotion behind them.
I know, artists need to make a living too, but a true artist will practice their art regardless of any monetary reward. How many of you have a "crazy" aunt that paints or a cousin that plays guitar in a band that writes original material? Those are artists.
It's not a perfect definition, but it's the only one I've been able to figure out.
There's no way this could have surprised anyone if it were true. Launching a payload into orbit would have been detected easily by Western intelligence, either by sigint before the launch or via early-warning systems.
I was bullied badly in school, yet I was very rarely involved in any physical confrontations.
Likewise. I was pretty big and strong (farm work) so people didn't start fights with me. If only I hadn't been taught never to stand up for myself, I probably would have some self-respect today.
hmm.. a stealth-action wolfenstein, in the style of, say, Splinter Cell? sounds fun to me.
The only problem you'd have with it today is the saturation of the market with WWII themed games.
You can judge different types of art for different merits. I wouldn't compare say, a Van Gogh painting and a Frank Miller comic with the same criteria, but they are certainly both art, and certainly both good (in my opinion). But nearly impossible to judge the two on the exact same criteria.
That's because they are different art forms. A little common sense is required, too. Nobody would judge Van Gogh's paintings based on the quality of the writing in them (since there is none) but both Van Gogh and Frank Miller have created work that is capable of evoking strong emotional responses, and it is equally valid to call both of them art - although Miller might not have intended to create anything more than entertainment.
To me, good art is anything that causes some type of reaction within you - good, bad, disgusted, ecstatic, etc.. Bad art to me is something you experience and then quickly forget about, without really forming any opinions...
That's a good way of explaining it IMO. If it does not enrich your life, it's probably not art.
You can judge different types of art for different merits. I wouldn't compare say, a Van Gogh painting and a Frank Miller comic with the same criteria, but they are certainly both art, and certainly both good (in my opinion). But nearly impossible to judge the two on the exact same criteria.
That's because they are different art forms. A little common sense is required, too. Nobody would judge Van Gogh's paintings based on the quality of the writing in them (since there is none) but both Van Gogh and Frank Miller have created work that is capable of evoking strong emotional responses, and it is equally valid to call both of them art - although Miller might not have intended to create anything more than entertainment.
To me, good art is anything that causes some type of reaction within you - good, bad, disgusted, ecstatic, etc.. Bad art to me is something you experience and then quickly forget about, without really forming any opinions...
That's a good way of explaining it IMO. If it does not enrich your life, it's probably not art.
Actually, it kind of does. If you assert that something is art, then it must be judged on the same artistic criteria as other works that are judged as art. Since the value of art is subjective anyway, with no authoritative definition of "good" and "bad," it's all really equal. It's when you compare art to entertainment that you end up with inequalities.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I was being sarcastic. Every single professional I've ever met has thought that they were better than every other person in their workplace, and thus refuse to unionize, because it means they're admitting that they're like THAT GUY. Even when it would make their lives much better and prevent relentless screwing by their employer.
Here's the attitude. I was telling this straight out of college Randroid I worked with at my last contract about how my dad's union (USWA) was what kept him employed and us in food/shelter when I was growing up. His reply: "I think I'd have a little more faith in your dad, but that's just me." Like my dad couldn't do it without the union. This is what people have come to think about unions. That they are nothing but crutches for the incompetent and that they paint everyone with the least common denominator brush. It's disgusting.
On the other hand, you have the teachers' unions, and my local post office is the kind of place that turns normal compassionate people into Thatchers and Reagans vis-a-vis unions.
There's no easy answer.
That's funny. My current contract has me in a tiny software shop with that "loading dock" attitude that I described. The whole company seems to have that culture, though. They take it too far, but it's kind of refreshing after spending the rest of my career working for faceless multinationals where it was all about who put on the best show.
Isn't that an aspect of what unions are for? Protection from "Change in working conditions" or whatever they call it?
These people aren't in any union! Professionals hate unions! Unions cause them to be considered as the equivalent of the Other Guy, who is never as competent or dedicated or, well, as SPECIAL as the professional. No amount of protection is worth being thought of as THAT GUY, my god what kind of horrible suggestion is that? We are all perfect unique snowflakes, just like everyone else
In some environments this will lead to you being branded an ass-kisser, and you'll lose all respect from your immediate teammates.
Everyone is losing in Iraq. This ain't WWII we're talking about.
Either the authorities will engage in racial profiling, which will affect Americans of Middle Eastern descent, or they'll do this kind of half-assed correlation game based on a person's tastes, which affects Americans who like chickpeas and tahini.
How many John Walker Lindhs are out there? Tim McVeigh didn't shop at Omar's Halal Grocery...
Is there a difference in owning things only because one is wealthy, versus owning the same things only because one is intelligent?
If there wasn't, why mention the brands at all?
Thanks to the internet, you can also publicly announce the brand names of the things you own. That way fellow brand owners will validate you for owning them or non-owners will be duly impressed with your wealth.
That's exactly what I'm talking about, actually.
...who finds it indescribably sad when children treat inanimate objects as friends?
Stories like this, and things like toy ads where they describe the toy as "your new friend" really get to me. I wonder why.
Interestingly though, in the 80's, it was socially acceptable to have a drink during lunch. Now it is taboo to drink during work hours at all.
Stems from liability issues (employee has a beer or three at lunch, comes back, deletes the database, the company gets sued and loses because they have drunks on the clock..)
thank you
I can't believe that nobody's tried to make a System Shock movie yet. It's the classic Hollywood horror movie formula. A "star" in the middle of a hostile environment, interacting with remote people who may or may not be real, hunted by an omniscient evil overlord. I want to go to the theater and when the trailers come on I want a black screen with Terry Brosius' voice, saying, "L-l-look at you, hacker... a pathetic creature of meat and bone...." And then, the cortex reavers, the invisible mutants, Edward Diego... geez, it's practically written already.
I would argue yes, because you've taken the determinism out of the narrative. There's no singular vision there anymore. It's "ok, here are some scenes, now you go screw around and feel like you've accomplished something for a little while."
The difference between art and craft is in the intent of creation. If 50 people come together to create something that does nothing more than express a shared thought, that's art. If those same 50 people create something that is intended to sell a million copies and make them all rich, it's not art. Even the most creative parts of the effort are just craft when there's no honest emotion behind them.
I know, artists need to make a living too, but a true artist will practice their art regardless of any monetary reward. How many of you have a "crazy" aunt that paints or a cousin that plays guitar in a band that writes original material? Those are artists.
It's not a perfect definition, but it's the only one I've been able to figure out.
O RLY? ya rly no wai no not rly buttsecks? (lowercase for lameness filter)
There's no way this could have surprised anyone if it were true. Launching a payload into orbit would have been detected easily by Western intelligence, either by sigint before the launch or via early-warning systems.
Those training missions, getting all of the ribbons? Trying to get a Y-Wing through those courses in what, 120 seconds, was impossible.
In a gold rush, the way to make money is to sell shovels!
But the web is a bullshit rush.
Oh, yeah, right... never mind
I was bullied badly in school, yet I was very rarely involved in any physical confrontations.
Likewise. I was pretty big and strong (farm work) so people didn't start fights with me. If only I hadn't been taught never to stand up for myself, I probably would have some self-respect today.
hmm.. a stealth-action wolfenstein, in the style of, say, Splinter Cell? sounds fun to me. The only problem you'd have with it today is the saturation of the market with WWII themed games.
Freelancer was the spiritual successor to Privateer. No replay value though.
Bah, screwed up the formatting...
You can judge different types of art for different merits. I wouldn't compare say, a Van Gogh painting and a Frank Miller comic with the same criteria, but they are certainly both art, and certainly both good (in my opinion). But nearly impossible to judge the two on the exact same criteria.
That's because they are different art forms. A little common sense is required, too. Nobody would judge Van Gogh's paintings based on the quality of the writing in them (since there is none) but both Van Gogh and Frank Miller have created work that is capable of evoking strong emotional responses, and it is equally valid to call both of them art - although Miller might not have intended to create anything more than entertainment.
To me, good art is anything that causes some type of reaction within you - good, bad, disgusted, ecstatic, etc.. Bad art to me is something you experience and then quickly forget about, without really forming any opinions...
That's a good way of explaining it IMO. If it does not enrich your life, it's probably not art.
You can judge different types of art for different merits. I wouldn't compare say, a Van Gogh painting and a Frank Miller comic with the same criteria, but they are certainly both art, and certainly both good (in my opinion). But nearly impossible to judge the two on the exact same criteria. That's because they are different art forms. A little common sense is required, too. Nobody would judge Van Gogh's paintings based on the quality of the writing in them (since there is none) but both Van Gogh and Frank Miller have created work that is capable of evoking strong emotional responses, and it is equally valid to call both of them art - although Miller might not have intended to create anything more than entertainment. To me, good art is anything that causes some type of reaction within you - good, bad, disgusted, ecstatic, etc.. Bad art to me is something you experience and then quickly forget about, without really forming any opinions... That's a good way of explaining it IMO. If it does not enrich your life, it's probably not art.
Actually, it kind of does. If you assert that something is art, then it must be judged on the same artistic criteria as other works that are judged as art. Since the value of art is subjective anyway, with no authoritative definition of "good" and "bad," it's all really equal. It's when you compare art to entertainment that you end up with inequalities.