Just watch the damn movie!:) It was made by the former head of Factory Records.
I'm not a huge fan of Ian's vocals, but he does a good job on a few of the more eerie tracks like Dead Souls (and if you don't like his vocals there, I challenge you to say Trent Reznor's intonation is any better -- ick!).
Quoting All Music Guide:
Still collects outtakes and rarities along with a live set recorded on May 2, 1980, just over two weeks prior to Ian Curtis' death. In addition to the atmospheric Glass and the haunting funeral march "Dead Souls," the studio sides include four leftover tracks from the sessions for Unknown Pleasures, while the concert set includes performances of seminal tracks such as "Transmission," "Isolation," and "A Means to an End." Although neither as cogent nor as indispensible as the band's two studio records or the Substance compilation, Still is nonetheless a valuable chronicle of Joy Division's remarkable evolution, a growth charted by the inclusion of an early live cover of the Velvet Underground's "Sister Ray" to the only recorded version of the hypnotic "Ceremony," the ultimate Ian Curtis composition which later resurfaced as the first single from New Order. Jason Ankeny
Yeah, I tend to agree if the band doesn't have a cohesive idea about their sound. Two different sorts of examples:
Garbage: a band of producers plus a singer/lyricist. QUALITY sound.
Joy Division: if you believe 24 Hour Party People, Joy Division became so influential in the Manchester scene solely due to the producer's expertise in crafting their sound.
I agree. Gilmour is prone to sappy lyrics and lacks the "concert" or "calliope" or "dramatic" sort of presence that Waters brought to the sound. That said, Waters is still an arse hole and I totally understand why they broke up.;)
Heh, I know. But I also know you, Lessig, and I have many less dollars to spend on Congresscritters than Disney et al. Thus, I thought a compromise position was in order.
I snail-mailed and e-mailed my Congresscritters yesterday. The short version of it is:
Thousands of books, films, and characters will be lost forever just so Disney and a few others can make some more money. Please require registration to keep a copyright on all works older than, say, 1950.
When I first heard about this I went and dug up some articles on google. One argued from indirect evidence that the speed of gravity >= 2 * 10^10 * c. (man, I wish I everyone had MathML...). This meant that a gravity drive could theoretically go faster than c. Soooo... I'm wondering if the whole gravity drive thing is bunk now.
You can also revoke a corporation's charter in any given U.S. state and liquidate its assets. The problem is that state legislatures and judges are either too afraid to do it or don't know that's well within their rights (and I'd add, their duty to the public). Sure, the guys at the top will probably try to save as much cash as they can as it goes down, but it's much easier to track people who are visibly worried. Of course, businesses make business-level mistakes and the market will punish them for those. But the market won't necessarily be able to clean up all the toxic spills, illegally denied insurance claims, and other abuses taken for granted by those who assume some fundamental right to do business despite the human cost, i.e., the cost to other humans. The corporate charter is a contract with the public that in exchange for limited liability in certain areas, they'll be free to experiment, hire people, and make some dough. That contract is invalid when people suffer from intentional abuse or gross negligence.
I consider myself a lowercase 'l' libertarian progressive,
-l
The most important educational software I ever used was:
Logo (i.e., turtle graphics programming)
Oregon Trail
Logo taught me about controlling the computer and doing fun stuff with it that didn't come prepackaged. Oregon Trail taught me to enjoy working with the computer and in groups with other kids in solving basic problems (e.g., whether to float or ford the river, etc.).
We didn't use these in the classroom, though, but in the computer lab. I don't see how they can be reasonably integrated into the classroom with class sizes as small as they are (small compared to college lectures, e.g., where a laptop with diagrams and whatnot the prof is looking at can be a helpful aid).
which of course is why it's hard to accept that our own subjective experience is really only the sum of the analyzable factors that we know it is!
Assuming that by "analyzable factors" you mean "reducible to a decidable logic", I guess that's the assumption I haven't bought all these years. I'm not a Continental, a Christian, or anything like that (i.e., I don't have any axes to grind)... it just seems incorrect somehow. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" and all of that. While I agree that math has been a very useful tool in understanding and modeling the universe so far, I haven't seen any proofs for a decidable logic being able to accurately model all of the universe's phenomena.
I guess it's just the damn empiricist in me acting up.:)
-l
p.s., and don't start in with the Fibonacci sequence in nature.;) I know ALL about that!
Fascinating! Well, it's good to know I'm not the only skeptic about the universe being perfectly logical and modelable. But what it appears that you're saying is that if you attempted to model all these interactions inside a giant computer with good sensors and whatnot, decompiling the assembler code generated from its perceptions of color would tell you nothing about the computer's experience of color (i.e., it's not modelable in a first order, decidable language). Instead, you'd have to use a heuristic methodology of comparison, testing, statistical likelihood, etc. to get that data.
Does that sound right? Or am I missing something obvious (again) ? -l
You might suppose that, but how would you know? You could check the behavior... but what does the behavior tell you? Nothing more than mimicked version.
Incidently note also that what you see a color as isn't going to be precisely what I see it as - we may agree on things like "green's a bit like blue and a bit like yellow" that are based on the underlying transducers and brain architecture, but what the color actually looks/feels like is going to be as personal as any other experiental phenomena.
Which is exactly the part I care about in my argument.:) I'm not claiming you can't mimic the behavioral response to color spaces, I'm claiming that the phenomenalogical experience may not be able to be duplicated in a given model.
I recognize that what you call "green" I might call "orange" but since we're always consistent about it, we never knew we saw them differently... Now extend that problem from the human to the other (cat, computer, etc.). You are likely to have a much greater difference in interpretation. You may think duplicating the response to stimulus is sufficient, but I say "dammit, I paid for a box of chocolates, not a box of sand. I demand chocolate!" After all, what good is a model if it doesn't accurately model?
1) Dark Energy: Does anyone else believe that perhaps dark energy simply does not exist, and our laws of physics and what-not are just totally untrue anywhere except on Earth?
Sorta. It's definitely a thought experiment I've considered, if not a first order belief. Part of the problem of being localized in spacetime is that you have to extrapolate based on what you know, what radiation you receive, etc... it's a simple filtration process (or heuristic) that humans use every day in dealing with the world -- i.e., that you extrapolate universals from less than universal data.
For example, I often think to myself "Why doesn't the universe just poof out of existence? If not now, why couldn't it happen in the future? After all, past performance is no guaranty of future success." The conclusion, borrowing a useful heuristic of the philosophy of science, seems to be that "lacking evidence to the contrary, go with what you do know." Thus, we extrapolate from our local data. When new data arrives, you revise.
For me, a more pressing issue is quantum-mathematical reductionism and its influence on artificial intelligence research. How the hell do you define "red" in a purely logical/mathematical system? It's a meatspace interpretation of wavelength... I just don't see how an AI could ever understand red qua red. Oh sure, sensors can detect the wavelength of red, but could an AI actually see red as I see it? That's the crux of the issue and I'm concerned that mathematical/logical systems will not be able to model such things.
...carry that argument to its logical conclusion: repeal of the 2nd ammendment. Twisting its interpretation into obscurity merely invites other special interests to use similar techniques on the parts of the Bill of Rights that we still care about.
Thank you! That's a nicely put critique of the "living Constitution" theory. We have a decent enough amendment process; there's no point in watering the interpretation down so that anyone in power can just reinterpret whatever they like to suit their fancy without adequate debate and process.
I tried explaining this to a couple girls I'd gone out with a couple years ago. They thought it was weird, back then, but these days it seems to be kosher. Anyway, it shows you're interested enough in her to make an effort. If she's not a paranoiac or one of those girls inculcated with victimhood, she shouldn't mind when you tell her.
Actually, it was 17th century b/c he was born in 1596... damn Columbus muddling my memory. Shoulda googled first.
But yeah, I consider Descartes' solution unique. I can't think of any other philosopher who turned skepticism on its head like that, i.e., that you can't doubt that you're doubting. If you can, I'd like to hear it!
Nah, it was definitely Rene Descartes in the 15th century. Cogito ergo sum. He wrote the original in Latin and translated it into his native French. Descartes was looking for a justification for the reliability of the New Science. It was important that the New Science be justified so that its discoveries could be considered universal truth, not just whimsy, educated guesses, or subject to devilish deception. Although the problem set (i.e., human fallibility) occurred to the Greeks, they didn't get much further than Aristotle's devising of syllogism and logic in the 4th century BCE.
People have always had doubts about their perceptual and evaluative abilities, but as far as we know, Descartes was the first to present that particular solution.
I enjoy Apache/mod_perl/HTML::Mason development... I don't know any Perl people who use CGI.pm for anything serious except maybe the param() convenience function.
nodnod... I'm more a fan of the Knesset system. My Modern Israel professor doesn't like it -- he thinks it gives the minorities too much power to hamstring majority goals. But I think coalition-building is more effective in ensuring the voices of the minorities are heard, especially on issues the majority just doesn't care about. Besides, if a majority goal is stuck by a handful of votes, one wonders about the quality of the public mandate for that goal...
Referendum and Initiative are best for changing overall policy direction. I hate micromanagement elections, too, but I still see the value in having referenda (gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, etc.). This is probably because I live in a two-party, winner-take-all system which has little impetus for macro-level policy changes...
Slashdot Mirror
http://music.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.a sp?userid=2XDI5PBLG5&ean=75992649520
-l
Its not the recording, its the producer.
Yeah, I tend to agree if the band doesn't have a cohesive idea about their sound. Two different sorts of examples:
Garbage: a band of producers plus a singer/lyricist. QUALITY sound.
Joy Division: if you believe 24 Hour Party People, Joy Division became so influential in the Manchester scene solely due to the producer's expertise in crafting their sound.
So, anyway, yeah. :)
-l
I agree. Gilmour is prone to sappy lyrics and lacks the "concert" or "calliope" or "dramatic" sort of presence that Waters brought to the sound. That said, Waters is still an arse hole and I totally understand why they broke up. ;)
-l
-l
Heh, I know. But I also know you, Lessig, and I have many less dollars to spend on Congresscritters than Disney et al. Thus, I thought a compromise position was in order.
-l
I snail-mailed and e-mailed my Congresscritters yesterday. The short version of it is:
Something like that...
-l
Excellent...
-l
When I first heard about this I went and dug up some articles on google. One argued from indirect evidence that the speed of gravity >= 2 * 10^10 * c. (man, I wish I everyone had MathML...). This meant that a gravity drive could theoretically go faster than c. Soooo... I'm wondering if the whole gravity drive thing is bunk now.
-l
I consider myself a lowercase 'l' libertarian progressive,
-l
The most important educational software I ever used was:
Logo taught me about controlling the computer and doing fun stuff with it that didn't come prepackaged. Oregon Trail taught me to enjoy working with the computer and in groups with other kids in solving basic problems (e.g., whether to float or ford the river, etc.).
We didn't use these in the classroom, though, but in the computer lab. I don't see how they can be reasonably integrated into the classroom with class sizes as small as they are (small compared to college lectures, e.g., where a laptop with diagrams and whatnot the prof is looking at can be a helpful aid).
-l
Ah, ok, I see from whence you come. Thanks for this thread, it's been a pleasure. :)
-l
Assuming that by "analyzable factors" you mean "reducible to a decidable logic", I guess that's the assumption I haven't bought all these years. I'm not a Continental, a Christian, or anything like that (i.e., I don't have any axes to grind)... it just seems incorrect somehow. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" and all of that. While I agree that math has been a very useful tool in understanding and modeling the universe so far, I haven't seen any proofs for a decidable logic being able to accurately model all of the universe's phenomena.
I guess it's just the damn empiricist in me acting up. :)
-l
p.s., and don't start in with the Fibonacci sequence in nature. ;) I know ALL about that!
Fascinating! Well, it's good to know I'm not the only skeptic about the universe being perfectly logical and modelable. But what it appears that you're saying is that if you attempted to model all these interactions inside a giant computer with good sensors and whatnot, decompiling the assembler code generated from its perceptions of color would tell you nothing about the computer's experience of color (i.e., it's not modelable in a first order, decidable language). Instead, you'd have to use a heuristic methodology of comparison, testing, statistical likelihood, etc. to get that data.
Does that sound right? Or am I missing something obvious (again) ?
-l
You might suppose that, but how would you know? You could check the behavior... but what does the behavior tell you? Nothing more than mimicked version.
:)
AFAICT.
-l
Which is exactly the part I care about in my argument. :) I'm not claiming you can't mimic the behavioral response to color spaces, I'm claiming that the phenomenalogical experience may not be able to be duplicated in a given model.
I recognize that what you call "green" I might call "orange" but since we're always consistent about it, we never knew we saw them differently... Now extend that problem from the human to the other (cat, computer, etc.). You are likely to have a much greater difference in interpretation. You may think duplicating the response to stimulus is sufficient, but I say "dammit, I paid for a box of chocolates, not a box of sand. I demand chocolate!" After all, what good is a model if it doesn't accurately model?
Cheers,
-l
Sorta. It's definitely a thought experiment I've considered, if not a first order belief. Part of the problem of being localized in spacetime is that you have to extrapolate based on what you know, what radiation you receive, etc... it's a simple filtration process (or heuristic) that humans use every day in dealing with the world -- i.e., that you extrapolate universals from less than universal data.
For example, I often think to myself "Why doesn't the universe just poof out of existence? If not now, why couldn't it happen in the future? After all, past performance is no guaranty of future success." The conclusion, borrowing a useful heuristic of the philosophy of science, seems to be that "lacking evidence to the contrary, go with what you do know." Thus, we extrapolate from our local data. When new data arrives, you revise.
For me, a more pressing issue is quantum-mathematical reductionism and its influence on artificial intelligence research. How the hell do you define "red" in a purely logical/mathematical system? It's a meatspace interpretation of wavelength... I just don't see how an AI could ever understand red qua red. Oh sure, sensors can detect the wavelength of red, but could an AI actually see red as I see it? That's the crux of the issue and I'm concerned that mathematical/logical systems will not be able to model such things.
/dev/random
-l
Thank you! That's a nicely put critique of the "living Constitution" theory. We have a decent enough amendment process; there's no point in watering the interpretation down so that anyone in power can just reinterpret whatever they like to suit their fancy without adequate debate and process.
Cheers,
-l
Episode title: "Interfection"
m e.com/AquaTeenHungerForce/season2. html#ep14
http://www.athf.com/guide.html
http://www.tvto
I can't help but wonder if Nielson was thinking of this episode with that cartoon of pop-up hell...
-l
I tried explaining this to a couple girls I'd gone out with a couple years ago. They thought it was weird, back then, but these days it seems to be kosher. Anyway, it shows you're interested enough in her to make an effort. If she's not a paranoiac or one of those girls inculcated with victimhood, she shouldn't mind when you tell her.
$0.02,
-l
Actually, it was 17th century b/c he was born in 1596... damn Columbus muddling my memory. Shoulda googled first.
But yeah, I consider Descartes' solution unique. I can't think of any other philosopher who turned skepticism on its head like that, i.e., that you can't doubt that you're doubting. If you can, I'd like to hear it!
-l
Nah, it was definitely Rene Descartes in the 15th century. Cogito ergo sum. He wrote the original in Latin and translated it into his native French. Descartes was looking for a justification for the reliability of the New Science. It was important that the New Science be justified so that its discoveries could be considered universal truth, not just whimsy, educated guesses, or subject to devilish deception. Although the problem set (i.e., human fallibility) occurred to the Greeks, they didn't get much further than Aristotle's devising of syllogism and logic in the 4th century BCE.
People have always had doubts about their perceptual and evaluative abilities, but as far as we know, Descartes was the first to present that particular solution.
-l
I got your joke. I was laughing my ass off. :)
-l
How long ago were you there? Just curious.
I enjoy Apache/mod_perl/HTML::Mason development... I don't know any Perl people who use CGI.pm for anything serious except maybe the param() convenience function.
Not a zealot.
-l
nodnod... I'm more a fan of the Knesset system. My Modern Israel professor doesn't like it -- he thinks it gives the minorities too much power to hamstring majority goals. But I think coalition-building is more effective in ensuring the voices of the minorities are heard, especially on issues the majority just doesn't care about. Besides, if a majority goal is stuck by a handful of votes, one wonders about the quality of the public mandate for that goal...
-l
Referendum and Initiative are best for changing overall policy direction. I hate micromanagement elections, too, but I still see the value in having referenda (gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, etc.). This is probably because I live in a two-party, winner-take-all system which has little impetus for macro-level policy changes...
Cheers,
-l