I'm all for discussion, but I find it arrogant when people criticize art from a seemingly objective position. As I mentioned in another post, I bet there is someone in the world who would like this painting better than anything you or I could produce. Maybe just the artist himself. And what's wrong with that?
I guess i just disagree. I don't think there's much point to art criticism. It's like walking up to to people talking on a topic or in a language that you might not even understand and saying "you should have said it like this".
I bet there is someone in the world who would like this painting better than anything you or I could produce. Maybe just the artist himself. And what's wrong with that?
It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not. When will people get that art is completely subjective? Any art you don't get isn't "bad", it's just not for you. Say it doesn't work for you and move on. Don't claim that if it was made to appeal more to you that it would be somehow better.
Personally, this piece does nothing for me. I'm moving on.
Ah yes, artists should make sure that instead of working from their own motivations (as this chap has done) they should make something that you find pretty.
And every kind act is really a selfish act to get people to like you!
Who cares? As long as you're giving me what I want, I'll give you what you want. And we can each view it through whatever cynical or romantic glasses we wear.
True... I guess I'm looking at it a bit wrong. I think that legal abortion probably did help by giving the option to the small subset of people who would have been lousy parents and recognized it. Seems like a small group to me, though.
Too bad there's not much you can do about the people who probably should not have kids, but want them anyways. That's got nothing to do with the legality abortion, though.
I make no claim as to the actual social outcome of legal abortion, but the freakonomics theory sounds completely stupid. Nearly all of the troubled kids I know are from families where the mommy couldn't wait to get all knocked up and have a kid of her own for fun.
Most people I know who have the sense to abort when they don't think they can raise a child would have made better parents.
I wonder if a site could be set up that sold "interesting numbers". Now, you could use them as one-time pads for crypto, or just for reading aloud, but strangely if you run them through certain programs, they will make sights and sounds. For example, if you open them in photoshop you get some interesting visual noise pattern, and if you open them in an mp3 player, you get what sounds like a song, in a wav player you get audio noise.
Now, maybe they could copyright a particular number (the WAV for "rumpshaker" for example), but there's a nearly infinite set of numbers that, when interpreted correctly could sound the same. The MP3 at different bitrates, the OGG, etc. In fact they're all in PI if you look far enough downstream.
I don't really get how this stuff can be protected.
Cheers.
PS - I know it would make a useless cryptographic pad.
Sorry, I don't smoke and never have. I just don't like that we take non-violent people in our society and put them into tax-dollar funded rape chambers.
Re:It's about time we throw the baby out with the
on
Apple Sued Over iTunes UI
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that there is not even the slightest bit of this nation's original intent in place in our government or even our people. Individual liberty is simply no longer as important as group power.
We individual citizens are but the lowlings in a feudal system. Corporations and goverment organizastions are the lords. It may sound a bit dramatic since many of us lead pretty good lives, but it is only because we are grudgingly allowed to, it is no longer an inalienable right. And it will degrade over time.
If it sounds like I'm whining over nothing, think about how many non-violent people have been put into a physically abusive prison system and emotionally ruined because they smoked a home-grown weed that has been proven time and time again to be less harmful than tobacco or alcohol (both the domain of large corporations).
What does that have to do with patent law? It's just another manifestation of our nation's loss of it's original dream: to protect the individual from powerful groups.
At some point there will backlash, I hope, large enough to change things.
Interesting... thanks for the info. I remember first hearing of VLIW back when working with some nifty Amiga graphics card (opalvision I think?) They boasted a VLIW chip. I never learned much about the under-the-hood specifics there, but it was pretty rocking for it's day...
I'll have to read up on why it's hard to make a compiler for them...
I didn't read it as a contradiction: she said it won't be an energy option any time soon, but described how it can be used for other purposes (to generate x-rays) and then said it won't be long until that happens.
I'm sure if it were that simple it would be done. A long list of companies have spent a fortune trying to develop clean general-purpose processors. Some of them have been measurably better than x86 in the lab for brief periods of time. But none of them were good enough to stay ahead and recoup the R&D costs and whatnot. It's sad, but it's just the state of things.
Isn't the G4 a wide and shallow chip too? It can do 7 instructions per clock cycle (IIRC) and it has really cool math instructions (altivec). In fact, I'm writing this from a G4:) It's a good chip. But it's stuck under 2Ghz, so a 3.6 Ghz P4 still meets or exceeds it in most respects.
I think it's that the CPU arena moves fast enough that any advantage in a clean design is irrelevent in, say, six months anyways. Which means that perhaps in a controlled lab test the clean design works better, but it's meaningless for nearly every practical application.
I'm all for pure scientific research, but we're talking about consumer products here. It either flies in the real world or it doesn't.
Now, when someone brings out one of those clockless asynchronous chips and toasts everything else out there, I'll be glad to admit that the "old" architecture is ready to scrap;)
You're getting too caught up in the details. The simple view is that nobody can really come up with a compelling chip for general computing outside the x86 architecture. Not even intel. Sure, you can find a best case here and a worst case there, but in the end it's just not making a big difference. This is interesting because so many predicted that the x86 could not possibly keep up, But it has. Even if it were 10% worse across the board, it still would have shown that you can scale a crappy architecture further than anyone cared to admit. But it's not 10% worse across the board, it's better in some areas and worse in others. Let's say it's a wash. Given that it's such a crappy architecture, it's incredible. And that should cause some people to rethink their ideas about architecture altogether. The 68K people should feel like idiots that they gave up so easily.
As far as AMD, well duh, once they've got an x86 transition down they can use whatever the heck they want... intel, AMD, transmeta, even Cyrix if they can find a few laying around. This will have similar benefits as to when they went PCI from Nubus and USB from ADB and IDE from SCSI... the advantages of any paticular technology are outweighed by the economies of scale allowed for by using standard components.
It's no PHB decision. It's just facing up to the fact that they're wasting a lot of effort working with partners to create custom chips when off-the-shelf stuff works fine, perhaps even better in certain cases.
Yeah, the RISC/CISC thing is pretty much meaningless these days. I just find it interesting that hacking a crappy architecture beats out building a clean one. Even intel couldn't pull it off when they made the itanium, and AMD was able to hack x86 some more and beat them at their own game.
And even more interesting is many people's need to deny that it worked out this way, and cling to the idea that "clean" is somehow superior, absent of any meaningful advantage in the real world.
I wonder -- if a crappy super-kludged x86 was 10 times faster than the most cleanly-designed alternate ISA? Would people still be arguing that clean is "better"? What is this obsession with "clean"?
And I ask this of myself as well, having written much "clean" code that sucked in practice compared to a kludgy script that I hated.
Thanks, but I do get the aesthetic reasons for a clean design. I appreciate clean design. But the advantages are all just theoretical. The shocker here is that in the end it just didn't help enough to be worth the effort.
And apparently that lousy brick will fly faster and further than a cleanly designed ceramic cube.
Yeah, alpha was superior. So was the 970. So are a lot of things. For a few moments, anyway. And then the economics and rapid development of hacks for the x86 make all these advantages meaningless in a matter of months. Again: the state of affairs indicates there's no meaningful real world advantage to a clean architecture. I don't like it any more than you, but it's true.
IBM left them no choice... now why do you think that was? Maybe something to do with there being no marketable advantage to their superior design?
Sorry bud, you can argue details all you want but the real world is the real world. What I'm saying is there's no real world benefit. My proof is the lack of any success in this area despite a whole lot of effort. Several companies have tried to pull off a clean design (even intel with the itanium) but it just never works out. Hacking the x86 seems to be the best thing to do despite all the gut instincts (including mine) to the contrary.
You're obviously one of those people who I alluded to in my original post that doesn't accept it even after the facts are in. Yes, it's painful to admit. I like the idea of a clean design as much as anyone could. I'm a mac user for crying out loud. But clean CPU designs don't seem to outperform dirty designs by enough of a margin to be useful. Thems the facts. Time to move on.
Also: I believe the Pentium M beats PPC for mips/watts ratio.
FYI I'm posting all this from a powerbook, so this isn't about any religion. I'm just observing that in this case being clean didn't translate into any meaningful real-world benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm all for discussion, but I find it arrogant when people criticize art from a seemingly objective position. As I mentioned in another post, I bet there is someone in the world who would like this painting better than anything you or I could produce. Maybe just the artist himself. And what's wrong with that?
Cheers.
I guess i just disagree. I don't think there's much point to art criticism. It's like walking up to to people talking on a topic or in a language that you might not even understand and saying "you should have said it like this".
I bet there is someone in the world who would like this painting better than anything you or I could produce. Maybe just the artist himself. And what's wrong with that?
Cheers.
It doesn't matter whether you understand it or not. When will people get that art is completely subjective? Any art you don't get isn't "bad", it's just not for you. Say it doesn't work for you and move on. Don't claim that if it was made to appeal more to you that it would be somehow better.
Personally, this piece does nothing for me. I'm moving on.
Cheers.
Ah yes, artists should make sure that instead of working from their own motivations (as this chap has done) they should make something that you find pretty.
Thanks for the lesson.
Cheers.
- From another artist to you
And every kind act is really a selfish act to get people to like you!
Who cares? As long as you're giving me what I want, I'll give you what you want. And we can each view it through whatever cynical or romantic glasses we wear.
Cheers.
I don't smoke pot myself, but the vast majority of people I know who do are highly intelligent and well educated. There are also a lot of idiots.
My point is that weed doesn't have anything to do with it. It doesn't help or hurt (though there are people who would argue for both).
Yes: legalize it.
Cheers.
My favorite site, destroyed by the lack of ads!
Actually, I think slashdot is the only ad supported site I visit regularly. I'd be sad to see it go, but I think I'll survive.
Cheers.
True... I guess I'm looking at it a bit wrong. I think that legal abortion probably did help by giving the option to the small subset of people who would have been lousy parents and recognized it. Seems like a small group to me, though.
Too bad there's not much you can do about the people who probably should not have kids, but want them anyways. That's got nothing to do with the legality abortion, though.
Cheers.
I make no claim as to the actual social outcome of legal abortion, but the freakonomics theory sounds completely stupid. Nearly all of the troubled kids I know are from families where the mommy couldn't wait to get all knocked up and have a kid of her own for fun.
Most people I know who have the sense to abort when they don't think they can raise a child would have made better parents.
Cheers.
I wonder if a site could be set up that sold "interesting numbers". Now, you could use them as one-time pads for crypto, or just for reading aloud, but strangely if you run them through certain programs, they will make sights and sounds. For example, if you open them in photoshop you get some interesting visual noise pattern, and if you open them in an mp3 player, you get what sounds like a song, in a wav player you get audio noise.
Now, maybe they could copyright a particular number (the WAV for "rumpshaker" for example), but there's a nearly infinite set of numbers that, when interpreted correctly could sound the same. The MP3 at different bitrates, the OGG, etc. In fact they're all in PI if you look far enough downstream.
I don't really get how this stuff can be protected.
Cheers.
PS - I know it would make a useless cryptographic pad.
Sorry, I don't smoke and never have. I just don't like that we take non-violent people in our society and put them into tax-dollar funded rape chambers.
I agree wholeheartedly. The sad thing is that there is not even the slightest bit of this nation's original intent in place in our government or even our people. Individual liberty is simply no longer as important as group power.
We individual citizens are but the lowlings in a feudal system. Corporations and goverment organizastions are the lords. It may sound a bit dramatic since many of us lead pretty good lives, but it is only because we are grudgingly allowed to, it is no longer an inalienable right. And it will degrade over time.
If it sounds like I'm whining over nothing, think about how many non-violent people have been put into a physically abusive prison system and emotionally ruined because they smoked a home-grown weed that has been proven time and time again to be less harmful than tobacco or alcohol (both the domain of large corporations).
What does that have to do with patent law? It's just another manifestation of our nation's loss of it's original dream: to protect the individual from powerful groups.
At some point there will backlash, I hope, large enough to change things.
Cheers.
I wonder if there will ever be an "Organization of the Computer Exporting Countries" cartel?
Thanks again for the info.
Interesting... thanks for the info. I remember first hearing of VLIW back when working with some nifty Amiga graphics card (opalvision I think?) They boasted a VLIW chip. I never learned much about the under-the-hood specifics there, but it was pretty rocking for it's day...
I'll have to read up on why it's hard to make a compiler for them...
Cheers.
I didn't read it as a contradiction: she said it won't be an energy option any time soon, but described how it can be used for other purposes (to generate x-rays) and then said it won't be long until that happens.
Cheers.
I'm sure if it were that simple it would be done. A long list of companies have spent a fortune trying to develop clean general-purpose processors. Some of them have been measurably better than x86 in the lab for brief periods of time. But none of them were good enough to stay ahead and recoup the R&D costs and whatnot. It's sad, but it's just the state of things.
:) It's a good chip. But it's stuck under 2Ghz, so a 3.6 Ghz P4 still meets or exceeds it in most respects.
Isn't the G4 a wide and shallow chip too? It can do 7 instructions per clock cycle (IIRC) and it has really cool math instructions (altivec). In fact, I'm writing this from a G4
Cheers.
I agree: it's always more complicated than expected, but the best way to unkludge is bottom up.
Cheers.
I think it's that the CPU arena moves fast enough that any advantage in a clean design is irrelevent in, say, six months anyways. Which means that perhaps in a controlled lab test the clean design works better, but it's meaningless for nearly every practical application.
;)
I'm all for pure scientific research, but we're talking about consumer products here. It either flies in the real world or it doesn't.
Now, when someone brings out one of those clockless asynchronous chips and toasts everything else out there, I'll be glad to admit that the "old" architecture is ready to scrap
Cheers.
You're getting too caught up in the details. The simple view is that nobody can really come up with a compelling chip for general computing outside the x86 architecture. Not even intel. Sure, you can find a best case here and a worst case there, but in the end it's just not making a big difference. This is interesting because so many predicted that the x86 could not possibly keep up, But it has. Even if it were 10% worse across the board, it still would have shown that you can scale a crappy architecture further than anyone cared to admit. But it's not 10% worse across the board, it's better in some areas and worse in others. Let's say it's a wash. Given that it's such a crappy architecture, it's incredible. And that should cause some people to rethink their ideas about architecture altogether. The 68K people should feel like idiots that they gave up so easily.
As far as AMD, well duh, once they've got an x86 transition down they can use whatever the heck they want... intel, AMD, transmeta, even Cyrix if they can find a few laying around. This will have similar benefits as to when they went PCI from Nubus and USB from ADB and IDE from SCSI... the advantages of any paticular technology are outweighed by the economies of scale allowed for by using standard components.
It's no PHB decision. It's just facing up to the fact that they're wasting a lot of effort working with partners to create custom chips when off-the-shelf stuff works fine, perhaps even better in certain cases.
Cheers.
Yeah, the RISC/CISC thing is pretty much meaningless these days. I just find it interesting that hacking a crappy architecture beats out building a clean one. Even intel couldn't pull it off when they made the itanium, and AMD was able to hack x86 some more and beat them at their own game.
And even more interesting is many people's need to deny that it worked out this way, and cling to the idea that "clean" is somehow superior, absent of any meaningful advantage in the real world.
I wonder -- if a crappy super-kludged x86 was 10 times faster than the most cleanly-designed alternate ISA? Would people still be arguing that clean is "better"? What is this obsession with "clean"?
And I ask this of myself as well, having written much "clean" code that sucked in practice compared to a kludgy script that I hated.
Cheers.
Thanks, but I do get the aesthetic reasons for a clean design. I appreciate clean design. But the advantages are all just theoretical. The shocker here is that in the end it just didn't help enough to be worth the effort.
And apparently that lousy brick will fly faster and further than a cleanly designed ceramic cube.
Yeah, alpha was superior. So was the 970. So are a lot of things. For a few moments, anyway. And then the economics and rapid development of hacks for the x86 make all these advantages meaningless in a matter of months. Again: the state of affairs indicates there's no meaningful real world advantage to a clean architecture. I don't like it any more than you, but it's true.
Cheers.
IBM left them no choice... now why do you think that was? Maybe something to do with there being no marketable advantage to their superior design?
Sorry bud, you can argue details all you want but the real world is the real world. What I'm saying is there's no real world benefit. My proof is the lack of any success in this area despite a whole lot of effort. Several companies have tried to pull off a clean design (even intel with the itanium) but it just never works out. Hacking the x86 seems to be the best thing to do despite all the gut instincts (including mine) to the contrary.
You're obviously one of those people who I alluded to in my original post that doesn't accept it even after the facts are in. Yes, it's painful to admit. I like the idea of a clean design as much as anyone could. I'm a mac user for crying out loud. But clean CPU designs don't seem to outperform dirty designs by enough of a margin to be useful. Thems the facts. Time to move on.
Cheers.
Also: I believe the Pentium M beats PPC for mips/watts ratio.
FYI I'm posting all this from a powerbook, so this isn't about any religion. I'm just observing that in this case being clean didn't translate into any meaningful real-world benefit.
Cheers.