I'm not comparing it to nuclear, I'm comparing it to internal combustion gas engines, which aren't too terribly efficient to start with. And then you're adding another system on top of that.
Well, then it's my Christian duty to share Mr. Gates' burden. I'll be delighted to carry the bigger part of the load. Bill, you just send that check, and I'll start hauling your burden.
There is no such thing as free energy. It doesn't exist.
The power that runs these systems is generated by the combustion of gasoline in the cars, and passes through the transmission and the differential and the axles and the tires and this generator contraption. Doesn't sound like terribly efficient power generation to me.
I don't necessarily agree that artists commanded great wealth in the past. Yes, successful artists can make ends meat, even become rich, but really fabulous wealth comes from industrialists or conquest of neighboring countries.
Patronage, by definition, requires somebody who is much more wealthy than the artist to pay the artist's bills. Nice situation to be in, to be sure, but that's not great wealth.
"but the education system could have made it a little easier, thankyouverymuch. "
Great thinkers, by definition, aren't hampered by an "education system". They learn for love of learning, not because some teacher will punish them if they don't. That sort of ethic comes from parents and mentors, not from the government.
"Art has taken a knock from Science over the last century"
I still don't buy it. Sure, there are scientists who might not understand or appreciate certain forms of art (like I say, I really don't get ballet or modern dance), but lots of artists think that science as a whole is bad. Scientific learning is not rewarded the way artisits and athletes are. We are in a society that only exists because of advanced scientific knowledge, but the scientists are cultural outcasts. Why?
"you also know more more "scientists" than you do "artists". "
Not true. I'm a musician and a poor dancer, and I have a number of family members who are professional painters of various stripe.
As a scientist, you can be sure that I'm capable of simple arithmetic.
There is a tremendous difference between somebody who can play a clarinet and somebody who can build a clarinet. I'll give you long odds that the proportion of clarinet builders who can play is much higher than clarinet players who can build one.
Cultural difference? Of course it's a cultural difference. That's what we're talking about here. I don't understand why there's this cultural assertion that artists are somehow more important than scientists. I'm REALLY not clear why athletes are currently on top of the heap.
So, I'm not really sure what you're after.
"Science knocking Art off it's perch as the most profitable solo path to wealth and glory."
I think that's madness. Only very recently have artists (actors specifically) had the ability to amass wealth. Patronage is not the same as wealth generation.
Let me put it to you this way. I know a lot more scientists and technical people who are also artists (frequently musicians) than I know artists who are also technically minded.
I'm interested in lots of fields of human endeavor. There are many people who aren't, and think it's important to assert the value of their own field of endeavor over others'.
I don't understand ballet, but I do acknowledge its value.
It's often a distinction drawn by artists to de-value and de-humanize scientists, and as a scientist, I don't accept it.
I certainly agree that some scientists de-value artists, but I've never heard one attempt to assert that artists' pursuits are not human.
The things that make us the same are far more important and interesting than the things that make us different. Those that disagree are often the ones who profit from human strife.
I just don't buy that you can get unforced, accurate, emotional responses out of people in a scientific study. Particularly since I'm not sure what an "accurate" emotional response would be like, anyway.
Can emotion be quantified? Maybe. Not with hamfisted tools like these.
Any artist that does not want his art to be thought about or analyzed or considered by other people is free to not show it to anybody.
I think this program is silly because it's analyzing the emotions of a fabricated character, not because it's taking some "mystery" out of art.
"Some things just need to be appreciated and enjoyed for what they are."
Oh yeah? Which things am I not supposed to think about, and consider according to my own internal value structure? How do you know when you've got the kind of thing that should or shouldn't just be appreciated? Are there things that should just be UNappreciated? Are we supposed to ask you?
How are machines built by humans that do things humans program them to do not human?
The 'human habitat' is everything that humans have ever done or seen or thought about. That includes art, science, and machines. Any distinction attempting to separate one from the other is specious.
"Again, you can verify your reliability fairly well by MRI."
Well, you can get reliable data on people who happen to be in MRI machines, but that's hardly the same as people sitting in a park or watching a movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Why listen to the traffic engineers when they can shorten the yellows and collect more money for their red light cameras?
I wish that were just a paranoid fantasy, but it's been happening nation wide.
I'm not comparing it to nuclear, I'm comparing it to internal combustion gas engines, which aren't too terribly efficient to start with. And then you're adding another system on top of that.
Adding more systems rarely improves efficiency.
It's easy for a man who never had to worry about money to not value money. He came from a rich family, and became even richer.
Why am I supposed to get all dewy-eyed again?
"Being rich must be a burden"
Well, then it's my Christian duty to share Mr. Gates' burden. I'll be delighted to carry the bigger part of the load. Bill, you just send that check, and I'll start hauling your burden.
There is no such thing as free energy. It doesn't exist.
The power that runs these systems is generated by the combustion of gasoline in the cars, and passes through the transmission and the differential and the axles and the tires and this generator contraption. Doesn't sound like terribly efficient power generation to me.
"make ends meat, "
Wow. I must be hungry. Typo!
I don't necessarily agree that artists commanded great wealth in the past. Yes, successful artists can make ends meat, even become rich, but really fabulous wealth comes from industrialists or conquest of neighboring countries.
Patronage, by definition, requires somebody who is much more wealthy than the artist to pay the artist's bills. Nice situation to be in, to be sure, but that's not great wealth.
"but the education system could have made it a little easier, thankyouverymuch. "
Great thinkers, by definition, aren't hampered by an "education system". They learn for love of learning, not because some teacher will punish them if they don't. That sort of ethic comes from parents and mentors, not from the government.
"Art has taken a knock from Science over the last century"
I still don't buy it. Sure, there are scientists who might not understand or appreciate certain forms of art (like I say, I really don't get ballet or modern dance), but lots of artists think that science as a whole is bad. Scientific learning is not rewarded the way artisits and athletes are. We are in a society that only exists because of advanced scientific knowledge, but the scientists are cultural outcasts. Why?
"you also know more more "scientists" than you do "artists". "
Not true. I'm a musician and a poor dancer, and I have a number of family members who are professional painters of various stripe.
As a scientist, you can be sure that I'm capable of simple arithmetic.
There is a tremendous difference between somebody who can play a clarinet and somebody who can build a clarinet. I'll give you long odds that the proportion of clarinet builders who can play is much higher than clarinet players who can build one.
Cultural difference? Of course it's a cultural difference. That's what we're talking about here. I don't understand why there's this cultural assertion that artists are somehow more important than scientists. I'm REALLY not clear why athletes are currently on top of the heap.
So, I'm not really sure what you're after.
"Science knocking Art off it's perch as the most profitable solo path to wealth and glory."
I think that's madness. Only very recently have artists (actors specifically) had the ability to amass wealth. Patronage is not the same as wealth generation.
Indeed. And the problem is the responsibility of you (the addict), not anybody else.
Nobody ever breaks somebody else's addiction. As the twelve step programs you cite say: The first step is to admit that you have a problem.
If you don't do that, no amount of "help" is going to make the problem go away.
Let me put it to you this way. I know a lot more scientists and technical people who are also artists (frequently musicians) than I know artists who are also technically minded.
I'm interested in lots of fields of human endeavor. There are many people who aren't, and think it's important to assert the value of their own field of endeavor over others'.
I don't understand ballet, but I do acknowledge its value.
It's often a distinction drawn by artists to de-value and de-humanize scientists, and as a scientist, I don't accept it.
I certainly agree that some scientists de-value artists, but I've never heard one attempt to assert that artists' pursuits are not human.
The things that make us the same are far more important and interesting than the things that make us different. Those that disagree are often the ones who profit from human strife.
Kinda like "banananananananana".
Define "preying".
AOL does not eat old people.
What a despicable thing to say. It's almost like he didn't even read the Oath of Office before he started his campaign.
I knew that he thought some people had too much freedom, but...damn.
I'm sure glad I'm not him. I don't care what his resume looks like...he's still a broken human being.
I'd rather have integrity than power. That's why I'll never have power.
"Proposing that the law be upheld is not proper grounds for issuing a warrant"
You must be new here.
Preach on, brother. You've got my vote.
Fair enough. Social science has never been my forte. I prefer metal I can bend. : )
I just don't buy that you can get unforced, accurate, emotional responses out of people in a scientific study. Particularly since I'm not sure what an "accurate" emotional response would be like, anyway.
Can emotion be quantified? Maybe. Not with hamfisted tools like these.
Any artist that does not want his art to be thought about or analyzed or considered by other people is free to not show it to anybody.
I think this program is silly because it's analyzing the emotions of a fabricated character, not because it's taking some "mystery" out of art.
"Some things just need to be appreciated and enjoyed for what they are."
Oh yeah? Which things am I not supposed to think about, and consider according to my own internal value structure? How do you know when you've got the kind of thing that should or shouldn't just be appreciated? Are there things that should just be UNappreciated? Are we supposed to ask you?
How is science not human?
How are machines built by humans that do things humans program them to do not human?
The 'human habitat' is everything that humans have ever done or seen or thought about. That includes art, science, and machines. Any distinction attempting to separate one from the other is specious.
"Again, you can verify your reliability fairly well by MRI."
Well, you can get reliable data on people who happen to be in MRI machines, but that's hardly the same as people sitting in a park or watching a movie.
"except when they were able to abuse the power of Congress in their favor."
Except for the fact that you're dead, getting murdered isn't so bad...
Seriously, what other monopoly power do you need?
Then you're doing it wrong.
Let's start with spelling "accurate" right.