Hmm... no, this voting/is/ evolution. It's more like the practice of breeding than "traditional" evolution, but randomness & chaos isn't really what drives evolution - all that means is there's a lot of factors that aren't easy to predict.
predators, sexual desirability - these are two primary driving forces (like the "good poetry" driving force here) that aren't random.
mutation is "random", but it's not the primary driving force of evolution, at least not since sexual reproduction hit the scene.
umm.. Yes. Whether you believe it or not, people generally do identify with the character they play in a video game. So, men do identify with bandicoots and skunks and whatever else.
She wasn't saying, "the video game industry is sexist and mysogynistic and they need to change things to be fairer to women"...
She was calling attention to this fact, calling for better characterization all-around to make/better games/, pure and simple. A more thoughtful approach to gender in videogames will appeal to both women and men. A/lot/ of games now focus on storytelling and characterization, and this is an area that does often get overlooked.
A couple points: for sake of argument, yeah. Paintings are useless. Compared to a basket, say. But that's oversimplifying. Rarely are paintings/purely aesthetic/. Painting is a communicative medium. Saying that isn't all that far off from saying speech or writing is purely aesthetic.
2nd: the art/craft argument is similar to an argument I have with art/design. (if "art" is/purely/ aesthetic, it's more/design/ than it is/art/) Back to painting, though. Look at what most people immediately think of when they think of painting - the Rennaisance master painters. They exhibitted a high level of craft. (and, to be sure, a number of them hired "code monkeys" to do some of their painting)
on the combinations of aesthetics and functionality: Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better by Don Norman. This article got me pretty angry, 'cause I don't tend to agree, but he makes a good case.
Pottery: since I'm not terribly familiar of art references in basketry, I'll switch the example to this./Plenty/ of non-functional elements of crafts don't "express their object's function visually" - look at Greek vase-paintings. These clearly aren't art, because the vases serve a functional purpose - but no art historian denies that they/are/ art, nor would I think anyone else who looks at them. And architecture - look at gothic cathedrals, or any other cathedral for that matter. Plenty of the non-functional elements of these have nothing to do with expressing their functionality visually - these cathedrals are works of/art/ using the/craft/ of architecture as their medium.
So, my point: just because art is useless (though I think art's communicative aspects leave that statement on shaky ground), and programming is functional, doesn't mean that there has to be a clear division between the two.
listen to his new album in its entirety; listen to what he's actually saying, and then reconsider yr position.
Eminem's an actor, of sorts. There's a huge difference between the character who's singing (whom I guess would be "Slim Shady") and whatever his real name is. A huge bulk of the content is actually in reference to that.
Now, I agree. The image, I don't like myself. The first time I listened to the album, there were a number of points where that really started to bother me. But then I started listening more, and the more thoughtful, less just-out-to-shock parts came through, and the switching back and forth between the two is what's really interesting in his work.
"music" itself is very limiting. There's all sorts of rules one needs to follow. The regular beat, octaves, ahh. All that other stuff. I'm a painter, not a musician. My point, though, is this: boundaries are/necessary/ in art of any sort. Boundaries are what you push against & help you to grow. Every artist needs to have some sort of boundaries before they sit down to work. It's not necessary to stick with them, of course, and a good artist won't if the art takes them in a different direction.
Rap is more limiting than, say, "rock", but that's more because rap is better defined. Yes, there are more rules, and yes, it's simpler. That doesn't make less of an art form.
When it comes down to it, what's so much better about experimenting with a large variety of structures and techniques to create a wide variety of work, than limiting oneself to a small subset of rules and really refining them and pushing them and really understanding them?
I've had the (fortune?) to listen to his new album for the past two weeks at work, and I can say this for certain: your comparison of Jerry Springer vs. Discovery channel is just flat out wrong.
Eminem's music may not be a serious analysis of a situation, but that's just because very little of it is serious - - you might be surprised to find out that some of it is, though. He actually/sings/ one song to his daughter, and although he can't really sing (he opens the song by saying that) it's actually touching.
But what I can say about him (this is based solely on his current album, I'm unfamiliar with his prior work) is that he/does/ put "real in-depth thought" into it. A lot of what he says is just to get attention, yes. But just as much of it thoughtful commentary on freedom of speech, on thepublic's varied reaction to him, on music, guns, fatherhood, even relationships.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, it's viri, or viruses.
no, it's not a religion. It might be /like/ one - you give e.g. for that. But any arbitrary set of beliefs does not make a religion.
Yes, it still is just a "theory" - but there's enough proof out there that the only good reason to disbelieve it is as a thought experiment.
Hmm... no, this voting /is/ evolution. It's more like the practice of breeding than "traditional" evolution, but randomness & chaos isn't really what drives evolution - all that means is there's a lot of factors that aren't easy to predict.
predators, sexual desirability - these are two primary driving forces (like the "good poetry" driving force here) that aren't random.
mutation is "random", but it's not the primary driving force of evolution, at least not since sexual reproduction hit the scene.
You're not really /supposed/ to respect the poetry.
umm.. Yes. Whether you believe it or not, people generally do identify with the character they play in a video game. So, men do identify with bandicoots and skunks and whatever else.
/better games/, pure and simple. A more thoughtful approach to gender in videogames will appeal to both women and men. A /lot/ of games now focus on storytelling and characterization, and this is an area that does often get overlooked.
She wasn't saying, "the video game industry is sexist and mysogynistic and they need to change things to be fairer to women"...
She was calling attention to this fact, calling for better characterization all-around to make
A couple points: /purely aesthetic/. Painting is a communicative medium. Saying that isn't all that far off from saying speech or writing is purely aesthetic.
/purely/ aesthetic, it's more /design/ than it is /art/) Back to painting, though. Look at what most people immediately think of when they think of painting - the Rennaisance master painters. They exhibitted a high level of craft. (and, to be sure, a number of them hired "code monkeys" to do some of their painting)
/Plenty/ of non-functional elements of crafts don't "express their object's function visually" - look at Greek vase-paintings. These clearly aren't art, because the vases serve a functional purpose - but no art historian denies that they /are/ art, nor would I think anyone else who looks at them. And architecture - look at gothic cathedrals, or any other cathedral for that matter. Plenty of the non-functional elements of these have nothing to do with expressing their functionality visually - these cathedrals are works of /art/ using the /craft/ of architecture as their medium.
for sake of argument, yeah. Paintings are useless. Compared to a basket, say. But that's oversimplifying. Rarely are paintings
2nd: the art/craft argument is similar to an argument I have with art/design. (if "art" is
on the combinations of aesthetics and functionality: Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better by Don Norman. This article got me pretty angry, 'cause I don't tend to agree, but he makes a good case.
Pottery: since I'm not terribly familiar of art references in basketry, I'll switch the example to this.
So, my point: just because art is useless (though I think art's communicative aspects leave that statement on shaky ground), and programming is functional, doesn't mean that there has to be a clear division between the two.
listen to his new album in its entirety; listen to what he's actually saying, and then reconsider yr position.
Eminem's an actor, of sorts. There's a huge difference between the character who's singing (whom I guess would be "Slim Shady") and whatever his real name is. A huge bulk of the content is actually in reference to that.
Now, I agree. The image, I don't like myself. The first time I listened to the album, there were a number of points where that really started to bother me. But then I started listening more, and the more thoughtful, less just-out-to-shock parts came through, and the switching back and forth between the two is what's really interesting in his work.
"music" itself is very limiting. There's all sorts of rules one needs to follow. The regular beat, octaves, ahh. All that other stuff. I'm a painter, not a musician. My point, though, is this: boundaries are /necessary/ in art of any sort. Boundaries are what you push against & help you to grow. Every artist needs to have some sort of boundaries before they sit down to work. It's not necessary to stick with them, of course, and a good artist won't if the art takes them in a different direction.
Rap is more limiting than, say, "rock", but that's more because rap is better defined. Yes, there are more rules, and yes, it's simpler. That doesn't make less of an art form.
When it comes down to it, what's so much better about experimenting with a large variety of structures and techniques to create a wide variety of work, than limiting oneself to a small subset of rules and really refining them and pushing them and really understanding them?
I've had the (fortune?) to listen to his new album for the past two weeks at work, and I can say this for certain: your comparison of Jerry Springer vs. Discovery channel is just flat out wrong.
/sings/ one song to his daughter, and although he can't really sing (he opens the song by saying that) it's actually touching.
/does/ put "real in-depth thought" into it. A lot of what he says is just to get attention, yes. But just as much of it thoughtful commentary on freedom of speech, on thepublic's varied reaction to him, on music, guns, fatherhood, even relationships.
Eminem's music may not be a serious analysis of a situation, but that's just because very little of it is serious - - you might be surprised to find out that some of it is, though. He actually
But what I can say about him (this is based solely on his current album, I'm unfamiliar with his prior work) is that he