As I see it, it's all about priorities and degree. Communication requires closing the feedback loop and that moves us into a new realm. When the audience can change the signal there is no need for an artist and there effectively is no art. Heading down that path leads one to deem advertisements or the crafty kitch stuff at your local art fair as art. (And there are many who would argue this way. But that looks like an intellectual cul-de-sac to me.)
Also when I said "the art lies more in the conceptualizing than in the coding itself" I was saying that the idea and the specification are where the creative spark is. Coding is a technical execution --more like craft. Unless you are looking at the text of the code and admiring it, I don't think the coding is the art. Typically though, the folks who consider themselves "artists" in this area do everything, soup to nuts.
Sorry. (In editing I failed to delete my first "Why? Because when it becomes about the viewer, the viewer effectively controls or edits the work of the artist." just mentally delete it.)
"What is art" is a such a controversial and little understood area of philosophy (admittedly I don't consider myself adequate to the task really understanding all the issues.)
Coming from the design world (product, exhibit, and interface design,) which are definitely crafts but not art, I'd take exception with you both (TCPF and Iluvcapra) to varying extents.
Contrary to how many see it, art is not centrally about "communication." I think most artists would agree that their art is for themselves and that it is about the process rather than the destination or the communication. In the end, if it communicates and/or is appreciated that's great, but its not the point (poetry might be the major exception I can think of.) Why? Because art is about the artist's experience, process, and vision, not those of the viewer.
As soon as it becomes about communicating a message, producing multiple copies, making money, etc. It leaves the realm of art and enters the area of commerce (commonly referred to as "commercial art" or design-- but not really art.) Why? Because when it becomes about the viewer, the viewer effectively controls or edits the work of the artist. The only reason "artists" attend to clients, commissions, and communication success is to obtain money to live and make art. Beyond that it becomes the realm of business etc. Why? Because when it becomes about the viewer, the viewer effectively controls or edits the work of the artist, effectively undermining their vision and process.
That said, there is no reason coding algorithms cannot be a tool or medium of artistic self-expression. It just depends on how it's done and what the intention is (And BTW, I think the art lies more in the conceptualization than in the coding itself.)
The smugness of your response and the fact that you were modded "insightful" just confirms what I said.
A large portion of/. readers would agree with you when you say, "Linux is for a select group of people: those who can use computers." Indeed, my post essentially stated the first part of your assertion. Yet the reality of the world of computer use proves the second part wrong.
In practice a tool is a tool and it serves the user in their tasks. Being an expert user of a tool does not mean you can use it in all possible ways or for all possible purposes. A craftsman does not to build all his tools from scratch or use his tools for all possible crafts.
Many people use computers to do things you are incapable of and to achieve things you cannot even imagine. Does that mean you "cannot use" a computer?
Yes. This whole series of posts with terminal code and "fixes" illustrates exactly why Unbutu will never be the OS of choice for any but a select group of people, much less for serious musicians. (Do I hear skepticism in this "select' forum? more proof.)
Bws111, I suppose you are right to some extent. Some people will always seek to take advantage of any system. And perhaps my incentives are off. But that's where judgement and forensic engineering comes into play.
1.) purposeful destruction would probably be pretty apparent
2.) batteries that barely charge will not explode anyway ( I imagine this iPod touch was probably only slightly out of warrantee and therefore Apple felt like some compensation was in order.)
3.) Apple's recycling program already gives a credit for old iPods, so this is not such a big deal
4.) the nature of circumstances where Apple wants and gets an NDA will not be transparent to abusers since nobody will be talking about it.
Not even Apple gets something for nothing. If they want the iPod back, they need to pay for it. If they want the NDA, they need to pay for it. If the customer in question wants the refund, they need to give something up for that too.
Actually this is not a "simple refund" since the iPod was badly damaged by dropping and was out of warrantee. You can't get a refund on your out-of-warrantee car after you get in a wreck (even if it explodes.) Only if it was negligently designed do you even have a chance, and that does not appear to be an issue here. The exploding battery problem is part and parcel of Li-Ion batteries. Such small and powerful batteries will fail in rare instances, especially when damaged. As we have seen, it will happen with any device.
That said, Apple were stupid not to have addressed it more deftly. They could have offered a prompt replacement with no real skin off of their nose and if they wanted silence they could have sweetened the deal with a $200 (Euro) gift card contingent on the signed NDA. Sounds like these folks still might not have signed it but they would be somewhat happier, Apple would have the damaged iPod, and the haters would have little to whine about.
No, they use American thugs!
You think no part of any american defense contract gets subcontracted to China? I just read about aircraft wiring harnesses being built in China for Boeing.
But your argument is a bit ridiculous anyway. After all, Apple contracted with FoxCon, a Taiwanese company, who has off-shored in China, the Chinese/Taiwanese company has probably outsourced the security, etc. Fact is, shit happens. Shit that Apple cannot control. Abuses happen anywhere, but especially in totalitarian countries. Do you buy Chinese?
Funny that people are blaming Apple.
I highly doubt that Apple's culture of security is anywhere near as onerous as that of a defense contractor or similar "high security" situations.
That said, people see the pretty buildings and scattered affluence of places like China and Russia and they tend to forget that they are totalitarian regimes that have no problem damaging their citizens in any number of ways and with no recourse. Contrary to what many people tend to think, capitalism is not democracy, and the occasional use of ballot boxes are not indicative of freedom.
BTW The "news accounts" say there is video of him jumping from his apartment (is thee really "news," as we know it, in China?) Not having seen the video, I have no idea if it conclusively shows that he jumped or was tossed though.
Treating your beliefs with dignity and respect would be too much. What makes your beliefs so precious?
Perhaps you beliefs include child molestation or racism? Perhaps you are a moron or crazy?
How about we just treat you with a measure of respect and dignity but completely and totally ignore your beliefs. You keep them out of our faces and we'll leave you alone so long as you don't hurt anyone.
That should be good enough for everyone -- even "Bible thumping idiots."
Perhaps cyphercell prefers to stand apart from proscriptive, "I know best," dualistic, do-gooders, such as certain believers and atheists? You knowâ"people like you.
Its silly for the game companies to concern themselves with this. Buyers at all points in the market are more likely to buy/pay a higher price since they can have confidence that their investment will retain value due to a healthy secondary market. GM discovered this more than half a century ago when Harley Earl et. al. invented the annual model change.
If anything, they should, as some suggest above, get into the used game market themselves.
One way to use Google intelligently:
Search for the phrase, "that instead of than"
The second hit is a page devoted to literacy that contains (in the sidebar) a list of favorite common "misspellings"
There is page that shows Wallace Stevens made the mistake in his (handwritten) correspondence.
There are a whole slew of editorial corrections of this mistake.
This may indicate that it is a common error that is not attributable to a (standard) keyboard ("a" and "e" are 2 fingers and a row away from each other) and therefore its not simply a typo.
conclusion
I'd say Hedwards and the AC win the prize with their "Thinko" hypotheses. It covers written, typed, and spoken instances.
Wildo, the snark is all yours (are you emoticon aware?)
You seem to take as little care in reading other's posts as you do in writing your responses to them. Go back and look at my "example" --
"I see it all the time, but never in shorter comparisons, (ie "He is smarter that I am.") where presumably it is more obviously odd sounding."
It is an example of what I never see, not of what I always see.
Google may well be useful in shedding light on this question, but like any other tool, its only as capable as the wielder.
That's astonishing! when did Google start indexing people's spoken speech?;-)
Actually though, I don't hear it in short and simple personal statements like "smarter that I am." It tends to be in longer, more complex non-personal phrases, where presumably the oddness of the usage is masked. Which is "different to" what you are saying!
I've hear this usage on the BBC news (don't remember if it was a reporter though.).
I wonder exactly what "portion of the proceeds" go through to the Wikimedia Foundation?
I hate when companies don't just come out and say it explicitly. It makes me think they might just be paying a penny on the dollar so they can play the "philanthropy" card. I like that Target Corp clearly states that "5% of our profits" go to charity (admittedly, much of this may be in the form of product donations, but still.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Corporation#Philanthropy
Sorry to bring it to your attention. Now that I've pointed it out, you probably will start to hear it (because it is definitely out there.)
Now it will bug you as much as it does me. =-)
AC, glad someone is at least a bit in sync with my thought on this. But you too assume it is just a written mistake. I hear people speak this pattern all the time (and I do want to take the stick of learning to them.)
Your post reminds me of another British pattern I read and hear all the time--
using "different to" rather than "different from"
Does this grate on British ears like it does on mine?
A plausible explanation for written communication.
But if you were to "study what my post said a bit more," you wouldn't assume I was only refering to written communication. =-)
Although people also make mistakes in oral communication, they tend not to be typographic. Your thoughts do not explain why this is also a common spoken habit/pattern for many people (mostly British, in my experience)
Thanks for the post
I was "chilled" before I posted, firefarter. I'm just curious. In your case you say its a typo but I see it frequently and doubt that it can be dismissed as a typo. I assume something more is in play.
In your case not, apparently, but many very articulate people do this as the norm.
Anyone else with an insight?
Off topic, but this always fascinates/annoys me:
firefarter says, "Why not use EXI (Efficent XML Interchange) which has been tested as more efficient that gzip and requires less memory to parse?"
Why do so many people (mostly in the British English tradition) so often use "that" as a comparative in place of "than" ?
Not wanting to nit-pick, just curious why I see it so much.
Is it seen as odd but acceptable? Is it laziness? Is phonic similarity erasing the difference between the two words? Is it just tradition? Also is it, as I think, mostly a British habit?
I see it all the time, but never in shorter comparisons, (ie "He is smarter that I am.") where presumably it is more obviously odd sounding.
Any comments?
I just find that phrase a bit quaint, in the present browser "market."
I can point you to a few browsers you don't have to pay for, if you're interested.
Slashdot Mirror
Good points,
As I see it, it's all about priorities and degree. Communication requires closing the feedback loop and that moves us into a new realm. When the audience can change the signal there is no need for an artist and there effectively is no art. Heading down that path leads one to deem advertisements or the crafty kitch stuff at your local art fair as art. (And there are many who would argue this way. But that looks like an intellectual cul-de-sac to me.)
Also when I said "the art lies more in the conceptualizing than in the coding itself" I was saying that the idea and the specification are where the creative spark is. Coding is a technical execution --more like craft. Unless you are looking at the text of the code and admiring it, I don't think the coding is the art. Typically though, the folks who consider themselves "artists" in this area do everything, soup to nuts.
Sorry. (In editing I failed to delete my first "Why? Because when it becomes about the viewer, the viewer effectively controls or edits the work of the artist." just mentally delete it.)
"What is art" is a such a controversial and little understood area of philosophy (admittedly I don't consider myself adequate to the task really understanding all the issues.)
Coming from the design world (product, exhibit, and interface design,) which are definitely crafts but not art, I'd take exception with you both (TCPF and Iluvcapra) to varying extents. Contrary to how many see it, art is not centrally about "communication." I think most artists would agree that their art is for themselves and that it is about the process rather than the destination or the communication. In the end, if it communicates and/or is appreciated that's great, but its not the point (poetry might be the major exception I can think of.) Why? Because art is about the artist's experience, process, and vision, not those of the viewer.
As soon as it becomes about communicating a message, producing multiple copies, making money, etc. It leaves the realm of art and enters the area of commerce (commonly referred to as "commercial art" or design-- but not really art.) Why? Because when it becomes about the viewer, the viewer effectively controls or edits the work of the artist. The only reason "artists" attend to clients, commissions, and communication success is to obtain money to live and make art. Beyond that it becomes the realm of business etc. Why? Because when it becomes about the viewer, the viewer effectively controls or edits the work of the artist, effectively undermining their vision and process.
That said, there is no reason coding algorithms cannot be a tool or medium of artistic self-expression. It just depends on how it's done and what the intention is (And BTW, I think the art lies more in the conceptualization than in the coding itself.)
The smugness of your response and the fact that you were modded "insightful" just confirms what I said. /. readers would agree with you when you say, "Linux is for a select group of people: those who can use computers." Indeed, my post essentially stated the first part of your assertion. Yet the reality of the world of computer use proves the second part wrong.
A large portion of
In practice a tool is a tool and it serves the user in their tasks. Being an expert user of a tool does not mean you can use it in all possible ways or for all possible purposes. A craftsman does not to build all his tools from scratch or use his tools for all possible crafts.
Many people use computers to do things you are incapable of and to achieve things you cannot even imagine. Does that mean you "cannot use" a computer?
Yes. This whole series of posts with terminal code and "fixes" illustrates exactly why Unbutu will never be the OS of choice for any but a select group of people, much less for serious musicians. (Do I hear skepticism in this "select' forum? more proof.)
Bws111, I suppose you are right to some extent. Some people will always seek to take advantage of any system. And perhaps my incentives are off. But that's where judgement and forensic engineering comes into play.
1.) purposeful destruction would probably be pretty apparent
2.) batteries that barely charge will not explode anyway ( I imagine this iPod touch was probably only slightly out of warrantee and therefore Apple felt like some compensation was in order.)
3.) Apple's recycling program already gives a credit for old iPods, so this is not such a big deal
4.) the nature of circumstances where Apple wants and gets an NDA will not be transparent to abusers since nobody will be talking about it.
Not even Apple gets something for nothing. If they want the iPod back, they need to pay for it. If they want the NDA, they need to pay for it. If the customer in question wants the refund, they need to give something up for that too.
Actually this is not a "simple refund" since the iPod was badly damaged by dropping and was out of warrantee. You can't get a refund on your out-of-warrantee car after you get in a wreck (even if it explodes.) Only if it was negligently designed do you even have a chance, and that does not appear to be an issue here. The exploding battery problem is part and parcel of Li-Ion batteries. Such small and powerful batteries will fail in rare instances, especially when damaged. As we have seen, it will happen with any device.
That said, Apple were stupid not to have addressed it more deftly. They could have offered a prompt replacement with no real skin off of their nose and if they wanted silence they could have sweetened the deal with a $200 (Euro) gift card contingent on the signed NDA. Sounds like these folks still might not have signed it but they would be somewhat happier, Apple would have the damaged iPod, and the haters would have little to whine about.
No, they use American thugs!
You think no part of any american defense contract gets subcontracted to China? I just read about aircraft wiring harnesses being built in China for Boeing.
But your argument is a bit ridiculous anyway. After all, Apple contracted with FoxCon, a Taiwanese company, who has off-shored in China, the Chinese/Taiwanese company has probably outsourced the security, etc. Fact is, shit happens. Shit that Apple cannot control. Abuses happen anywhere, but especially in totalitarian countries. Do you buy Chinese?
Funny that people are blaming Apple.
I highly doubt that Apple's culture of security is anywhere near as onerous as that of a defense contractor or similar "high security" situations.
That said, people see the pretty buildings and scattered affluence of places like China and Russia and they tend to forget that they are totalitarian regimes that have no problem damaging their citizens in any number of ways and with no recourse. Contrary to what many people tend to think, capitalism is not democracy, and the occasional use of ballot boxes are not indicative of freedom.
BTW The "news accounts" say there is video of him jumping from his apartment (is thee really "news," as we know it, in China?) Not having seen the video, I have no idea if it conclusively shows that he jumped or was tossed though.
And why was my first post lost and my second one delayed 15 minutes?
There are two kinds of people: those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.
I totally agree with your observation, but not with either of those two people!
Treating your beliefs with dignity and respect would be too much. What makes your beliefs so precious?
Perhaps you beliefs include child molestation or racism? Perhaps you are a moron or crazy?
How about we just treat you with a measure of respect and dignity but completely and totally ignore your beliefs. You keep them out of our faces and we'll leave you alone so long as you don't hurt anyone.
That should be good enough for everyone -- even "Bible thumping idiots."
Perhaps cyphercell prefers to stand apart from proscriptive, "I know best," dualistic, do-gooders, such as certain believers and atheists? You knowâ"people like you.
Its silly for the game companies to concern themselves with this. Buyers at all points in the market are more likely to buy/pay a higher price since they can have confidence that their investment will retain value due to a healthy secondary market. GM discovered this more than half a century ago when Harley Earl et. al. invented the annual model change.
If anything, they should, as some suggest above, get into the used game market themselves.
Is Windows Inertia (TM) the name the name Microsoft plans to release Windows 7 under?
One way to use Google intelligently:
Search for the phrase, "that instead of than"
The second hit is a page devoted to literacy that contains (in the sidebar) a list of favorite common "misspellings"
There is page that shows Wallace Stevens made the mistake in his (handwritten) correspondence.
There are a whole slew of editorial corrections of this mistake.
This may indicate that it is a common error that is not attributable to a (standard) keyboard ("a" and "e" are 2 fingers and a row away from each other) and therefore its not simply a typo.
conclusion
I'd say Hedwards and the AC win the prize with their "Thinko" hypotheses. It covers written, typed, and spoken instances.
Wildo, the snark is all yours (are you emoticon aware?)
You seem to take as little care in reading other's posts as you do in writing your responses to them. Go back and look at my "example" --
"I see it all the time, but never in shorter comparisons, (ie "He is smarter that I am.") where presumably it is more obviously odd sounding."
It is an example of what I never see, not of what I always see.
Google may well be useful in shedding light on this question, but like any other tool, its only as capable as the wielder.
That's astonishing! when did Google start indexing people's spoken speech? ;-)
Actually though, I don't hear it in short and simple personal statements like "smarter that I am." It tends to be in longer, more complex non-personal phrases, where presumably the oddness of the usage is masked. Which is "different to" what you are saying!
I've hear this usage on the BBC news (don't remember if it was a reporter though.).
I wonder exactly what "portion of the proceeds" go through to the Wikimedia Foundation?
I hate when companies don't just come out and say it explicitly. It makes me think they might just be paying a penny on the dollar so they can play the "philanthropy" card. I like that Target Corp clearly states that "5% of our profits" go to charity (admittedly, much of this may be in the form of product donations, but still.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Corporation#Philanthropy
Sorry to bring it to your attention. Now that I've pointed it out, you probably will start to hear it (because it is definitely out there.)
Now it will bug you as much as it does me. =-)
AC, glad someone is at least a bit in sync with my thought on this. But you too assume it is just a written mistake. I hear people speak this pattern all the time (and I do want to take the stick of learning to them.)
Your post reminds me of another British pattern I read and hear all the time--
using "different to" rather than "different from"
Does this grate on British ears like it does on mine?
A plausible explanation for written communication.
But if you were to "study what my post said a bit more," you wouldn't assume I was only refering to written communication. =-)
Although people also make mistakes in oral communication, they tend not to be typographic. Your thoughts do not explain why this is also a common spoken habit/pattern for many people (mostly British, in my experience)
Thanks for the post
I was "chilled" before I posted, firefarter. I'm just curious. In your case you say its a typo but I see it frequently and doubt that it can be dismissed as a typo. I assume something more is in play.
In your case not, apparently, but many very articulate people do this as the norm.
Anyone else with an insight?
Off topic, but this always fascinates/annoys me:
firefarter says, "Why not use EXI (Efficent XML Interchange) which has been tested as more efficient that gzip and requires less memory to parse?"
Why do so many people (mostly in the British English tradition) so often use "that" as a comparative in place of "than" ?
Not wanting to nit-pick, just curious why I see it so much.
Is it seen as odd but acceptable? Is it laziness? Is phonic similarity erasing the difference between the two words? Is it just tradition? Also is it, as I think, mostly a British habit?
I see it all the time, but never in shorter comparisons, (ie "He is smarter that I am.") where presumably it is more obviously odd sounding.
Any comments?
I just find that phrase a bit quaint, in the present browser "market." I can point you to a few browsers you don't have to pay for, if you're interested.