Most recent stats I could find were from 1994, so these are a little out of date, but I think that one would have a hard time arguing that these numbers have done anything but increase since then.
98% of American Households have a television
80% have a VCR
Now, I am not suggesting that having a TV is a *good* thing, but rather I think that speaks to the overall status of the household. If you can afford "luxury items" you can afford things like food.
Contrast this with (well, pick any county *without* a strong economy). Take your poor person from that country, and ask them if they would like to be poor in a place like the US that has a strong economy. Now tell them you line about the the "richest 5%." Now ask them again under which economy would they rather be poor.
That just is *NOT* true. Malthus made fundamental errors in his reasoning. We are producing more food using fewer people to do it with and we are feeding many more with it than ever before. (Compare the figures of % (or #'s) of population in agrarian pursuits 100 years ago in this country vs. modern day and it is dramatic. Yet we feed more (ie, dramatic population growth).)
A good deal of the starvation on this planet has political causes.
For example, think of Ethiopia and all of the starving people we "helped" with the likes of LiveAid. In truth most of these people were a political underclass that were forced off their land into less habitable land.
This is a much easier and less messy (although slower) way to practice genocide.
And how do you expect these people to learn about clean water, stricter environmental regulations and general health and sanitation, without a computer and the internet???
.
I'm *half* serious here. You increase the discourse, you increase the exposure that people have to ideas like these. I understand that there are impediments, like training the people to use the things, but
"Give a village a Peace corp worker and they have clean water for a month. Give a village a computer and internet and they can learn to discuss this stuff on usenet for a lifetime."
Private house (like the example of thermal scanning) = Private
Public street = Public
You have *no* expectation of privacy if you are walking down a city sidewalk. You make your face "publicly accessible" to all those in line-of-sight (and your voice is "publicly accessible" to those in earshot). The argument can be made that you implicitly surrender you right to privacy by being in a public place. If you don't want others to see you (scan your face) then don't go out in public.
While I am at it, here is a link for Erin Grey's "Filmography": http://us.imdb.com/Name?Gray,+Erin. No picture of her there, but all it takes is a quick trip to google to pull up hundreds...
Yeah, you I think you are correct, but,... what is the old saying about how "you can't un-ring a bell"? Any requests that do go through before you can opt-out, cannont be "pulled back." Who knows what the company that requested them will do with the information once they get it. They have no responsibility to you and they can sell/use it however they wish. So at that point you can write off the info as being in the public domain.
But, as other readers have pointed out, banks pretty much don't care as it is, so who is to say that all of the information isn't out there anyway...
Would they really have to give them the password? I think the nature of the categories dictates that you (subject) inform the study of *why* you choose a password (or what it means), rather than what it is.
For example, if you were given a password of "Marilyn" would that be "Fan" (Monroe, Manson?) or possibly "family"? (Aunt Marilyn) Or what if your Aunt *was* Marilyn Monroe?? (Or Manson?)
Marilyn, while mostly obvious, is more clear cut than a lot of other potential passwords. I think they probably had a series of multiple choice questions or the researches had to spend enough time with each subject to interview them.
You can opt-out anytime you wish, but it is my understanding that if you elect to do so after the deadline, it is too late "to close the barn door" on any info already shared. Thus, you can only then keep new info from being distributed.
I understand the distinction that you are making here, and perhaps saying "art which happpens to have been created on a computer" might be better - if not more wordy - than "computer-generated art." However, if the posts are to be used as a guide, you are one of the few people that this distinction became an issue for. There has to be a better way of phrasing the concept, but until we can figure out what that is, I am content with "computer-generated art."
But I did wish to take issue with the notion (which you alluded to) that there is such a thing as art generated by a computer. I think a fundamental aspect of art is an expression on the part of the creator (and I choose the term "creator" over artist here to indicate that there is a process of purposeful action - creation - in the (physical) world) of their world view. Art is an attempt at comminication between inside the head of an artist and my/your head.
As such, images created by a computer, although they might be pretty and can be hung on a wall, cannot be art as they are not an expression of a "world view" or "sense of life" (both of which are a product of being a consciousness (ie fallibility)).
By the same token, a field of grass or the Grand Canyon should not be called art. They are both pleasing to the eye, but there is no purposeful expression behind them.
And I too have problems with the argument that: all new art = objectionable, therefore, objectionable = new art. While it is true that some new expressions of art have met with considerable resistance, there are more that haven't. And, as with anything apart from the status quo, there will always be some portion of the population that will object.
Besides, in the example of "Picasso as an outsider rectified by history," the objection was made at the style he used for expression, not the tools, as would be claimed against the computer artist.
I think you are missing a major component to your answer. Art just isn't "pretty things." There is an element of creativity in art. Art is something that is created. Art isn't just something that happens. Although you might find beauty in the manner in which, for example, elements combine to form a new substance or even in a sunset, you would be hard pressed to call that art.
(If you tried to make that argument, all of a sudden *everything* becomes "art" and the term looses all meaning. When we express a concept we do so as it differentiates it from everything that is *not* that concept. To use a word, and for that matter, for it to have meaning, it must mean something -- which by corollary implies that it doesn't mean everything else.)
So one of the characteristics of art is that it is the product of a creative process (or, perhaps the process itself in some meta understanding).
As a function of being creative in nature, it becomes the expression of some "sense of life" or world view of the "artist" or creator. The artist attempts to communicate something (grand, small, or anywhere in between) in his head by acting purposely in/on the world around him.
At this point you can now add your definition of the subjective enjoyment state of the viewer if you wish. I think I will aviod it as the above definition I set out above covers a bit more ground and is more functional.
I *must* however take complete issue with your statement that I don't think there should ever be one person or a group of people to define whether or not something is really art. OF COURSE we *must* attempt to have some co-understanding of what things mean. Language is only useful as a communication tool if there is some degree of shared understanding. We (as a people who use language) *should* strive to refine our understanding of words. Without this there is no communication and all utterances are nonsense.
If you made that statment as a qualification to allow for all subjective understandings of art, allow me to suggest that the definition I put forth above side-steps the issue of "eye of the beholder" whilst still allowing a large scope to the concept of art.
Disclaimer: Defining art is about as easy as nailing Jell-o to a wall. That said...
Art = The creative expression of an idividual's world view or sense of life.
I think most computer-generated art would fall under this definition. Graphic Design probably wouldn't.
Aside from the issue that graphic design is less creative and more restrictive (no flames, please -- graphic designers work with a common body of elements to produce output, whereas computer-generated art starts with a "clean canvas") there is more of a sense of graphic design being restricted to an application of technical skills as opposed to purely creative skills. [Although they both have creative *and* technical skills to some degree, each one favors a different side of the fence.]
Add to that the notion that art in general is about the expression of the artist's sense of life while the graphic design is about communicating the message of,... well, what ever is being designed for, be it an ad for soap or a corp. ID.
*However* people seem to think that putting up several thousand umbrellas on two coasts = art and I don't think your "art critics" are going to advance the argument that Christo isn't an artist. (They would be drummed right out of the guild.)
I seem to remember that coral is a lot lighter than granite or sandstone
Yeah, 1,000 pounds of coral is a *lot* lighter than 1,000 pounds of granite.
In what I just read about the Coral Castle, most everything was discussed in terms of weight, not volume. So it doesn't matter if coral is lighter - just means that the blocks are bigger.
______
Re:It is a good and a bad thing at the same time..
on
Google Plans an IPO
·
· Score: 1
when being a "portal" was the next big thing. Well most people now understand that that whole idea is dead.
But, gee... It *can't* be dead, because Netscape has just declared itself to be a portal and no longer a browser company...
Of course you can opt out of their support program: Buy a box from someone else.
Some people sell hardware, others sell service/experience/deisgn/whatever (with the harware thrown in). If you want just the hardware, buy it elsewhere or build it yourself. But don't whine when a company that sells more than just atoms won't change their business plan to cater to your every desire. Take your dollars elsewhere.
Anyone here ever run and 802.11 net on the plane. (Someone *has* to have by now.) How well did it work? What distance? What speed? Did you try two people at either end of the plane? (I imagine the signal would bounce around a lot in the metal tube.)
What was your frame rate like? How many frags? (Don't lie and tell me the first thing you didn't do was to run a DeathMatch.)
Any other details???
I wanna try, but I either fly alone or, if the gf is there, she is right next to me, so that really isn't a test if the laptops are 4" away.
Heck. I'll just set up my laptop as a basestation. Resell the connection "service" to the people around me for less than the airline charges. Make enough to buy drinks for the whole flight...
So, what happens when a traveller opens his laptop and sees two different 802.11 networks to log on to? He will probably just pick the first one in the list. Imagine the fun that can be had acting as an "inflight ISP." (Logging, rerouting, etc)
Give the airline about a year before they finally catch on.
I have a few rental stores in my area, but they are all BlockBuster. BLockbuster killed all of the Mom&Pop's in my area.
What I am left with is the film choices of BLockBuster Management. Great! I can rent 400 copies of Jurasic Park VII or I can choose from the 4 independent/foreign films they stock. (Mind you, I am not comparing this to pay-per-view, whose selection is none better. NetFlix on the other hand tries to stock every DVD ever made. Better choice.)
And to some degree, *picking up the film* isn't as much of a problem. Other than (in SoCal) finding parking, dealing with lines 15 deep and only two people on register, picking through the picked through generic selection under those horrible fluorescent lights, and making one more (semi-)useless trip in my car.
You *always* have enough time to rent a film. I never seem to have enough time to return them. Too many fires to put out, and next thing you know, you ran out of hours in the day. Then I wind up paying late fees. Hence the NETFLIX.com.
"Troll"?? You say that like that is a bad thing...
Seriously, my days are such that I get very little time at home. I paid all that money for a house to not be able to enjoy the comfort of it. When I worked out of my office at home, I would have been looking for more excuses to leave, but as it is now I am not there enough and relish the hours when I am.
So it boils down to convenience. I (as a lot of/.ers) don't have a lot of spare time (aside from the hours spent on slashdot). I don't like to waste my time in BlockBuster, when I have a solution (NETFLIX + Pay-per-view combo) that A) Costs me less, and B)Gives me more time to enjoy the movies.
Oh, and... I do get my food over the internet (not webvan but healthy gourment foods). My entertainment gets in the house over the cable, phoneline, and USPS. I still run to the bank in person (they know me there and checks get cleared into my account quicker than the ATM). All of my hardware/software comes from broadband/AirbornExpress. I still run out for minor groceries. And until they make a USB port bigger, I carry in all the dry cleaning.
These outweighs the disadvantages of actually having to go to the rental store.
Uh,... *TWICE*.
One of the things that sucks about Blockbuster (aside from the fact that it is BlockBuster!) it that you have atoms you are responsible to transport. And you have to do this twice (at least) for every rental session. And if you don't do the second trip by a time Blockbuster declares, then all of a sudden the whole experience costs a *LOT* more. (Isn't it something like 60% of BLockBuster's revenue stream comes from late fees? More??)
When I want to rent stuff, I use NetFlix.com. I set up my orders over the internet. I keep a handful of movies around so I have something to watch when I have time. I PAY NO LATE FEES WHATSOEVER! And a new movie is only 2-3 days away (keeping in mind that I have others in hand in addition to the one I just watched and returned). The only down-side is I don't have the "immediate gratification" factor of picking something I want and watching it that night. BUt the selection I do keep on hand has enough variety, that if I am in the mood for drama, I have one. Or in the mood for comedy, I have one.
But, if I do feel like watching one out of the blue, I *do* use the pay-per-view. (Hi, hawkenstein! I'm 4mn0t1337. Nice to meet you. Now you know someone who uses pay-per-view.) I have digital cable, so I have about 60 channels of pay-per-view movies. Not all channels are unique--They usually have about 10-20 movies that start at all different times. So, pick one and chances are it is starting either now, or within 30 min. And most of them are "all day tickets" which means I pay 3-4$ and get the movie played for a 24 hour period.
and if you want to get up to go to the bathroom or watch at a time that is convinient, throw a tape in the VCR first or turn on TiVo and just record it from the begining. Then watch it when you want. Much better than getting in your car, driving to the store, sifting through BlockBuster's nonsense, and then having to return the darn thing.
TiVo did design the system, but different companies make the hardware. When you buy the box, you buy it from Sony, Philips, etc. All your $$$ goes to the manufacturer.
Once you get it home and you want the system to start downloading data so that it can record, then that is when you set up a subscription to the TiVo service.
So this means they can't thermal scan my house for the 8 seriously overclocked servers I'm using to hack McDonalds.com in order to steal the recipe for "secret sauce"?
Hmmmm...
I know they have used abnormal power consumption as an indicator of pot farms (all those grow lights and hydroponics).
So, if you factor in power consumption and heat signature, a server farm might look a lot like a pot farm.
WORD TO THE WISE: If you are growing illegal drugs in you house, you should buy at least a T1 and connect it to your "garden." That way you can claim you are just running an internet business. And you have the added bounus of being able to FINGER the plants to see how each is doing!
Slashdot Mirror
Most recent stats I could find were from 1994, so these are a little out of date, but I think that one would have a hard time arguing that these numbers have done anything but increase since then.
98% of American Households have a television
80% have a VCR
Now, I am not suggesting that having a TV is a *good* thing, but rather I think that speaks to the overall status of the household. If you can afford "luxury items" you can afford things like food.
Contrast this with (well, pick any county *without* a strong economy). Take your poor person from that country, and ask them if they would like to be poor in a place like the US that has a strong economy. Now tell them you line about the the "richest 5%." Now ask them again under which economy would they rather be poor.
I didn't think so...
______
That just is *NOT* true. Malthus made fundamental errors in his reasoning. We are producing more food using fewer people to do it with and we are feeding many more with it than ever before. (Compare the figures of % (or #'s) of population in agrarian pursuits 100 years ago in this country vs. modern day and it is dramatic. Yet we feed more (ie, dramatic population growth).)
A good deal of the starvation on this planet has political causes.
For example, think of Ethiopia and all of the starving people we "helped" with the likes of LiveAid. In truth most of these people were a political underclass that were forced off their land into less habitable land.
This is a much easier and less messy (although slower) way to practice genocide.
______
.
I'm *half* serious here. You increase the discourse, you increase the exposure that people have to ideas like these. I understand that there are impediments, like training the people to use the things, but
______
______
Public street = Public
You have *no* expectation of privacy if you are walking down a city sidewalk. You make your face "publicly accessible" to all those in line-of-sight (and your voice is "publicly accessible" to those in earshot). The argument can be made that you implicitly surrender you right to privacy by being in a public place. If you don't want others to see you (scan your face) then don't go out in public.
______
While I am at it, here is a link for Erin Grey's "Filmography": http://us.imdb.com/Name?Gray,+Erin. No picture of her there, but all it takes is a quick trip to google to pull up hundreds...
______
gorgeous sidekick = Co. Wilma Deering = Erin Grey
drool...
Or, do you mean Twiki who was acted by Felix SIlla, but had the voice characterizations done by Mel Blanc?
______
But, as other readers have pointed out, banks pretty much don't care as it is, so who is to say that all of the information isn't out there anyway...
______
Does this mean that 3l337 h4x0r speak is inherently "Cryptic" and thus a safe password?
Or have all of those script kiddies ruined safe passwords for the rest of us by forcing the inclusion l33t w0rdz in all of the pswd dictionaries??
______
For example, if you were given a password of "Marilyn" would that be "Fan" (Monroe, Manson?) or possibly "family"? (Aunt Marilyn) Or what if your Aunt *was* Marilyn Monroe?? (Or Manson?)
Marilyn, while mostly obvious, is more clear cut than a lot of other potential passwords. I think they probably had a series of multiple choice questions or the researches had to spend enough time with each subject to interview them.
______
______
But I did wish to take issue with the notion (which you alluded to) that there is such a thing as art generated by a computer. I think a fundamental aspect of art is an expression on the part of the creator (and I choose the term "creator" over artist here to indicate that there is a process of purposeful action - creation - in the (physical) world) of their world view. Art is an attempt at comminication between inside the head of an artist and my/your head.
As such, images created by a computer, although they might be pretty and can be hung on a wall, cannot be art as they are not an expression of a "world view" or "sense of life" (both of which are a product of being a consciousness (ie fallibility)).
By the same token, a field of grass or the Grand Canyon should not be called art. They are both pleasing to the eye, but there is no purposeful expression behind them.
And I too have problems with the argument that: all new art = objectionable, therefore, objectionable = new art. While it is true that some new expressions of art have met with considerable resistance, there are more that haven't. And, as with anything apart from the status quo, there will always be some portion of the population that will object.
Besides, in the example of "Picasso as an outsider rectified by history," the objection was made at the style he used for expression, not the tools, as would be claimed against the computer artist.
______
(If you tried to make that argument, all of a sudden *everything* becomes "art" and the term looses all meaning. When we express a concept we do so as it differentiates it from everything that is *not* that concept. To use a word, and for that matter, for it to have meaning, it must mean something -- which by corollary implies that it doesn't mean everything else.)
So one of the characteristics of art is that it is the product of a creative process (or, perhaps the process itself in some meta understanding).
As a function of being creative in nature, it becomes the expression of some "sense of life" or world view of the "artist" or creator. The artist attempts to communicate something (grand, small, or anywhere in between) in his head by acting purposely in/on the world around him.
At this point you can now add your definition of the subjective enjoyment state of the viewer if you wish. I think I will aviod it as the above definition I set out above covers a bit more ground and is more functional.
I *must* however take complete issue with your statement that I don't think there should ever be one person or a group of people to define whether or not something is really art. OF COURSE we *must* attempt to have some co-understanding of what things mean. Language is only useful as a communication tool if there is some degree of shared understanding. We (as a people who use language) *should* strive to refine our understanding of words. Without this there is no communication and all utterances are nonsense.
If you made that statment as a qualification to allow for all subjective understandings of art, allow me to suggest that the definition I put forth above side-steps the issue of "eye of the beholder" whilst still allowing a large scope to the concept of art.
______
Art = The creative expression of an idividual's world view or sense of life.
I think most computer-generated art would fall under this definition. Graphic Design probably wouldn't.
Aside from the issue that graphic design is less creative and more restrictive (no flames, please -- graphic designers work with a common body of elements to produce output, whereas computer-generated art starts with a "clean canvas") there is more of a sense of graphic design being restricted to an application of technical skills as opposed to purely creative skills. [Although they both have creative *and* technical skills to some degree, each one favors a different side of the fence.]
Add to that the notion that art in general is about the expression of the artist's sense of life while the graphic design is about communicating the message of,... well, what ever is being designed for, be it an ad for soap or a corp. ID.
*However* people seem to think that putting up several thousand umbrellas on two coasts = art and I don't think your "art critics" are going to advance the argument that Christo isn't an artist. (They would be drummed right out of the guild.)
______
Yeah, 1,000 pounds of coral is a *lot* lighter than 1,000 pounds of granite.
In what I just read about the Coral Castle, most everything was discussed in terms of weight, not volume. So it doesn't matter if coral is lighter - just means that the blocks are bigger.
______
But, gee... It *can't* be dead, because Netscape has just declared itself to be a portal and no longer a browser company...
______
Of course you can opt out of their support program: Buy a box from someone else.
Some people sell hardware, others sell service/experience/deisgn/whatever (with the harware thrown in). If you want just the hardware, buy it elsewhere or build it yourself. But don't whine when a company that sells more than just atoms won't change their business plan to cater to your every desire. Take your dollars elsewhere.
______
______
What was your frame rate like? How many frags? (Don't lie and tell me the first thing you didn't do was to run a DeathMatch.)
Any other details???
I wanna try, but I either fly alone or, if the gf is there, she is right next to me, so that really isn't a test if the laptops are 4" away.
______
So, what happens when a traveller opens his laptop and sees two different 802.11 networks to log on to? He will probably just pick the first one in the list. Imagine the fun that can be had acting as an "inflight ISP." (Logging, rerouting, etc)
Give the airline about a year before they finally catch on.
______
What I am left with is the film choices of BLockBuster Management. Great! I can rent 400 copies of Jurasic Park VII or I can choose from the 4 independent/foreign films they stock. (Mind you, I am not comparing this to pay-per-view, whose selection is none better. NetFlix on the other hand tries to stock every DVD ever made. Better choice.)
And to some degree, *picking up the film* isn't as much of a problem. Other than (in SoCal) finding parking, dealing with lines 15 deep and only two people on register, picking through the picked through generic selection under those horrible fluorescent lights, and making one more (semi-)useless trip in my car.
You *always* have enough time to rent a film. I never seem to have enough time to return them. Too many fires to put out, and next thing you know, you ran out of hours in the day. Then I wind up paying late fees. Hence the NETFLIX.com.
"Troll"?? You say that like that is a bad thing...
Seriously, my days are such that I get very little time at home. I paid all that money for a house to not be able to enjoy the comfort of it. When I worked out of my office at home, I would have been looking for more excuses to leave, but as it is now I am not there enough and relish the hours when I am.
So it boils down to convenience. I (as a lot of /.ers) don't have a lot of spare time (aside from the hours spent on slashdot). I don't like to waste my time in BlockBuster, when I have a solution (NETFLIX + Pay-per-view combo) that A) Costs me less, and B)Gives me more time to enjoy the movies.
Oh, and... I do get my food over the internet (not webvan but healthy gourment foods). My entertainment gets in the house over the cable, phoneline, and USPS. I still run to the bank in person (they know me there and checks get cleared into my account quicker than the ATM). All of my hardware/software comes from broadband/AirbornExpress. I still run out for minor groceries. And until they make a USB port bigger, I carry in all the dry cleaning.
______
Uh,... *TWICE*.
One of the things that sucks about Blockbuster (aside from the fact that it is BlockBuster!) it that you have atoms you are responsible to transport. And you have to do this twice (at least) for every rental session. And if you don't do the second trip by a time Blockbuster declares, then all of a sudden the whole experience costs a *LOT* more. (Isn't it something like 60% of BLockBuster's revenue stream comes from late fees? More??)
When I want to rent stuff, I use NetFlix.com. I set up my orders over the internet. I keep a handful of movies around so I have something to watch when I have time. I PAY NO LATE FEES WHATSOEVER! And a new movie is only 2-3 days away (keeping in mind that I have others in hand in addition to the one I just watched and returned). The only down-side is I don't have the "immediate gratification" factor of picking something I want and watching it that night. BUt the selection I do keep on hand has enough variety, that if I am in the mood for drama, I have one. Or in the mood for comedy, I have one.
But, if I do feel like watching one out of the blue, I *do* use the pay-per-view. (Hi, hawkenstein! I'm 4mn0t1337. Nice to meet you. Now you know someone who uses pay-per-view.) I have digital cable, so I have about 60 channels of pay-per-view movies. Not all channels are unique--They usually have about 10-20 movies that start at all different times. So, pick one and chances are it is starting either now, or within 30 min. And most of them are "all day tickets" which means I pay 3-4$ and get the movie played for a 24 hour period.
and if you want to get up to go to the bathroom or watch at a time that is convinient, throw a tape in the VCR first or turn on TiVo and just record it from the begining. Then watch it when you want. Much better than getting in your car, driving to the store, sifting through BlockBuster's nonsense, and then having to return the darn thing.
______
TiVo did design the system, but different companies make the hardware. When you buy the box, you buy it from Sony, Philips, etc. All your $$$ goes to the manufacturer.
Once you get it home and you want the system to start downloading data so that it can record, then that is when you set up a subscription to the TiVo service.
______
Hmmmm...
I know they have used abnormal power consumption as an indicator of pot farms (all those grow lights and hydroponics).
So, if you factor in power consumption and heat signature, a server farm might look a lot like a pot farm.
WORD TO THE WISE: If you are growing illegal drugs in you house, you should buy at least a T1 and connect it to your "garden." That way you can claim you are just running an internet business. And you have the added bounus of being able to FINGER the plants to see how each is doing!
______
What? I don't have to turn it upside down and shake it to clear the screen??
That's no fun...
______