That doesn't sound like the protocols fault, it sounds like the devices'. I have a plethora of devices running over USB, and so far none have failed outside of cut-rate flashdrives and a mobile card reader from Fry's (big shock there). Connector slippage isn't a huge problem either, as long as the connectors are properly designed (again, not the protocols fault); hell, the connector on my phone needs a fair amount of force to remove, I wish it was "slippier". But then again I have an ancient external IDE enclosure where I have to wedge a pen between the power and USB cords to keep it from reseting (don't feel like replacing my old, but perfectly function 500GB IDE drive, its been running smoothly for 6 years, though getting a new IDE enclosure is almost impossible).
I do wish Firewire would have stuck around though... Damn Apple.
...and failed to recognize the only thing that they have a desire to progress is the power of the state.
Partisan rhetoric much? In what reputable and objective source is the term defined as such? If I say "conservatives are defined as an ideology that wants to cater only to rich people and let the poor starve in ditches" am I being as accurate as you? I'm not arguing that quote is the case, but many would.
I'm somewhat progressive, but still am a (social) libertarian (lowercase "l:). I want the state to be as weak as possible, while still supporting the people who constitute it. Yes, I'm in favor of schools, education grants, corporate responsibility, etc... But I'm also in favor of gutting the military, large swaths of the criminal justice system, vast reams of laws, and having the government get mostly out of my life. Perhaps the government should be "bigger" when it comes to supporting its population, but smaller when it comes to meddling in banal affairs where no individual is harmed.
The basis of this view is that the government's only goal is the wellbeing of its individual citizens, and the health of society as a whole.
A policy that lead to the rise in power of organized crime: Prohibition.
Huh? Wasn't that helped along by the religious folks, and the "family values" people? Do you consider banning gay marriage as a "progressive" issue too? Doing a quick search of the Wikipedia article on prohibition, there is one mention of the term "progressive", and it is about Bahrain allowing alcohol. There is one mention of the term in the article on the US prohibition, and it says something along the lines of "among other groups progressives supported it", which is pretty meaningless, and doesn't mean that they were the exclusive supporters or even biggest advocates. One mention isn't very strong.
I could also point of several policies that supporters of your favorite political dogma supported which ended badly. Thats the fun thing about political ideologies, people hold their pet political dogma over the actual real human consequences. Right, left; conservative; liberal, progressive, whatever its opposite is called... they all have this problem since they all have a body of blind true believers. I'm deeply suspect of anyone who holds their mere political opinion to be divine truth.
So, let's stop demonizing people here. Everyone with a political philosophy has the goal of fixing what's wrong, although there are wildly varying opinions on how to achieve that, and what exactly it is that is wrong.
Perhaps I grossly misread everything previous to this statement... but isn't that just what you were doing?
Ultimately it might benefit companies more to try and create a viable platform now when the market is still relatively young. It needn't end up like the desktop with 1 dominant player and a couple of minor ones, there's room for several.
The market isn't very young though... Have we forgotten about RIM, Symbian, Win Mobile, and all the other "smart phone" schemes of yore? Even now we have several contenders out there, but, as in all markets, there are a very small number of big players (Google, RIM, and Apple).
As a customer I like it this way. Further fragmentation would just be annoying, especially since a majority of "up and comers" will be dead before my contract expires. I also like all my development to be focused on a minimum of platforms. iOS and Android are very nice in this, you have two very large markets which are thriving,and in Androids case, platform agnostic.
Whatever Motorola does will probably fail. Android and iOS have a presence (my father recently bought a smartphone, and he only knew Android or iPhone)...As a customer, in the foreseeable future, I will probably only buy Android devices (irregardless of manufacture), and if I was so inclined iPhones/Tablets.* I won't buy the newly released MotorolaRockandRolla, or whatever. I know Android (and iOS), I know it is mostly mature. I know it has wide support. I know it doesn't suck, and probably won't burn me.
* I won't be, but not because of the maturity of the operating system. iOS is very nice. I would love it; if Apple wasn't screwing it up.
You are correct that on the tablet scene Android devices are lagging behind a fair bit. I'm really confused on how everyone that isn't Apple dropped the ball so much in this market. Yes, in the beginning they were caught with their pants down, and there was a glut of crap tablets to bridge between Apple and decent Android tablets. But not there really isn't an excuse. Looking at the pricing, it seems that non-Apple tablets must be marketed as luxury goods, and not as commodity devices. I'm not sure about this.
On phones... Does anyone still care? Android devices have completely trounced iPhones (where it counts; sales), and will probably continue to do so. I thought the whole era where people waggle their phones around like status symbols were long gone. Even the few people I know who own an iPhone have stopped ranting about them to anyone who even feigns a brief second of polite interest. Is anyone really excited about the iPhone 5? Will it pretty much be the iPhone four with an added keynote? Probably.
As for speed... Really? I have a Droid X, which isn't the top of the pack, and I haven't really noticed a speed problem, it runs video, the internet flows in all its chunky 3G bliss, apps do app things. What should I be doing, playing Crysis and compiling code on it? Playing with my friends iPhone4, I really don't notice much of a speed difference. Perhaps I needed a stop watch to tell, or a fancy benchmark on how quick Angry Birds opens, but if I need a secondary device to tell how much faster something is, it basically says the speed doesn't matter from a human perspective. I don't see many of my friends ditching their Android devices to get an iPhone now, no matter what Apple does. This is even true of those of them who aren't technology people, which is the segment that matters, and largely the segment that Apple caters to. Most people are pretty happy with their phones, no matter if they run iOS or Android.
Further, I was recently at a string of Verizon stores (for way to long), and the iPhone was marginalized to a back corner with various models running Android, and a few Blackberrys taking up a majority of prime floor space.
The 4G thing pisses me off. And the whole of the American cell-network/providers... Would it really be terrible to try to bring out tech up to the rest of the worlds standards?
And here in the states they cost much more than other television series. For example, excluding Amazon discounts: House Season 6: 59.98, Dr. Who season 5 (or whatever it would be factoring in the originals) 79.98.
And if someone is "trying to get into a show", I don't think they really want to spend $400 on DVD box sets (ignoring the older ones, which also cost a ridiculous amount of money compared to like products). Unless they have much more money than brains.
In cases like this, I have no problem saying "go pirate a couple episodes, if you like them, then think about buying them.". Technically illegal, but completely ethical.
That said, watch the 2005 seasons and work your way up. If you dig it well into the David Tennant shows, then think of going back and watching some of the older ones (they're on Netflix, and The Pirate Bay), especially the Tom Baker episodes. I did pretty much the same thing, I watched some older episodes on PBS when I was a kid, but never "got it", I even abstained from the 2005 reboot (since I didn't have as good memories of it). I started watching it when David Tennant took over, and haven't looked back since... Or rather, I have, since I've pretty much caught up on the entire back catalog by now.
Notice the parent wasn't actually advocating that... It was a rhetorical device, flippantly showing that there does exist methods to dissuade illegal immigration. Pointing out a method doesn't mean endorsing it.
Don't forget no matter how grievous the illegality of being in the country seems -- it still pales in comparison to even the most menial crimes committed.
Except that unfettered, unmonitored, unregulated immigration lets criminals cross borders as freely as the innocent. That is one reason that all countries have monitored border control, it keeps the shit out. I'm not calling illegal immigrants shit (it seems you have thin skin, so I may need to clarify), but there as many, if not more, criminals in Mexico as in the US. This is especially true giving Mexico's special current problems.
Of course, I am not advocating it
Of course he wasn't either. Relax.
And you call yourself Christians! Bloody hypocrites.
I have never, nor never will call myself Christian.
And even if I did I would advocate some form of immigrant enforcement (albeit not as idiotic as those proposed by my 'humble' state of Arizona).
Also, work ethic has nothing to do with it. Its about the assimilation. I live in Phoenix, AZ, where we have a very large Mexican population (obviously). I'm pro-immigration, but think we should be stricter on unfettered illegal immigration. And, yes, I think Arizona is a bit insane. Back on topic; it isn't the immigation that bugs me, its the balkanization. There are vast swaths of my city that are pretty much Mexican annexes, where all the language heard is Spanish, all the signs are in Spanish, all business is in Spanish, and in places they even except Pesos. There is minimal interface between these communities and the culture at large. This isn't healthy.
That isn't to say that people should abandon their roots (I'm only 2nd generation, still celebrate mine), but there shouldn't be ghettos. If you were dropped blind-folded into parts of Phoenix (or Tucson, or LA, or San Deigo, or vast parts of New Mexico) you would think you were in Mexico. And, no, these ghettos are not enforced by racist White American Males, or whoever budding young sociologists want to blame, they exist because a lot of the immigrants really don't give two shits about America, or being American.
Before the trolls rolls in, notice I said "a lot" not all. Growing up in Phoenix, and growing up in poor parts of Phoenix, I know tons of people of Mexican decent who are willing to go to college, join the military, become police officers, work real jobs, and otherwise assimilate. A large portion of Mexicans DO want to be Americans. Another large portion of them are just here because Mexico sucks, and we're the best place to get money. They have no involvement beyond that. Well, Mexico sucks, but is better than here... or something about La Raza or some other racist bullshit (see, there are racist assholes on both sides, imagine that).
As for the hard worker bit, that is absolutely true. But it isn't about workers... Illegal immigration is bad for all workers, legal and not. Republicans love illegal immigration because it forces wages down, and allows them to kill unions. They still get to pay taxes, but get no benefits whatsoever. Illegal immigration is best for the bottom line, but not good for workers.
Right now, I don't know a single American blue collar worker who is turning down any work whatsoever. And oddly, all these jobs that "Americans don't want to do" paid a living wage before we decided to completely open the borders, and American workers did all these jobs previously, often proudly. 30 years ago, even, an American worker could be blue collar and happily middle class.... That "American workers won't do it" rhetoric is utter bullshit and not at all supported by history or facts. How the hell did these things get done before we opened the illegal floodgates?
The issue is really much more tricky than anyone wants to think. We have to weigh whats good for America with humanitarian concerns. Closing the border is as idiotic as opening it completely. There is a very nice middle ground. We need a fair quota, and a clear and easier path for meaningful citizenship (i.e. more than just being menial labor), and past that we need to close off the borders to illegal immigration, while encouraging legal immigration.
But then again Illegal immigration is a public debate like Abortion... Its good money for the media, gets politicians in office, and beyond that it is completely dominated by idealistic blow hards.
My previous desktop computer failed after about seven years. And yes, integrated circuits do wear out. [wikipedia.org] Indeed, the smaller the structures, the sooner the chip will fail.
And I have a fully functioning Commodore 64 (and Atari 2600, Atari 5600, NES, and a PSX) plugged into a 10 year old TV in my bedroom. I'm typing this on a 7 year old laptop, which works fine sans some issues from the aging battery. The DVD-ROM drive in main computer is almost 10 years old. My mom's old computer, which we replaced because of software bloat, was nearing 15 years old, her new on is made of 5 year old components and will probably last enough 5-10 years (ignoring moving parts). Hell, her monitor is over 10 years old now.
I have an old Voodoo2 card sitting in my garage that still works, along with several bits and peices of compters up to 20 years old, most of them still work.
Most of the failures I've noticed were more due to bad components (the cap plague), over heating (user error), physical breakage (user error) or failure of moving parts (and a couple due to power surges). I don't think I've ever had a device "wear out" though.
More on topic: TFA is silly FUD. If we hit the wall, we'd probably be fine. My moms old "ancient" computer really could do everything that a user needs to do on a computer, it was replaced because software makers decided you need more hardware to do roughly the same tasks that were done on older hardware just fine. And if worse comes to worse, we'd find ways to use our same hardware differently... which is just innovation as usual. Fine, we top out on 7000 Thz prosessors, then lets shove 10 of them in there, doing dedicated tasks, and lets reduce some complexity to increase speed.
I know that no about of logic is going to get you to accept that there's a difference between a person choosing to do something and someone forcing them to do it. Knowing that, I'm consoled by the fact that with the rapid growth of the police state across the world, eventually one of the things you like will become a criminal offense even though it harms no one. Then you'll learn not to be an asshole with dreams of absolute power over others.
Your wrong, I find consensual sex fine. If any man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman want to have sex, that is absolutely fine by me, as long as it is 100% consensual. As long as they are mature enough to give consent.
I'm a social libertarian, I really don't give two shits what people do, as long as no one is harmed against their will, or anyones rights are trampled upon.
This conversation isn't about consensual sex, though. Its about sex with children, which is a whole different bag of worms. Children can't give rational consent, since they aren't fully mature enough to make decisions like that. Yes, some children of various ages may be able mature enough to make a rational decision, but in most cases they are not. There needs to be a line, even an arbitrary one, just to protect the rights and wellbeing of children. If there wasn't a line, where would it cease to be okay to have sex with them? And who'd decide who crossed that line?
"My two year old mumbled something that sounded like 'sex', so I molested him." This would be fine, right? He "asked for it", therefore it is consensual.
Yes, some 13 year olds can be rational and mature enough to make decisions like that. But most can't. If you ever hung around with 13 year old girls, you'd probably know this.
Having sex with one, no matter what mouth noises they make, is rape at best, and pedophilia at worse. And either way, if the cops get you for it, I have less than no sympathy for you.
At which age would you want to have sex with children? Where is that line?
When she's 13 years old, there is no difference between her asking and rape. Your and adult, she's a child; you, the adult, chose to have sex with a child. Thats the whole story. A child asking for sex doesn't make having sex with a child okay.
We're not talking about two adults, who are able to give legal consent. We're not talking about "edge cases", like a 17 year old who may be mentally/emotionally mature enough to give consent (if not legally). We're talking about a 13 year old, who most definitely doesn't have the maturity to make decisions like that rationally. Her asking makes no difference, since, you, the adult, are responsible for your decisions, no matter who asks or not.
If a someone asks you for sex, and you have absolutely no power to deny them, then you probably are mentally ill yourself. Just like if an unlocked door magically compulses you to enter (which is illegal), or a empty car with the keys in it compulse you to take it for a ride (still illegal), you have a problem. This problem is not an excuse to get away with having sex with children (or illegally enter peoples homes, or steal people's cars), since most adults don't share this with you.
Hell, some woman at Costco yesterday left he wallet and $20 sitting unattended on a counter for 3 or 4 minutes right in front of me... I didn't take it, since it would be theft, and completely ethically and morally wrong. No magic compulsion. No desire to take it... Why would a 13 year old girl asking for sex be any different? It still is illegal, unethical, and immoral. If the compulsion is so strong that you must act on it, then the perhaps you should be arrested, and entered into some form of treatment, and probably barred from being around children. That compulsion makes you a pedophile... and there my sympathies cease.
...not to mention legends of places like Atlantis with flying machines and solar resonant crystals supplying tons of power.
All of these legends were created long after the fact. The only documented "legend" of Atlantis was a brief aside in one of Plato's dialogs, after that speculation became rife, and people invented and filled in details willy nilly.
Also, I don't see why the pyramids, or ancient clocks, are very interesting. Ancient Egyptians were every bit as smart as us, even without our modern scienctific methodology. Our generation isn't "cognitively" special. Look at the Greeks... There was a 100 year period of time where they were probably the smartest civilization that ever existed (and set the roots for pretty much all of modern science, math, and philosophy), is this some form of inexplicable miracle? Nope, cultural forces aligned in a perfect way for this. Just like the European Renaissance, or the huge burst of intellectual activity at the dawn of the 20th century (actually there probably is some interesting shared causes among these three, like occurring in the middle of a time of trade, prosperity, and stability). It happens from time to time, it will happen again. No theological intervention needed.
Advanced ancient societies weren't collections of "cave men", or Neanderthals. Their brains were capable of everything our brains are capable of... So why are we shocked that they did interesting things? The Egyptians also invented glass, and we forgot it for a very long time. Europe lost most of the intellectual advancements from the Greeks and Romans.... Etc...
People like to find meaning in noise. Yes, I can probably re-intrepret the Bible to mean many, many, things. But the whole these are probably noise. You can only see them in hindsight, AFTER we have the actual developments. I'll be interested when we actually find a Biblical era genetics lab, or an Egyptian Apache attack helicopter.
Yes, I have a western bias. The ancient Chinese also weren't intellectual slouches either...
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
Which actually is a quote with zero theological content. That isn't Einstein saying "Obviously QM is wrong, because the Bible doesn't say it is right", its Einstein saying, basically, "QM is flawed because nature is deterministic; QM isn't, therefore QM is incomplete". The former interrelation would rightfully disqualify him as a scientist, the latter is part of the normal discussion that makes science tick (see the argument related to the quote between Bohr and Einstein... heady stuff... and not theological in slightest). Einstein was probably an atheist.
This argument isn't about rhetorical flair.
Often the term "God" is used in a naturalistic way. Just like atheists can use the word "soul" in such a way that is devoid of Christian meaning.
And this isn't about just barring people with religion. No one would really argue that, since their are qualified scientists who hold some flavor of religious faith. Its about being "anti-science", or not being actually skilled in the field you are appying for. How can I be a biologist when I don't actually have a scientific position on it, and, unscientifically, reject evidence based on a very old book that has nothing to do with biology for evidence, or facts, or anything else related to the field? I want to be a professor of Computer Science, but I think that computers are actually run by little gremlins with abacuses, and no amount of logic, evidence, or theory will ever convince me otherwise. Should I be hired? Probably not.
Are you even remotely qualified to argue their assumptions, much less deem them unqualified to teach in their respective fields?
Argument by authority. If the statement isn't based on science, it doesn't matter how big a scientist the speaker is. If Einstein stated that his computer is run by little gremlins, then yes, I could easily dispute it. If any of these people you cite had scientific, evidence based, proof of the existence of a god, then we'd be having a much more interesting discussion. But being that there is no such thing as a bona-fide "God Expert", then, yes, I can debate with them on the subject, and completely disagree with them with no fear of being any more wrong than disagreeing with a crazy person at a bus stop. Ultimately being a famous, accomplished, scientist doesn't make you right on every issue, or make your ideas unassailable. In the aforementioned Einstein quote, he was proven rather soundly wrong by Neils Bohr, for instance. If there is a God, he does play dice.
Now if a scientist suddenly decided all of QM was wrong because "God can't play dice", then he wouldn't be qualified for the field, now would he?
When I say I'm watching T.V. my friends call me a bullshitter... I never watch TV.
When I say I'm watching T.V., I'm sitting in the living room staring at the giant black monolith, staring carefully. You can never be too safe, those things are dangerous. It hasn't been plugged in since I go it, the last thing you want to do is give those damn things POWER. The sad thing is no one believes me either... my girl friend left me, I can hear my cats chitter with contempt and amusement... But I will continue my vigil, for the good of the humane and just society.
But everything you say can be used against you, all the time. If your plotting a crime on a street corner, and a cop hears you, congratulations... it's going to be used against you. Its public, you have no expectation of privacy, therefore anything you say is fair game. No problems with that; you're the idiot who talked.
In a chat room with anyone, there also may be no expectation of privacy. Beyond that, if we were talking privately, and you admitted to, or planned a crime, I could turn you in without warning.
Such is life. If you don't want to get busted keep your damn mouth shut, and don't commit crimes or admit to them, ever. If you do... I'm not sympathetic.
Except there's a HUGE difference between a 13 year old going after an adult and willingly initiating sex and an adult coercing a 13 year old into sex. It scares me that you lack the ability to understand the difference in the situations.
I don't see the difference. The adult has, or attempts to have, sex with a 13 year old. That is the only thing that matters in both scenarios. A fully functional adult can't be incited to have sex with a child, they choose to do it, and thus have equal culpability (and thus guilt) in either scenario. You have a choice, and by making that choice you are guilty. No problem there.
If I leave my keys in my car and you take it, it is exactly the same as if you steal it sans the keys.
Raping a girl wearing a skimpy outfit is exactly the same as raping a girl wearing conservative clothing. This is what your argument boils down to... the idiotic fallacy of "asking for it". Though its a bit more idiotic, since legally a 13 year old can't ask for it at all.
That said, I do find these sort of things problematic, since in reality all these potential pedophiles have actually done is try to have sex with a cop. Though I do understand the "intent" thing, and think it does show real problems... I err on the side of caution though, since people who abuse children (no matter who "started it") are pretty high up on the ladder of scum. If a 13 year old came on to most normal people in a chat room, they would ignore it... people who actually try to do it... they can be very very harmful, and probably should be stopped before they actually harm a child.
That's why it is fun to point out the socialist stuff in the constitution to these people.
A noble goal. Though I generally get blank or hostile looks everytime I mention the "general welfare" bits.
I figure the Constitution is a bit like the Bible. A document that lots of people find fundamental, but not many of its fans have ever read or took time to understand. To further the analogy; it also is mostly interpreted to mean whatever someone previously beleived and then used to present this opinion as some objective truth based on some cherry picked quotes.
Though, generally (and this might continue the Bible comparison), 90% of the interpretations are actually attempts to somehow glean the intentions of a bunch of people who have been dead for a very long time. Everytime someone says "the Founders wanted", I always want to ask them how long were they able to speak to ghosts.
"Well yes, the Constition doesn't cover this explicitly, but the Founders obviously wanted..." I've had this conversation before. To their credit they then bring in a bunch of other documents written by the Founder that most agrees with their point of view, completely ignoring the other Founders who wrote different opinions.
This also ignores the fact that saying "the Founders" is a bit silly and pointless, since they weren't a unified group who agreed with pretty much anything.
Sorry for the rant. Everytime someone uses the Constitution as a weapon I get a bit pissy.
Which is bizarre, since it is really one of the first socialist policies enacted by the young US government, along with patents, the postal service, and postal roads. I'm at a loss...:)
I might be missing some sarcasm here; but aren't copyrights and patents pretty much constitutionally mandated?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
What I do find odd, though, is that the people who like to spout the Constitutional mouth noises as if it is the end all be all of every single issue on the earth don't understand that quote most of the time. It isn't about "rights", it isn't about "money", it isn't about "individual freedom", it's about "promoting science and useful arts" for the common good. So the optimal copyright law won't favor artists, or try to get them the most compensation humanly possible (while harming the common good).... It would be a balance of benefits and misery to keep them squeezing out "science" and "useful arts" for the betterments of us plebes.
But then again the more someone utters the term "Constitution" the less they generally understand it, and the less they have actually spent time thinking about it.
Sorry friends. Games are not art. Games *contain* art, and some are quite amazing. However games as a whole are not art. Or...at least not yet.
Can movies be art? Movies are pretty much exactly like games (sans interactivity, which isn't in your argument and thus irrelevant for now), they are large, multi-person works containing various elements which could be artistic on their own (writing, soundtrack, visuals). Both are created for largely the same purpose (to entertain or edify, for money). There really isn't a difference between a film and a game.
A movie can be art if the director manages to pull all the bits together in such a way as to be an artistic whole (or, and I hate this phrase, "greater than the sum of their parts"). All of the parts may be artistic on their own, but you can combine them to be an artistic whole as well (in a way different that the parts).
Think of it as a collage.
Perhaps the problem is that gaming hasn't had a Citizen Kane or Ingmar Berman yet. But fundamentally there is no difference.
The oscars is basically a giant masturbatory industry conference.
Agreed.
Films are an industry and they have plenty of art, but its product art, which is to say, kitsch art.
Disagree. If you restrict yourself to "big" movies, and things likely to win an Oscar, then you are correct. But if you poke around a bit you'll find "fine art" is rather plentiful. I've seen several movies I would consider to be fine art. Many films by Ingmar Bergman come to mind ("The Seventh Seal" for example). Also see also Lars von Trier ("The Antichrist" is a very good example). See also some films by Micheal Heneke. Fellini also comes to mind, as do large chucks of the French New Wave. Many people would say Citizen Kane is an example of film being "fine art".
Many people in film even strive for it, like Alexandro Jodorowsky and David Lynch (or Coppola or Scorsese to move up the comprensability tree)... and many many others who are not named "Micheal Bay" or "Uwe Bolls".
the italian word Arte (that is, art), was a tuscan contraption of Artigianato, which means craftmanship.
From everything I've ever read the term Art, comes from the latin "ars", which means "technique", though "craftsmanship" could also apply. "Ars" can be translated as "art" but more in the "Art of War" sense, though later it could be translated directly into what we would call art. Your point remains, but what would Slashdot be with out nitpicks and pedantry.
By the half of 19th century, the word "Art" was already completely devalued by his original meaning and considered almost irrelevant by the Impressionism, and by the time Modernism and Post-Modernism came to exist, it was nothing more than a label. Any serious course on Art or Design would point this very clearly.
The term "art" has never had any concrete meaning, speaking from a philosophical/aesthetics point of view. Revise that; the "technique" and skill (or as you would call it "craftsmanship") aspects remain, but in the pure aesthetics sense the term is vague and subjective and always has been. Art, in the "fine art" sense is almost completely a social construct. Art is what people who talk about art agree on, nothing more, nothing less. Look at Duchamp's "Fountain" (or other ready-mades), a urinal magically becomes art because an actual, labeled, "artist" presents it as art, in a context that makes things art (a gallery). That has always been the case, but Duchamp had the balls to make it blatantly so. A lot of things we now consider art (in the fine sense) were not considered such by their makers, or by the society they sprang from.
To bring that back onto the actual topic; if someone with some clout in the "art world" presented a video game in such a way as to convince enough other people (in the art world) that it is, indeed, art, than magically video games turn into art.
And not to just focus on graphic, flat, art, the same is true of other forms. As one of my friends English professors stated when asked "what separates 'literature' from mere 'writing'?", "Literature is what English professors agree is literature". This is true, as Charles Dickens' modern status proves, when compared to how he was viewed at the time.
The rub; there is no objective standard to what makes aesthetic arts, "Art". Sans the technique or skill aspects (ars), your phone book doodles have the exact same artistic merits of the old master of your choice. The bar has lowered, though, but mainly because art communities have become increasingly introspective. Jackson Pollack is more context-dependant than Di Vinci, but beyond that they are on the same footing.
Sorry for the long rambling rant, I went to school for philosophy and studied aesthetics on the side, and am dating a woman who went to school for art (both painting and writing). I never could really get into aesthetics, because it is pretty much pointless (might as well argue about the existence of God), and focused more on meaty things like epistemology and the philosophy of science (which also has roots in "ars", a long time ago an artist and scientist/philosopher were indistinguishable).
Four problems in 50 years? Wiki lists at least 56 Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States [wikipedia.org] which caused at least one death or $50,000 in damage.
Touche. Though it would still be interesting to compare that figure to coal, oil, and gas generation. Without that comparison it is a pretty useless statistic.
But those designs don't solve one important problem, nuclear power is still Hooked on Subsidies [forbes.com]. Without government subsidies Wall Street, no matter how evil people think it is, will not pay for nuclear power plants to be built.
Agreed... but... So are all the alternatives. Oil, coal, and all the "green" schemes are also heavily subsidized. I don't even know how bad a thing that is, to be honest, since it does push down consumer costs. In general, I'm not a fan of subsides, but what do I know.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay! ... damn.
That doesn't sound like the protocols fault, it sounds like the devices'. I have a plethora of devices running over USB, and so far none have failed outside of cut-rate flashdrives and a mobile card reader from Fry's (big shock there). Connector slippage isn't a huge problem either, as long as the connectors are properly designed (again, not the protocols fault); hell, the connector on my phone needs a fair amount of force to remove, I wish it was "slippier". But then again I have an ancient external IDE enclosure where I have to wedge a pen between the power and USB cords to keep it from reseting (don't feel like replacing my old, but perfectly function 500GB IDE drive, its been running smoothly for 6 years, though getting a new IDE enclosure is almost impossible).
I do wish Firewire would have stuck around though... Damn Apple.
Stop double posting!
So your not "progressive" or "regressive" (or "reactionary"), your a fatalist. At best a cynic.
...and failed to recognize the only thing that they have a desire to progress is the power of the state.
Partisan rhetoric much? In what reputable and objective source is the term defined as such? If I say "conservatives are defined as an ideology that wants to cater only to rich people and let the poor starve in ditches" am I being as accurate as you? I'm not arguing that quote is the case, but many would.
I'm somewhat progressive, but still am a (social) libertarian (lowercase "l:). I want the state to be as weak as possible, while still supporting the people who constitute it. Yes, I'm in favor of schools, education grants, corporate responsibility, etc... But I'm also in favor of gutting the military, large swaths of the criminal justice system, vast reams of laws, and having the government get mostly out of my life. Perhaps the government should be "bigger" when it comes to supporting its population, but smaller when it comes to meddling in banal affairs where no individual is harmed.
The basis of this view is that the government's only goal is the wellbeing of its individual citizens, and the health of society as a whole.
A policy that lead to the rise in power of organized crime: Prohibition.
Huh? Wasn't that helped along by the religious folks, and the "family values" people? Do you consider banning gay marriage as a "progressive" issue too? Doing a quick search of the Wikipedia article on prohibition, there is one mention of the term "progressive", and it is about Bahrain allowing alcohol. There is one mention of the term in the article on the US prohibition, and it says something along the lines of "among other groups progressives supported it", which is pretty meaningless, and doesn't mean that they were the exclusive supporters or even biggest advocates. One mention isn't very strong.
I could also point of several policies that supporters of your favorite political dogma supported which ended badly. Thats the fun thing about political ideologies, people hold their pet political dogma over the actual real human consequences. Right, left; conservative; liberal, progressive, whatever its opposite is called... they all have this problem since they all have a body of blind true believers. I'm deeply suspect of anyone who holds their mere political opinion to be divine truth.
So, let's stop demonizing people here. Everyone with a political philosophy has the goal of fixing what's wrong, although there are wildly varying opinions on how to achieve that, and what exactly it is that is wrong.
Perhaps I grossly misread everything previous to this statement... but isn't that just what you were doing?
Ultimately it might benefit companies more to try and create a viable platform now when the market is still relatively young. It needn't end up like the desktop with 1 dominant player and a couple of minor ones, there's room for several.
The market isn't very young though... Have we forgotten about RIM, Symbian, Win Mobile, and all the other "smart phone" schemes of yore? Even now we have several contenders out there, but, as in all markets, there are a very small number of big players (Google, RIM, and Apple).
As a customer I like it this way. Further fragmentation would just be annoying, especially since a majority of "up and comers" will be dead before my contract expires. I also like all my development to be focused on a minimum of platforms. iOS and Android are very nice in this, you have two very large markets which are thriving,and in Androids case, platform agnostic.
Whatever Motorola does will probably fail. Android and iOS have a presence (my father recently bought a smartphone, and he only knew Android or iPhone)...As a customer, in the foreseeable future, I will probably only buy Android devices (irregardless of manufacture), and if I was so inclined iPhones/Tablets.* I won't buy the newly released MotorolaRockandRolla, or whatever. I know Android (and iOS), I know it is mostly mature. I know it has wide support. I know it doesn't suck, and probably won't burn me.
* I won't be, but not because of the maturity of the operating system. iOS is very nice. I would love it; if Apple wasn't screwing it up.
Fan boy much?
You are correct that on the tablet scene Android devices are lagging behind a fair bit. I'm really confused on how everyone that isn't Apple dropped the ball so much in this market. Yes, in the beginning they were caught with their pants down, and there was a glut of crap tablets to bridge between Apple and decent Android tablets. But not there really isn't an excuse. Looking at the pricing, it seems that non-Apple tablets must be marketed as luxury goods, and not as commodity devices. I'm not sure about this.
On phones... Does anyone still care? Android devices have completely trounced iPhones (where it counts; sales), and will probably continue to do so. I thought the whole era where people waggle their phones around like status symbols were long gone. Even the few people I know who own an iPhone have stopped ranting about them to anyone who even feigns a brief second of polite interest. Is anyone really excited about the iPhone 5? Will it pretty much be the iPhone four with an added keynote? Probably.
As for speed... Really? I have a Droid X, which isn't the top of the pack, and I haven't really noticed a speed problem, it runs video, the internet flows in all its chunky 3G bliss, apps do app things. What should I be doing, playing Crysis and compiling code on it? Playing with my friends iPhone4, I really don't notice much of a speed difference. Perhaps I needed a stop watch to tell, or a fancy benchmark on how quick Angry Birds opens, but if I need a secondary device to tell how much faster something is, it basically says the speed doesn't matter from a human perspective. I don't see many of my friends ditching their Android devices to get an iPhone now, no matter what Apple does. This is even true of those of them who aren't technology people, which is the segment that matters, and largely the segment that Apple caters to. Most people are pretty happy with their phones, no matter if they run iOS or Android.
Further, I was recently at a string of Verizon stores (for way to long), and the iPhone was marginalized to a back corner with various models running Android, and a few Blackberrys taking up a majority of prime floor space.
The 4G thing pisses me off. And the whole of the American cell-network/providers... Would it really be terrible to try to bring out tech up to the rest of the worlds standards?
And here in the states they cost much more than other television series. For example, excluding Amazon discounts: House Season 6: 59.98, Dr. Who season 5 (or whatever it would be factoring in the originals) 79.98.
And if someone is "trying to get into a show", I don't think they really want to spend $400 on DVD box sets (ignoring the older ones, which also cost a ridiculous amount of money compared to like products). Unless they have much more money than brains.
In cases like this, I have no problem saying "go pirate a couple episodes, if you like them, then think about buying them.". Technically illegal, but completely ethical.
That said, watch the 2005 seasons and work your way up. If you dig it well into the David Tennant shows, then think of going back and watching some of the older ones (they're on Netflix, and The Pirate Bay), especially the Tom Baker episodes. I did pretty much the same thing, I watched some older episodes on PBS when I was a kid, but never "got it", I even abstained from the 2005 reboot (since I didn't have as good memories of it). I started watching it when David Tennant took over, and haven't looked back since... Or rather, I have, since I've pretty much caught up on the entire back catalog by now.
Notice the parent wasn't actually advocating that... It was a rhetorical device, flippantly showing that there does exist methods to dissuade illegal immigration. Pointing out a method doesn't mean endorsing it.
Don't forget no matter how grievous the illegality of being in the country seems -- it still pales in comparison to even the most menial crimes committed.
Except that unfettered, unmonitored, unregulated immigration lets criminals cross borders as freely as the innocent. That is one reason that all countries have monitored border control, it keeps the shit out. I'm not calling illegal immigrants shit (it seems you have thin skin, so I may need to clarify), but there as many, if not more, criminals in Mexico as in the US. This is especially true giving Mexico's special current problems.
Of course, I am not advocating it
Of course he wasn't either. Relax.
And you call yourself Christians! Bloody hypocrites.
I have never, nor never will call myself Christian.
And even if I did I would advocate some form of immigrant enforcement (albeit not as idiotic as those proposed by my 'humble' state of Arizona).
Nice troll.
Also, work ethic has nothing to do with it. Its about the assimilation. I live in Phoenix, AZ, where we have a very large Mexican population (obviously). I'm pro-immigration, but think we should be stricter on unfettered illegal immigration. And, yes, I think Arizona is a bit insane. Back on topic; it isn't the immigation that bugs me, its the balkanization. There are vast swaths of my city that are pretty much Mexican annexes, where all the language heard is Spanish, all the signs are in Spanish, all business is in Spanish, and in places they even except Pesos. There is minimal interface between these communities and the culture at large. This isn't healthy.
That isn't to say that people should abandon their roots (I'm only 2nd generation, still celebrate mine), but there shouldn't be ghettos. If you were dropped blind-folded into parts of Phoenix (or Tucson, or LA, or San Deigo, or vast parts of New Mexico) you would think you were in Mexico. And, no, these ghettos are not enforced by racist White American Males, or whoever budding young sociologists want to blame, they exist because a lot of the immigrants really don't give two shits about America, or being American.
Before the trolls rolls in, notice I said "a lot" not all. Growing up in Phoenix, and growing up in poor parts of Phoenix, I know tons of people of Mexican decent who are willing to go to college, join the military, become police officers, work real jobs, and otherwise assimilate. A large portion of Mexicans DO want to be Americans. Another large portion of them are just here because Mexico sucks, and we're the best place to get money. They have no involvement beyond that. Well, Mexico sucks, but is better than here... or something about La Raza or some other racist bullshit (see, there are racist assholes on both sides, imagine that).
As for the hard worker bit, that is absolutely true. But it isn't about workers... Illegal immigration is bad for all workers, legal and not. Republicans love illegal immigration because it forces wages down, and allows them to kill unions. They still get to pay taxes, but get no benefits whatsoever. Illegal immigration is best for the bottom line, but not good for workers.
Right now, I don't know a single American blue collar worker who is turning down any work whatsoever. And oddly, all these jobs that "Americans don't want to do" paid a living wage before we decided to completely open the borders, and American workers did all these jobs previously, often proudly. 30 years ago, even, an American worker could be blue collar and happily middle class.... That "American workers won't do it" rhetoric is utter bullshit and not at all supported by history or facts. How the hell did these things get done before we opened the illegal floodgates?
The issue is really much more tricky than anyone wants to think. We have to weigh whats good for America with humanitarian concerns. Closing the border is as idiotic as opening it completely. There is a very nice middle ground. We need a fair quota, and a clear and easier path for meaningful citizenship (i.e. more than just being menial labor), and past that we need to close off the borders to illegal immigration, while encouraging legal immigration.
But then again Illegal immigration is a public debate like Abortion... Its good money for the media, gets politicians in office, and beyond that it is completely dominated by idealistic blow hards.
My previous desktop computer failed after about seven years.
And yes, integrated circuits do wear out. [wikipedia.org] Indeed, the smaller the structures, the sooner the chip will fail.
And I have a fully functioning Commodore 64 (and Atari 2600, Atari 5600, NES, and a PSX) plugged into a 10 year old TV in my bedroom. I'm typing this on a 7 year old laptop, which works fine sans some issues from the aging battery. The DVD-ROM drive in main computer is almost 10 years old. My mom's old computer, which we replaced because of software bloat, was nearing 15 years old, her new on is made of 5 year old components and will probably last enough 5-10 years (ignoring moving parts). Hell, her monitor is over 10 years old now.
I have an old Voodoo2 card sitting in my garage that still works, along with several bits and peices of compters up to 20 years old, most of them still work.
Most of the failures I've noticed were more due to bad components (the cap plague), over heating (user error), physical breakage (user error) or failure of moving parts (and a couple due to power surges). I don't think I've ever had a device "wear out" though.
More on topic: TFA is silly FUD. If we hit the wall, we'd probably be fine. My moms old "ancient" computer really could do everything that a user needs to do on a computer, it was replaced because software makers decided you need more hardware to do roughly the same tasks that were done on older hardware just fine. And if worse comes to worse, we'd find ways to use our same hardware differently... which is just innovation as usual. Fine, we top out on 7000 Thz prosessors, then lets shove 10 of them in there, doing dedicated tasks, and lets reduce some complexity to increase speed.
I know that no about of logic is going to get you to accept that there's a difference between a person choosing to do something and someone forcing them to do it. Knowing that, I'm consoled by the fact that with the rapid growth of the police state across the world, eventually one of the things you like will become a criminal offense even though it harms no one. Then you'll learn not to be an asshole with dreams of absolute power over others.
Your wrong, I find consensual sex fine. If any man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman want to have sex, that is absolutely fine by me, as long as it is 100% consensual. As long as they are mature enough to give consent.
I'm a social libertarian, I really don't give two shits what people do, as long as no one is harmed against their will, or anyones rights are trampled upon.
This conversation isn't about consensual sex, though. Its about sex with children, which is a whole different bag of worms. Children can't give rational consent, since they aren't fully mature enough to make decisions like that. Yes, some children of various ages may be able mature enough to make a rational decision, but in most cases they are not. There needs to be a line, even an arbitrary one, just to protect the rights and wellbeing of children. If there wasn't a line, where would it cease to be okay to have sex with them? And who'd decide who crossed that line?
"My two year old mumbled something that sounded like 'sex', so I molested him." This would be fine, right? He "asked for it", therefore it is consensual.
Yes, some 13 year olds can be rational and mature enough to make decisions like that. But most can't. If you ever hung around with 13 year old girls, you'd probably know this.
Having sex with one, no matter what mouth noises they make, is rape at best, and pedophilia at worse. And either way, if the cops get you for it, I have less than no sympathy for you.
At which age would you want to have sex with children? Where is that line?
When she's 13 years old, there is no difference between her asking and rape. Your and adult, she's a child; you, the adult, chose to have sex with a child. Thats the whole story. A child asking for sex doesn't make having sex with a child okay.
We're not talking about two adults, who are able to give legal consent. We're not talking about "edge cases", like a 17 year old who may be mentally/emotionally mature enough to give consent (if not legally). We're talking about a 13 year old, who most definitely doesn't have the maturity to make decisions like that rationally. Her asking makes no difference, since, you, the adult, are responsible for your decisions, no matter who asks or not.
If a someone asks you for sex, and you have absolutely no power to deny them, then you probably are mentally ill yourself. Just like if an unlocked door magically compulses you to enter (which is illegal), or a empty car with the keys in it compulse you to take it for a ride (still illegal), you have a problem. This problem is not an excuse to get away with having sex with children (or illegally enter peoples homes, or steal people's cars), since most adults don't share this with you.
Hell, some woman at Costco yesterday left he wallet and $20 sitting unattended on a counter for 3 or 4 minutes right in front of me... I didn't take it, since it would be theft, and completely ethically and morally wrong. No magic compulsion. No desire to take it... Why would a 13 year old girl asking for sex be any different? It still is illegal, unethical, and immoral. If the compulsion is so strong that you must act on it, then the perhaps you should be arrested, and entered into some form of treatment, and probably barred from being around children. That compulsion makes you a pedophile... and there my sympathies cease.
...not to mention legends of places like Atlantis with flying machines and solar resonant crystals supplying tons of power.
All of these legends were created long after the fact. The only documented "legend" of Atlantis was a brief aside in one of Plato's dialogs, after that speculation became rife, and people invented and filled in details willy nilly.
Also, I don't see why the pyramids, or ancient clocks, are very interesting. Ancient Egyptians were every bit as smart as us, even without our modern scienctific methodology. Our generation isn't "cognitively" special. Look at the Greeks... There was a 100 year period of time where they were probably the smartest civilization that ever existed (and set the roots for pretty much all of modern science, math, and philosophy), is this some form of inexplicable miracle? Nope, cultural forces aligned in a perfect way for this. Just like the European Renaissance, or the huge burst of intellectual activity at the dawn of the 20th century (actually there probably is some interesting shared causes among these three, like occurring in the middle of a time of trade, prosperity, and stability). It happens from time to time, it will happen again. No theological intervention needed.
Advanced ancient societies weren't collections of "cave men", or Neanderthals. Their brains were capable of everything our brains are capable of... So why are we shocked that they did interesting things? The Egyptians also invented glass, and we forgot it for a very long time. Europe lost most of the intellectual advancements from the Greeks and Romans.... Etc...
People like to find meaning in noise. Yes, I can probably re-intrepret the Bible to mean many, many, things. But the whole these are probably noise. You can only see them in hindsight, AFTER we have the actual developments. I'll be interested when we actually find a Biblical era genetics lab, or an Egyptian Apache attack helicopter.
Yes, I have a western bias. The ancient Chinese also weren't intellectual slouches either...
Would you hire a PhD historian who was a Holocaust denier to teach in your department?
If he had a really good, evidence based, reason for believing that, and is open to different theories based on the strength of the evidence; then yes.
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
Which actually is a quote with zero theological content. That isn't Einstein saying "Obviously QM is wrong, because the Bible doesn't say it is right", its Einstein saying, basically, "QM is flawed because nature is deterministic; QM isn't, therefore QM is incomplete". The former interrelation would rightfully disqualify him as a scientist, the latter is part of the normal discussion that makes science tick (see the argument related to the quote between Bohr and Einstein... heady stuff... and not theological in slightest). Einstein was probably an atheist.
This argument isn't about rhetorical flair.
Often the term "God" is used in a naturalistic way. Just like atheists can use the word "soul" in such a way that is devoid of Christian meaning.
And this isn't about just barring people with religion. No one would really argue that, since their are qualified scientists who hold some flavor of religious faith. Its about being "anti-science", or not being actually skilled in the field you are appying for. How can I be a biologist when I don't actually have a scientific position on it, and, unscientifically, reject evidence based on a very old book that has nothing to do with biology for evidence, or facts, or anything else related to the field? I want to be a professor of Computer Science, but I think that computers are actually run by little gremlins with abacuses, and no amount of logic, evidence, or theory will ever convince me otherwise. Should I be hired? Probably not.
Are you even remotely qualified to argue their assumptions, much less deem them unqualified to teach in their respective fields?
Argument by authority. If the statement isn't based on science, it doesn't matter how big a scientist the speaker is. If Einstein stated that his computer is run by little gremlins, then yes, I could easily dispute it. If any of these people you cite had scientific, evidence based, proof of the existence of a god, then we'd be having a much more interesting discussion. But being that there is no such thing as a bona-fide "God Expert", then, yes, I can debate with them on the subject, and completely disagree with them with no fear of being any more wrong than disagreeing with a crazy person at a bus stop. Ultimately being a famous, accomplished, scientist doesn't make you right on every issue, or make your ideas unassailable. In the aforementioned Einstein quote, he was proven rather soundly wrong by Neils Bohr, for instance. If there is a God, he does play dice.
Now if a scientist suddenly decided all of QM was wrong because "God can't play dice", then he wouldn't be qualified for the field, now would he?
When I say I'm watching T.V. my friends call me a bullshitter... I never watch TV.
When I say I'm watching T.V., I'm sitting in the living room staring at the giant black monolith, staring carefully. You can never be too safe, those things are dangerous. It hasn't been plugged in since I go it, the last thing you want to do is give those damn things POWER. The sad thing is no one believes me either... my girl friend left me, I can hear my cats chitter with contempt and amusement... But I will continue my vigil, for the good of the humane and just society.
I'm a hero. A hero damnit.
But everything you say can be used against you, all the time. If your plotting a crime on a street corner, and a cop hears you, congratulations... it's going to be used against you. Its public, you have no expectation of privacy, therefore anything you say is fair game. No problems with that; you're the idiot who talked.
In a chat room with anyone, there also may be no expectation of privacy. Beyond that, if we were talking privately, and you admitted to, or planned a crime, I could turn you in without warning.
Such is life. If you don't want to get busted keep your damn mouth shut, and don't commit crimes or admit to them, ever. If you do... I'm not sympathetic.
Except there's a HUGE difference between a 13 year old going after an adult and willingly initiating sex and an adult coercing a 13 year old into sex. It scares me that you lack the ability to understand the difference in the situations.
I don't see the difference. The adult has, or attempts to have, sex with a 13 year old. That is the only thing that matters in both scenarios. A fully functional adult can't be incited to have sex with a child, they choose to do it, and thus have equal culpability (and thus guilt) in either scenario. You have a choice, and by making that choice you are guilty. No problem there.
If I leave my keys in my car and you take it, it is exactly the same as if you steal it sans the keys.
Raping a girl wearing a skimpy outfit is exactly the same as raping a girl wearing conservative clothing. This is what your argument boils down to... the idiotic fallacy of "asking for it". Though its a bit more idiotic, since legally a 13 year old can't ask for it at all.
That said, I do find these sort of things problematic, since in reality all these potential pedophiles have actually done is try to have sex with a cop. Though I do understand the "intent" thing, and think it does show real problems... I err on the side of caution though, since people who abuse children (no matter who "started it") are pretty high up on the ladder of scum. If a 13 year old came on to most normal people in a chat room, they would ignore it... people who actually try to do it... they can be very very harmful, and probably should be stopped before they actually harm a child.
That's why it is fun to point out the socialist stuff in the constitution to these people.
A noble goal. Though I generally get blank or hostile looks everytime I mention the "general welfare" bits.
I figure the Constitution is a bit like the Bible. A document that lots of people find fundamental, but not many of its fans have ever read or took time to understand. To further the analogy; it also is mostly interpreted to mean whatever someone previously beleived and then used to present this opinion as some objective truth based on some cherry picked quotes.
Though, generally (and this might continue the Bible comparison), 90% of the interpretations are actually attempts to somehow glean the intentions of a bunch of people who have been dead for a very long time. Everytime someone says "the Founders wanted", I always want to ask them how long were they able to speak to ghosts.
"Well yes, the Constition doesn't cover this explicitly, but the Founders obviously wanted..." I've had this conversation before. To their credit they then bring in a bunch of other documents written by the Founder that most agrees with their point of view, completely ignoring the other Founders who wrote different opinions.
This also ignores the fact that saying "the Founders" is a bit silly and pointless, since they weren't a unified group who agreed with pretty much anything.
Sorry for the rant. Everytime someone uses the Constitution as a weapon I get a bit pissy.
Which is bizarre, since it is really one of the first socialist policies enacted by the young US government, along with patents, the postal service, and postal roads. I'm at a loss... :)
I might be missing some sarcasm here; but aren't copyrights and patents pretty much constitutionally mandated?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
What I do find odd, though, is that the people who like to spout the Constitutional mouth noises as if it is the end all be all of every single issue on the earth don't understand that quote most of the time. It isn't about "rights", it isn't about "money", it isn't about "individual freedom", it's about "promoting science and useful arts" for the common good. So the optimal copyright law won't favor artists, or try to get them the most compensation humanly possible (while harming the common good).... It would be a balance of benefits and misery to keep them squeezing out "science" and "useful arts" for the betterments of us plebes.
But then again the more someone utters the term "Constitution" the less they generally understand it, and the less they have actually spent time thinking about it.
Sorry friends. Games are not art. Games *contain* art, and some are quite amazing. However games as a whole are not art. Or...at least not yet.
Can movies be art? Movies are pretty much exactly like games (sans interactivity, which isn't in your argument and thus irrelevant for now), they are large, multi-person works containing various elements which could be artistic on their own (writing, soundtrack, visuals). Both are created for largely the same purpose (to entertain or edify, for money). There really isn't a difference between a film and a game.
A movie can be art if the director manages to pull all the bits together in such a way as to be an artistic whole (or, and I hate this phrase, "greater than the sum of their parts"). All of the parts may be artistic on their own, but you can combine them to be an artistic whole as well (in a way different that the parts).
Think of it as a collage.
Perhaps the problem is that gaming hasn't had a Citizen Kane or Ingmar Berman yet. But fundamentally there is no difference.
The oscars is basically a giant masturbatory industry conference.
Agreed.
Films are an industry and they have plenty of art, but its product art, which is to say, kitsch art.
Disagree. If you restrict yourself to "big" movies, and things likely to win an Oscar, then you are correct. But if you poke around a bit you'll find "fine art" is rather plentiful. I've seen several movies I would consider to be fine art. Many films by Ingmar Bergman come to mind ("The Seventh Seal" for example). Also see also Lars von Trier ("The Antichrist" is a very good example). See also some films by Micheal Heneke. Fellini also comes to mind, as do large chucks of the French New Wave. Many people would say Citizen Kane is an example of film being "fine art".
Many people in film even strive for it, like Alexandro Jodorowsky and David Lynch (or Coppola or Scorsese to move up the comprensability tree)... and many many others who are not named "Micheal Bay" or "Uwe Bolls".
the italian word Arte (that is, art), was a tuscan contraption of Artigianato, which means craftmanship.
From everything I've ever read the term Art, comes from the latin "ars", which means "technique", though "craftsmanship" could also apply. "Ars" can be translated as "art" but more in the "Art of War" sense, though later it could be translated directly into what we would call art. Your point remains, but what would Slashdot be with out nitpicks and pedantry.
By the half of 19th century, the word "Art" was already completely devalued by his original meaning and considered almost irrelevant by the Impressionism, and by the time Modernism and Post-Modernism came to exist, it was nothing more than a label. Any serious course on Art or Design would point this very clearly.
The term "art" has never had any concrete meaning, speaking from a philosophical/aesthetics point of view. Revise that; the "technique" and skill (or as you would call it "craftsmanship") aspects remain, but in the pure aesthetics sense the term is vague and subjective and always has been. Art, in the "fine art" sense is almost completely a social construct. Art is what people who talk about art agree on, nothing more, nothing less. Look at Duchamp's "Fountain" (or other ready-mades), a urinal magically becomes art because an actual, labeled, "artist" presents it as art, in a context that makes things art (a gallery). That has always been the case, but Duchamp had the balls to make it blatantly so. A lot of things we now consider art (in the fine sense) were not considered such by their makers, or by the society they sprang from.
To bring that back onto the actual topic; if someone with some clout in the "art world" presented a video game in such a way as to convince enough other people (in the art world) that it is, indeed, art, than magically video games turn into art.
And not to just focus on graphic, flat, art, the same is true of other forms. As one of my friends English professors stated when asked "what separates 'literature' from mere 'writing'?", "Literature is what English professors agree is literature". This is true, as Charles Dickens' modern status proves, when compared to how he was viewed at the time.
The rub; there is no objective standard to what makes aesthetic arts, "Art". Sans the technique or skill aspects (ars), your phone book doodles have the exact same artistic merits of the old master of your choice. The bar has lowered, though, but mainly because art communities have become increasingly introspective. Jackson Pollack is more context-dependant than Di Vinci, but beyond that they are on the same footing.
Sorry for the long rambling rant, I went to school for philosophy and studied aesthetics on the side, and am dating a woman who went to school for art (both painting and writing). I never could really get into aesthetics, because it is pretty much pointless (might as well argue about the existence of God), and focused more on meaty things like epistemology and the philosophy of science (which also has roots in "ars", a long time ago an artist and scientist/philosopher were indistinguishable).
Four problems in 50 years? Wiki lists at least 56 Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States [wikipedia.org] which caused at least one death or $50,000 in damage.
Touche. Though it would still be interesting to compare that figure to coal, oil, and gas generation. Without that comparison it is a pretty useless statistic.
But those designs don't solve one important problem, nuclear power is still Hooked on Subsidies [forbes.com]. Without government subsidies Wall Street, no matter how evil people think it is, will not pay for nuclear power plants to be built.
Agreed... but... So are all the alternatives. Oil, coal, and all the "green" schemes are also heavily subsidized. I don't even know how bad a thing that is, to be honest, since it does push down consumer costs. In general, I'm not a fan of subsides, but what do I know.