See, that's just it. #2 makes #1 irrelevant to everyone but us.
When will you all get it? WE (meaning the tech/IT industry and community) are the ONLY people that care about our OS being buggy. The fact that #2 has happened makes it irrelevant to complain about the lack of reliability in Windows. And we are DEFINITELY the only people that care about it not being original (don't bring up the Apple/Xerox lawsuits, those have been settled now meaning that we are the only people that ever bring it up). My mom doesn't give a shit if the concept Windows was stolen from a Xerox PARC prototype or a mac or from Bill Gates' college roommate or whoever, she cares about whether her email works or not, and guess what? it does. Not the way you'd like it to, but it's email and it works. Who gives a fuck. The world is not made up of sysadmins.
The way you beat microsoft is to make a superior product, and market it better. The government has shown that they won't help level the playing field for any competitors to MS, so that's the world anyone taking them on has to work in.
Linux is not superior to Windows yet. It's more reliable, on the right hardware. It's got that cool CLI geek cred going for it. So does OSX. The GUIs for Linux plainly suck.
The legal remedy in the DOJ case should have involved abolishing all copyrights MS has to their interface so that KDE or (god forbid) the GNOME folks could clone the Chicago GUI. People would be comfortable with using Linux if it looked just like Windows.
This is around the point in this discussion where someone whines that "we can't take on microsoft, they have [insert ridiculously huge corporate asset here]!!!" If you feel that way, then stop bitching about what you've got. The glory is in the fight, anyway.
Which brings me to my next point. Once the fight is won, then you have to manage what you win. The OSS community couldn't handle being in control of the #1 OS in the world. It's too fragmented and too immature. To handle something with the market share and pervasiveness of Windows would take an infrastructure the size of Microsoft. So, build one. Stop whining about losing and go make yourself into a winner.
articles about Microsoft = Bad mean nothing when they're posted on OSS/Linux advocacy sites. When the Wall Street Journal has an editorial from the editor in chief saying that Microsoft is going to destroy the world, that'll mean something
I should qualify that I worked in IT for a while for a school system (the one I attended as a kid) and I have two first cousins that are teachers in that same system, so I'm not pulling what I say out of my ass.
Teaching is a hard job, but tenure for public school teachers is an abomination. If all teachers worked at-will like the rest of us, our educational system would be much more effective.
Kids don't need to be taught "OBEDIENCE" of the law, they need to be taught respect for it. With respect, obedience of the good laws will come, and disobedience of the bad ones will occur, and at least in the USA that -sometimes- changes things.
we need to abolish teachers' unions first. Unions are meant to protect workers that can be exploited - well, teachers cannot be exploited by definition because they work for the taxpayers. The teachers' union is the most corrupt, vile one in the country. Even if the Teamsters are buying senators and owned by the mob, all that does is cause some business owner somewhere to lose money. The teachers' unions destroy our future and make the kids into ignorant shells of what they could be.
I want my great grandchildren to be able to listen to my music. If I don't write it down or record it, they won't be able to. If I were to become an important figure in music (not much chance of that now, but hypothetically speaking) I would want to be known for the ages, not just by the small amount of people that heard me when I was alive.
you miss the point. The storyteller's story lives on, as its medium is the memory of the inhabitants of the culture. But you notice that cultures built on oral tradition usually don't have access to a more permanent medium? If they knew how to write, the artist could have preserved his/her story as it was supposed to be.
There are a lot of paintings from europe that were destroyed in various wars or lost to thieves or whatever. We have written descriptions of those paintings, and in some cases we have sketches of the paintings themselves. The written descriptions definitely do not equal the paintings, and while the sketches get closer, they still don't have the color, brushwork, lighting, etc. The faceless millions are the ones who 'don't get it'. The USA doesn't train people, it trains workers, so very few people here (as a percentage) really understand art.
No, that just means that pericles was the real artist. His work endured, the actors' didn't.
Art is always valuable to the artist no matter whether it lasts for 10 minutes or 1000 years, but it's not culturally significant if it isn't permanent. I feel that any artist that isn't striving to be culturally significant is wasting his/her time, because art is humanity and if you don't want to contribute to humanity, then you are a selfish bastard(ette).
I see recording like Zappa did. The studio is another instrument - it allows the artist to perfect his/her vision. Live performance is too spontaneous to allow a coherent statement to come forth.
I'm a musician.. I used to play improvised music, fusion type stuff. One time I recorded a 13 minute solo over 2 chords. some people loved it. It was described as "genius" and all that other stuff. I was in a different zone when I played it and I felt like I really made a coherent statement.
Then, I lost the tape. I hadn't written the piece out on paper, nor did I have an extra copy lying around.
To me, this completely invalidated the concept of wholly improvised music. The statement that I made was lost forever, because a) I was dumb with the tapes and b) it was just one moment in time.
I could never reproduce the song because it was the product of a very specific mood. This made me realize that the holy grail of music is to write a song that always puts forth the same impression and always produces the same mood in the listener.
Words always mean the same thing, so should music. Humans being imperfect as they are, this requires that recording technologies be used to capture and perfect the vision of the composer. Even scoring the piece in musical notation leaves it open to mutation by half-assed musicians. Now, recording is even more fuckup-friendly with all the remix and sampling shit that's going on.
Now does my stance make sense?
Re:You don't need to hoard art to experience it
on
Drama in the Desert
·
· Score: 2
it changes the heads of anyone who can afford $150 a ticket and who happens to be in the same part of the "city" as you. that's a very small subset of "the world".
I don't hoard art. I'm actually speaking about permanence/impermanence from experience. When I have a few more minutes I'll write out an explanation.
For the most part, yes, unless it's captured as a recording and charted for posterity.
What if Michaelangelo painted the sistine chapel and then painted over it? What if [your favorite musician] wrote the most brilliant song ever written, and never bothered to record it or write it down? The world would be denied the greatness of the work.
I understand what people are saying when they want art to be temporary or just some instance in time, but I think it's the ultimate in cultural self-destruction to do so.
I'm saying it's arrogant to create art that you don't intend to last. That's stealing from culture and history. You demand that someone be present at the time of creation to enjoy your creation? Fuck that. Art is a statement, not an experience. Art-as-experience is a nihilistic, intellectually bankrupt, culture-rotting crock of shit.
I find the notion of temporary art appalling. Art is meant to be permanent, a lasting mark on the world. Destroying everything you create is the ultimate in asinine stupidity.
That leaves only drugs and fucking as possible attractions to Burning Man. Both are worthwhile pursuits, if you're at the age where drugs make sex better, but I've outgrown that.
Re:You find what you look for.
on
Drama in the Desert
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
lay off the crack pipe, you self-important cocksucker.
The artistic side of Burning Man is such bullshit. It's like any other post-modern gathering, it's based on drugs and fucking. Anyone else who shows up is there to watch stoned people have orgies.
OK, I see your point. My dad was USWA and we lived in the appalachians, so unions were a way of life.
You have stated a problem. You have no solution. H1Bs aren't going to join a union because they don't understand the concept of being treated fairly by their employer. India still has the fucking caste system, for Christ's sake. They don't BELIEVE they can have a better life because Krishna or whoever said they couldn't in the Bhagavhad Gita [I'm sure I butchered that].
Today's IT community has bought into the Republican lifestyle of "I am a mere worker serf, you are my capitalist lord" so deeply that they will never organize, because $15 in dues a month is money that THE MAN IS TAKING FROM THEM. They have been beaten down by years of being told that unions protect the bad workers at the expense of the good. Plus, people who sit in front of PCs all day are necessarily out of touch with reality.
So what's the solution? I don't think there IS a sane one. Short of disbanding corporations by force and going back to cottage industries and a barter economy, I don't think there's any way to put power back in the hands of labor. Regulations? People are so afraid of government regulation thanks to assfucks like O'Reilly and Liddy that they would vote against Jesus himself if he came back and ran for president.
Slashdot Mirror
See, that's just it. #2 makes #1 irrelevant to everyone but us.
When will you all get it? WE (meaning the tech/IT industry and community) are the ONLY people that care about our OS being buggy. The fact that #2 has happened makes it irrelevant to complain about the lack of reliability in Windows. And we are DEFINITELY the only people that care about it not being original (don't bring up the Apple/Xerox lawsuits, those have been settled now meaning that we are the only people that ever bring it up). My mom doesn't give a shit if the concept Windows was stolen from a Xerox PARC prototype or a mac or from Bill Gates' college roommate or whoever, she cares about whether her email works or not, and guess what? it does. Not the way you'd like it to, but it's email and it works. Who gives a fuck. The world is not made up of sysadmins.
The way you beat microsoft is to make a superior product, and market it better. The government has shown that they won't help level the playing field for any competitors to MS, so that's the world anyone taking them on has to work in.
Linux is not superior to Windows yet. It's more reliable, on the right hardware. It's got that cool CLI geek cred going for it. So does OSX. The GUIs for Linux plainly suck.
The legal remedy in the DOJ case should have involved abolishing all copyrights MS has to their interface so that KDE or (god forbid) the GNOME folks could clone the Chicago GUI. People would be comfortable with using Linux if it looked just like Windows.
This is around the point in this discussion where someone whines that "we can't take on microsoft, they have [insert ridiculously huge corporate asset here]!!!" If you feel that way, then stop bitching about what you've got. The glory is in the fight, anyway.
Which brings me to my next point. Once the fight is won, then you have to manage what you win. The OSS community couldn't handle being in control of the #1 OS in the world. It's too fragmented and too immature. To handle something with the market share and pervasiveness of Windows would take an infrastructure the size of Microsoft. So, build one. Stop whining about losing and go make yourself into a winner.
articles about Microsoft = Bad mean nothing when they're posted on OSS/Linux advocacy sites. When the Wall Street Journal has an editorial from the editor in chief saying that Microsoft is going to destroy the world, that'll mean something
I should qualify that I worked in IT for a while for a school system (the one I attended as a kid) and I have two first cousins that are teachers in that same system, so I'm not pulling what I say out of my ass.
Teaching is a hard job, but tenure for public school teachers is an abomination. If all teachers worked at-will like the rest of us, our educational system would be much more effective.
I'm correcting you.
Kids don't need to be taught "OBEDIENCE" of the law, they need to be taught respect for it. With respect, obedience of the good laws will come, and disobedience of the bad ones will occur, and at least in the USA that -sometimes- changes things.
maybe you should have taken spelling instead of computers in 5th grade...
we need to abolish teachers' unions first. Unions are meant to protect workers that can be exploited - well, teachers cannot be exploited by definition because they work for the taxpayers. The teachers' union is the most corrupt, vile one in the country. Even if the Teamsters are buying senators and owned by the mob, all that does is cause some business owner somewhere to lose money. The teachers' unions destroy our future and make the kids into ignorant shells of what they could be.
1. Fuck 2. You
I want my great grandchildren to be able to listen to my music. If I don't write it down or record it, they won't be able to. If I were to become an important figure in music (not much chance of that now, but hypothetically speaking) I would want to be known for the ages, not just by the small amount of people that heard me when I was alive.
you miss the point. The storyteller's story lives on, as its medium is the memory of the inhabitants of the culture. But you notice that cultures built on oral tradition usually don't have access to a more permanent medium? If they knew how to write, the artist could have preserved his/her story as it was supposed to be.
There are a lot of paintings from europe that were destroyed in various wars or lost to thieves or whatever. We have written descriptions of those paintings, and in some cases we have sketches of the paintings themselves. The written descriptions definitely do not equal the paintings, and while the sketches get closer, they still don't have the color, brushwork, lighting, etc. The faceless millions are the ones who 'don't get it'. The USA doesn't train people, it trains workers, so very few people here (as a percentage) really understand art.
you don't have to be wealthy to go, you just have to have fucked up priorities.
A living culture like you speak of creates an ongoing record. One that reverts to ADD-like "moments" of creation is stagnant and will die.
yes, yes, yes, and yes. :)
This is my opinion. You're welcome to be wrong
No, that just means that pericles was the real artist. His work endured, the actors' didn't.
Art is always valuable to the artist no matter whether it lasts for 10 minutes or 1000 years, but it's not culturally significant if it isn't permanent. I feel that any artist that isn't striving to be culturally significant is wasting his/her time, because art is humanity and if you don't want to contribute to humanity, then you are a selfish bastard(ette).
after a while it doesn't seem like an effort. it's just part of your everyday routine, like taking a shower or brushing your teeth.
I'm a former smoker (quit for good about 2 1/2 months ago)
pot is not addictive. people become dependent on it.
Dependence differs from addiction like so: If you're dependent on something, you rely on it to fill a void that you perceive to exist in your life.
If you're addicted, the substance/thing you're addicted to creates the void itself when it is no longer affecting you.
"what does doing coke feel like? It makes you feel like doing more coke." - George Carlin
I see recording like Zappa did. The studio is another instrument - it allows the artist to perfect his/her vision. Live performance is too spontaneous to allow a coherent statement to come forth.
I'm a musician.. I used to play improvised music, fusion type stuff. One time I recorded a 13 minute solo over 2 chords. some people loved it. It was described as "genius" and all that other stuff. I was in a different zone when I played it and I felt like I really made a coherent statement.
Then, I lost the tape. I hadn't written the piece out on paper, nor did I have an extra copy lying around.
To me, this completely invalidated the concept of wholly improvised music. The statement that I made was lost forever, because a) I was dumb with the tapes and b) it was just one moment in time.
I could never reproduce the song because it was the product of a very specific mood. This made me realize that the holy grail of music is to write a song that always puts forth the same impression and always produces the same mood in the listener.
Words always mean the same thing, so should music. Humans being imperfect as they are, this requires that recording technologies be used to capture and perfect the vision of the composer. Even scoring the piece in musical notation leaves it open to mutation by half-assed musicians. Now, recording is even more fuckup-friendly with all the remix and sampling shit that's going on.
Now does my stance make sense?
it changes the heads of anyone who can afford $150 a ticket and who happens to be in the same part of the "city" as you. that's a very small subset of "the world".
I don't hoard art. I'm actually speaking about permanence/impermanence from experience. When I have a few more minutes I'll write out an explanation.
For the most part, yes, unless it's captured as a recording and charted for posterity.
What if Michaelangelo painted the sistine chapel and then painted over it? What if [your favorite musician] wrote the most brilliant song ever written, and never bothered to record it or write it down? The world would be denied the greatness of the work.
I understand what people are saying when they want art to be temporary or just some instance in time, but I think it's the ultimate in cultural self-destruction to do so.
I'm saying it's arrogant to create art that you don't intend to last. That's stealing from culture and history. You demand that someone be present at the time of creation to enjoy your creation? Fuck that. Art is a statement, not an experience. Art-as-experience is a nihilistic, intellectually bankrupt, culture-rotting crock of shit.
I find the notion of temporary art appalling. Art is meant to be permanent, a lasting mark on the world. Destroying everything you create is the ultimate in asinine stupidity.
That leaves only drugs and fucking as possible attractions to Burning Man. Both are worthwhile pursuits, if you're at the age where drugs make sex better, but I've outgrown that.
lay off the crack pipe, you self-important cocksucker.
The artistic side of Burning Man is such bullshit. It's like any other post-modern gathering, it's based on drugs and fucking. Anyone else who shows up is there to watch stoned people have orgies.
OK, I see your point. My dad was USWA and we lived in the appalachians, so unions were a way of life.
You have stated a problem. You have no solution. H1Bs aren't going to join a union because they don't understand the concept of being treated fairly by their employer. India still has the fucking caste system, for Christ's sake. They don't BELIEVE they can have a better life because Krishna or whoever said they couldn't in the Bhagavhad Gita [I'm sure I butchered that].
Today's IT community has bought into the Republican lifestyle of "I am a mere worker serf, you are my capitalist lord" so deeply that they will never organize, because $15 in dues a month is money that THE MAN IS TAKING FROM THEM. They have been beaten down by years of being told that unions protect the bad workers at the expense of the good. Plus, people who sit in front of PCs all day are necessarily out of touch with reality.
So what's the solution? I don't think there IS a sane one. Short of disbanding corporations by force and going back to cottage industries and a barter economy, I don't think there's any way to put power back in the hands of labor. Regulations? People are so afraid of government regulation thanks to assfucks like O'Reilly and Liddy that they would vote against Jesus himself if he came back and ran for president.
So what's your answer?
uh.. thanks, I think...
I wouldn't be surprised if
a) this guy's dad is a wealthy business owner
b) this guy is 21 years old
c) he is from a top-10 city-state for per capita income
he talks just like someone that's never seen reality.