The solution is to avoid using debit at places that don't use the standard PIN entry keypad system. I've never encountered or even heard of a debit system like you describe being used in any other country I've been to.
Roketry was only a part of the space program and Van Braun didn't really contribute much more than rocketry.
The early space program was focused primarily on the development of rocketry - to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
Van Braun might have been a good rocket scientist but his ideas for space exploration were unworkable. His single craft plan for the Moon mission was thrown out. His plan for a Mars mission was backwards. In fact it's because of his Mars plan that any Mars mission is automatically labeled with a trillion dollar price tag by the press.
Like any good engineer, von Braun preferred designs which offered the highest margins of safety as well as the greatest chances of success. However, Charlie Bossart - the designer of the Atlas rocket - was more open to risk. His Atlas rockets were the first to use solid rocket boosters. von Braun felt that SRBs would introduce too much complexity to the system while dramatically reducing crew safety.
While von Braun's plans for the moon and mars were deemed excessively expensive they were in fact the most desireable from an engineering standpoint.
None of these arguments can be used to dodge the fact that it was German sceintists armed with the technical expertise gained in the nazi rocketry program who designed the first American rockets.
The simple fact is that the American space program was simply an extension of the nazi rocketry program - transplanted to the US.
I seriously doubt that they would be paying anywhere near $650 for their car (yes, including all the operational costs). That is, if they even have a car - it is quite possible to live without a car in many cities.
But even if they were paying $650/month for a car they are buying the freedom that you don't get from public transportation. The ability to get out of the city - to go camping, hiking, canoeing, climbing at no additional transportation costs..
I take 20% of my salary now and save it away. It has grown to about $100,000. If I had a job in Canada, that would mean I would only have $60,000 saved up isntead of $100,000.
But you wouldn't need as much - so it pretty much balances out...
YEs, moving to Canada after you retire makes a lot of sense, but to anyone that is currently saving to retire, it makes FAR more sense to get the higher paying job.
As long as you don't mind living in NYC - home of the $4 pizza slice and the $20 cocktail...
If I lived in Toronto I could only go tango dancing 5 days a week, not 7. And I would not have choice of Milongas.
Those of us with a less voracious appetite for tango dancing are ok with that.
I would HAVE to own a car, and have to worry about how I am getting home when I am drunk because your public transportation system is not as good as NYC's, especially late at night.
This is true if by "especially late at night" you mean "only late at night". When I was living in Montreal however we didn't worry much about the Metro shutting down at 1am - everyone lived within acceptable walking distance from the clubs..
I wouldn't call quake the killer app for the Pentium.
The Pentium was desparately needed at the time of its release for use in a multimedia environment. As anyone who has tried to play an mp3 in winplay 3 with a 486 DX2-66 can attest, the 486 was woefully inadequate.
If anything quake was the killer app for 3dfx's voodoo cards.
Also, Quake would obviously run faster on a Pentium with a 66mhz bus speed than on a 486DX4 operating with a 25 mhz bus speed. Quake 1 didn't run that terribly on a 486 DX overclocked to 206 mhz at 83 mhz bus if I recall....
Good thing not everyone turned to prayer. Scientists have actually researched schizophrenia and have come up with many medications to help people live with this horrible mental disorder.
Progress comes with hands working, not hands praying.
Yes, progress does come from hands working. Nobody is suggesting that this person pray for a miracle cure or anything.
Prayer (which is just a form of meditation) can do wonders for calming a person in high stress situations. It might be a good thing for the family members to try...
Right now the Vonage 911 services is an optional component but it's not hard to imagine that it be made a required part of setting up the service.
The problem is that it is against regulation for 911 to be optional. There are laws that describe what services must be included if you are going to sell voice communications service and functional 911 is one of those services. It's not good enough to offer a semi-fucntional work-around and have bi-weekly meetings at the FCC where it is promised that 911 will be available on a wide-scale "soon".
As to the power outage problem, it's true but that's what you get for saving some money, a less reliable service. Unless everyone goes to VoIP I don't see it being a problem, if the power is out and there is an emergency just go use the neighbors phone, same as if your line has snapped.
What if your neighbour has VOIP as well? But that is not really the issue. The law says that if you are offering voice communications (telephone service)that can be the only means of voice communication in a household then you must meet regulatory requirements. These requirements have been put in place for the good of society in order to protect consumers.
First, Vonage goes out of its way to make it very clear to new customers that it may not be as realiable as POTS, does not work for 911, et cetera. The warning is huge, and to imply that only techies would get it is disingenuous--its not in fine print, it's in huge lettering.
You would be suprised how oblivious some people are. Also, it's a matter of interpretation. Many people do not understand "not as reliable" to equal "911 will not work properly".
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the ideat that the public utilities commission could regulate VOIP for the purpose of being an arbitrator when things go bad (though that's what the Attorney General's office is for.) However I see no reason to protect customer's from something, and dramatically increase their cost, when it's spelled out pretty clearly and anyone can understand it.
The PUC/PSC already have the mandate to ensure the telecommunications network and services meet the needs of the public. There is legislation for every state which defines those needs, among them access to 911 and quality of service standards. These standards are not to be enforced as an afterthought, "when things go bad" but should be enforced immediately before things go wrong.
I think the lesson here is that companies should not attempt to "fly under the radar" and duck regulation in a heavily regulated industry. There is room for innovation in the telecom industry - but innovative technologies must still meet certain regulatory requirements before they are sold to the public.
Vonage et. al have released VOIP before all the regulatory problems were solved in an attempt to cash in quick. And now they are getting hammered down by regulators. This shouldn't suprise anyone.
Vonage may or may not be a duck... I mean phone comapany, but what about less dedicated companies? What about an ISP that includes VoIP?
If you are interconnecting with the PSTN in order to provide voice services then you are a phone company.
What about a company that outsources their network management to a company that sets up VoIP for them internally to their company?
As long as there is no interconnection to the PSTN then there is no problem. Once there is interconnection then the company that owns the lines is a phone company.
What if some friends and I set up our own system, say about fifty of us?
Again interconnection is the key.
If you don't use the connection to the existing phone network then do they want to monitor all internet traffic?
No.
Do they want to access encrypted traffic?
The FCC and state PSCs don't.
Because that's the only way they can regulate VoIP.
No.
And if they do use the connection to the existing phone network as their definition, then what happens 5-10 years down the line when VoIP dwarfs the old network. Do we just disconnect and saev ourselves a lot of money?
This is going to take much longer than 5-10 years. Think about the amount of investment that the telcos have put into copper lines. They make Billions of dolalrs off of that investment and are not likely to just let it go.
Additionally, VOIP cannot become bigger than the PSTN until there is sufficient broadband deployment across all of teh US - not just urban areas.
The bottom line is that the PSTN is going to be a part of our communications system for many years to come. Once VOIP becomes bigger than the PSTN the regulators will establish new regulations for VOIP...
It seems to me that a pure VOIP company (even if perhaps the device you speak into looks like a telephone) where there is no POTS based phone number attached nor does it traverse any of the POTS networks, should have no fees incurred.
If there is no interconnection with the PSTN then no charges are incurred. The problem is that most voip companies are routing voip traffic over the public internet and then interconnecting to the PSTN for the last-mile.
It makes it easier to embrace if its just a fancy phone.
The problem is that voip is going to be used by everyone - not just techies. The average person is not going to see the difference between POTS and voip. They will expect voip service to behave the same as POTS. However, becasue it is not regulated, voip service does not currently need to provdie 911 service, full battery backup or meet any other quality of service standards.
Many people who will purchase voip services in order to save a buck will not understand that these standards are not there. So when one of these consumers tries to call 911 from their voip phone and the 911 operator thinks they are in NYC when they are really in Albany - there will be excessive bitching from the general public - and with good reason.
The same will be true in situations where the power goes out and these people can't use their phones. The regulators are just trying to stay "ahead of the curve"...
I think the rest of your post clearly demonstrates how good Valenti actually is at arguing. As you read Valennti's case everything appears quite reasonable except for one or two glaringly obvious inflammatory points. For example:
Valenti: "But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
So people are directed to attack the straw man (debate over minority rights in a democratic system) when the actual issue is:
A true "right" shouldn't be conditioned to buying a machine. I have the right to watch a film recorded in an analog tape. I can buy a tape player, or I can build one myself, it doesn't matter.
Correct. But if you strive to be objective you can minimize that. A person who has studied music is going to have an easyer time being as objective as possible.
A person that has put an effort into exercising their objectivity is going to find it easier to be as objective as possible. Agreed. But you have to realize that this objectivity is really a bit of a sham.
Your opinions of a work of art are determined by how the art makes you feel and think. Some people then search for objective reasons for why a particular work of art affects them in a certain way. But the value of a work of art is more than just the sum of its parts. This is my point - you can apply all the objective criteria you like to work of art in order to figure why you find it good or bad. But, make no mistake, you have already subjectively decided the value of the art before you ever started analysing it.
And I'm saying that they are wrong. Not all people choose to make objective decisions about a work, that does not mean that that process does not exist.
I disagree. Nobody is ever completely objective. You simply can't escape yourself- senses and perceptions and feelings are what makes a person human. So while some may strive to be objective their personal opinions are going to seep in to any assesment they make. It's inescapable.
So, the reality is that each person judges the value of a work of art subjectively. All opinions are valid and all art is good.
I can obviously intrepret a work of art in different ways - but each of these interpretations directly influence the value that I will ultimately place on the work.
"Objective" assesments of the work (brush technique, type of paints/colors used and so on)do not affect the a person's process of assigning value to a work of art.
You have said yourself that there are works of art that you like but are not "objectively good". However your method for determining whether something is good from an objective standpoint is based on your subjective opinion that there is an objective scale for evaluating a work of art.
I am saying that some people do not share your subjective opinion that "objective evaluation" is a way to determine artistic value.
No, their opinions will be no more accurate. Their knowledge of the facts will be greater but their opinions will have the same value as an uneducated person. So while an art historian may know the life histories of and the painting syles used by monet, picasso and van gogh - their evaluation of those artists works will still not be any better than the evaluation of a layman.
That's just the nature of subjective interpretation.
I the late 19th century the "better informed" never really knew about van Gogh, that was the problem. His lack of success was due to the fact that he didn't have a wide enough audience to reach the "better informed".
That is patently untrue. The artistic community was well aware of Van Gogh's work - he travelled in the same ciricles as Degas and Monet - he even roomed with Gauguin. So, it's not as if nobody was aware of what he was doing. His style was just not in vogue at the time.
His worth as an artist doesn't lie in communal judgements of his work, his worth lies in the innovation and lasting impact he's had on expressionism and abstraction.
His worth doesn't lie in his lasting impact anymore than it lies in the communal judgements of his work. Every individual decides what the worth of each Van Gogh work is separately. The judgements when combined give a person an opinion on the collective works of Van Gogh.
Those judgements come from people far more educated in art history then you or I. It's equivilent to me arguing with a NASA engineer about what's inside the sun. He can't physically proove he's right, but that doesn't lessen the weight of his claim against me. The claims certainly hold weight, you don't have standing to dispute that, I told you if you wanted to refute his worth as an artist produce a credible source that validates your side of the argument.
The point is that I don't need to provide a "credible source" -my argument is that each person's opinion is credible. It is silly to claim that any one person's aesthetic view is greater than another's.
You NASA analogy just doesn't work in this case. Of course an astrophysicist who studies data collected from the sun will know more about the sun than me. And he can prove it. It isn't open for debate. Science is very objective, with quantifiable, measurable data - there are no value judgements being made. It is not a matter of aesthetics.
Now if we were discussing whether or not the study of the sun was a "good" thing to be doing (in a moral sense) then we could argue that everyone can have an opinion.
If someones judgement is based on a wider base of knowledge and they are better informed, that certainly makes their judgement better then those less informed. That's no more pretentious then a teacher assuming he knows more then the average person about his subject.
In matters of aesthetics and taste, like art, a wider base of knowledge doesn't give one better judgement. So, a math teacher will know more about math than a student and an art teacher will know more about art than a student. But, the student and the teacher are equal when it comes to evaluating a piece of art. And I guess if they were analysing the aesthetics of mathematics then the math teacher and student would be equal as well.
Mozart, van Gogh, da Vinci; those people's works stand by and far above the rest. Their contributions to the art world can be traced through history, not because everyone in the world want to buy one for their living room, but because the experts in the field, the people that really study art, can show exactly what these people did to set them above the rest.
Well, those art experts can demonstrate why they think that these people deserve to be considered the greatest. The survival of these artists' work through history is generally attributable to their popularity among the elite (professors, aristocrats, art historians and patrons). Many agree that these are the works of masterful artists. And they are entitled to their view. But their judgement is not absolute. Those with dissenting interpretations of what art is good are not wrong. All opinions are valid - we each have our own aesthetic sense - this is what makes humanity so great.
Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black... I'm fully aware of my stubborn nature, don't pretend that it doesn't exist in you also.
Agreed.
As proof to my theory that the value of art is not intrinsically linked to an induviduals enjoyment we can look at Vincent van Gogh as an example. Probably every art history book in use today will tell you he was one of the best of his time. It will also tell you that his success during his lifetime was minimal at best, people at the time simply did not enjoy his work. But as the content of his paintings have not changed neither has their value.
Agreed. The art itself has no value until an observer comtemplates it. So, Van Gogh's paintings are the same now as they ever were while the general perception of them has changed. We can then see that general perception doesn't determine the goodness of a work of art. In the late 19th century the "better informed" public thought his work was garbage. Presently Van Gogh is considered the greatest painter of his era (or one of them). Neither of these communal judgements really holds any weight. It is only the individual's aesthetic sense that determines what is good, in their own mind.
To say that everything is subjective is to deny the basics of human perception.
On the contrary, by arguing that everything is subjective I am affirming human perception - in fact I am arguing that all there is is individual perception.
Quality is always determined through comparison.
I disagree. I think we have an innate ability to determine the quality of any given work - in our own judgement.
But if another person has been exposed to a wider base of music and he comparitivly deems your song bad, is that him being pretentious or better informed?
If they have been exposed to a wider base of music then they are better informed. If they don't like my song that is ok. If they think that having a wider base of knowledge makes their jdgement somehow better than my own - then they are pretentious.
To simply state that it's all relative is a cop out intended to excuse you from standing by your beliefs. As an argument it's weak, that's something I've gone through great pains to try and express to you.
On the contrary it is a solid argument. We can all make our own judgements. We can even make those judgements based on our experience. But that does not make one person's judgement better than another's.
What proof can you offer that your position is correct? Can you give an example of a great artist who is suddenly deemed worthless because you say so?
Of course there is no example of a "great" artist
who has suddenly been deemed worthless. Once a work has been deemed "great" it is added to the cannon. Succeeding generations are taught that this work is great. They are told that the methods used to create this "great" work have more value than other methods. I am saying that the value of a work of art is not determined by how well it conforms to the style of its prdecessors, how innovative it is, or even what ideas it is intended to convey. Each observer determines the value of a work of art for themselves - they might agree with the general public - they might not. Both opinions are valid..
There's a reason these people have made it into history books, because they are good, not because the person writing the history books has an affinity for them. Their worth as an artist is not subjective, it is lasting and tangible.
History, as they say, is written by the winners. So the most popular works of art over the ages have lasted. This doesn't mean that they are any better than works that have faded away. Art is not a popularity competition.
Your also confusing interpretation with quality. Knowone is arguing that the interpretation of art is not subjective. That's one of the things that makes art great.
I am saying that personal interpretation is the way we determine quality. There is no objective scale for measuring quality. Only the individual's evaluation can determine what is a quality work of art in their mind.
Haha! The argument flew entirely over your head. Mozart is universally accepted by every knowledgable authority as being good art.
I knew I said I was done with you but - I'm bored at work so - on we go. You are one of those people that loves to have the last word right? We could go on forever because you will never let go!! It's freaking great!!
As I have said many times there is no universal acceptance of Mozart's greatness. Your claims that every "knowledgeabe authority" agree that Mozart is good does not prove your point. That is just a collection of opinions.
My argument is that the interpretation of art is subjective. You have yet to refute it. Keep trying if you like -it is entertainment for me.
Slashdot Mirror
The solution is to avoid using debit at places that don't use the standard PIN entry keypad system. I've never encountered or even heard of a debit system like you describe being used in any other country I've been to.
Roketry was only a part of the space program and Van Braun didn't really contribute much more than rocketry.
The early space program was focused primarily on the development of rocketry - to argue otherwise is ridiculous.
Van Braun might have been a good rocket scientist but his ideas for space exploration were unworkable. His single craft plan for the Moon mission was thrown out. His plan for a Mars mission was backwards. In fact it's because of his Mars plan that any Mars mission is automatically labeled with a trillion dollar price tag by the press.
Like any good engineer, von Braun preferred designs which offered the highest margins of safety as well as the greatest chances of success. However, Charlie Bossart - the designer of the Atlas rocket - was more open to risk. His Atlas rockets were the first to use solid rocket boosters. von Braun felt that SRBs would introduce too much complexity to the system while dramatically reducing crew safety.
While von Braun's plans for the moon and mars were deemed excessively expensive they were in fact the most desireable from an engineering standpoint.
None of these arguments can be used to dodge the fact that it was German sceintists armed with the technical expertise gained in the nazi rocketry program who designed the first American rockets.
The simple fact is that the American space program was simply an extension of the nazi rocketry program - transplanted to the US.
I seriously doubt that they would be paying anywhere near $650 for their car (yes, including all the operational costs). That is, if they even have a car - it is quite possible to live without a car in many cities.
But even if they were paying $650/month for a car they are buying the freedom that you don't get from public transportation. The ability to get out of the city - to go camping, hiking, canoeing, climbing at no additional transportation costs..
On the downside they have to live in Winnipeg..
I take 20% of my salary now and save it away. It has grown to about $100,000. If I had a job in Canada, that would mean I would only have $60,000 saved up isntead of $100,000.
But you wouldn't need as much - so it pretty much balances out...
YEs, moving to Canada after you retire makes a lot of sense, but to anyone that is currently saving to retire, it makes FAR more sense to get the higher paying job.
As long as you don't mind living in NYC - home of the $4 pizza slice and the $20 cocktail...
If I lived in Toronto I could only go tango dancing 5 days a week, not 7. And I would not have choice of Milongas.
Those of us with a less voracious appetite for tango dancing are ok with that.
I would HAVE to own a car, and have to worry about how I am getting home when I am drunk because your public transportation system is not as good as NYC's, especially late at night.
This is true if by "especially late at night" you mean "only late at night". When I was living in Montreal however we didn't worry much about the Metro shutting down at 1am - everyone lived within acceptable walking distance from the clubs..
I wouldn't call quake the killer app for the Pentium.
The Pentium was desparately needed at the time of its release for use in a multimedia environment. As anyone who has tried to play an mp3 in winplay 3 with a 486 DX2-66 can attest, the 486 was woefully inadequate.
If anything quake was the killer app for 3dfx's voodoo cards.
Also, Quake would obviously run faster on a Pentium with a 66mhz bus speed than on a 486DX4 operating with a 25 mhz bus speed. Quake 1 didn't run that terribly on a 486 DX overclocked to 206 mhz at 83 mhz bus if I recall....
Well, first they check to see if it has been claimed. If it hasn't - it's unclaimed...
You don't seriously think that Hobbes' theories in any way describe the modern state, do you?
That would be just plain crazy...
Good thing not everyone turned to prayer. Scientists have actually researched schizophrenia and have come up with many medications to help people live with this horrible mental disorder.
Progress comes with hands working, not hands praying.
Yes, progress does come from hands working. Nobody is suggesting that this person pray for a miracle cure or anything.
Prayer (which is just a form of meditation) can do wonders for calming a person in high stress situations. It might be a good thing for the family members to try...
Yes, I think it is a good idea to ensure public safety.
Right now the Vonage 911 services is an optional component but it's not hard to imagine that it be made a required part of setting up the service.
The problem is that it is against regulation for 911 to be optional. There are laws that describe what services must be included if you are going to sell voice communications service and functional 911 is one of those services. It's not good enough to offer a semi-fucntional work-around and have bi-weekly meetings at the FCC where it is promised that 911 will be available on a wide-scale "soon".
As to the power outage problem, it's true but that's what you get for saving some money, a less reliable service. Unless everyone goes to VoIP I don't see it being a problem, if the power is out and there is an emergency just go use the neighbors phone, same as if your line has snapped.
What if your neighbour has VOIP as well? But that is not really the issue. The law says that if you are offering voice communications (telephone service)that can be the only means of voice communication in a household then you must meet regulatory requirements. These requirements have been put in place for the good of society in order to protect consumers.
First, Vonage goes out of its way to make it very clear to new customers that it may not be as realiable as POTS, does not work for 911, et cetera. The warning is huge, and to imply that only techies would get it is disingenuous--its not in fine print, it's in huge lettering.
You would be suprised how oblivious some people are. Also, it's a matter of interpretation. Many people do not understand "not as reliable" to equal "911 will not work properly".
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the ideat that the public utilities commission could regulate VOIP for the purpose of being an arbitrator when things go bad (though that's what the Attorney General's office is for.) However I see no reason to protect customer's from something, and dramatically increase their cost, when it's spelled out pretty clearly and anyone can understand it.
The PUC/PSC already have the mandate to ensure the telecommunications network and services meet the needs of the public. There is legislation for every state which defines those needs, among them access to 911 and quality of service standards. These standards are not to be enforced as an afterthought, "when things go bad" but should be enforced immediately before things go wrong.
I think the lesson here is that companies should not attempt to "fly under the radar" and duck regulation in a heavily regulated industry. There is room for innovation in the telecom industry - but innovative technologies must still meet certain regulatory requirements before they are sold to the public.
Vonage et. al have released VOIP before all the regulatory problems were solved in an attempt to cash in quick. And now they are getting hammered down by regulators. This shouldn't suprise anyone.
Vonage may or may not be a duck... I mean phone comapany, but what about less dedicated companies? What about an ISP that includes VoIP?
If you are interconnecting with the PSTN in order to provide voice services then you are a phone company.
What about a company that outsources their network management to a company that sets up VoIP for them internally to their company?
As long as there is no interconnection to the PSTN then there is no problem. Once there is interconnection then the company that owns the lines is a phone company.
What if some friends and I set up our own system, say about fifty of us?
Again interconnection is the key.
If you don't use the connection to the existing phone network then do they want to monitor all internet traffic?
No.
Do they want to access encrypted traffic?
The FCC and state PSCs don't.
Because that's the only way they can regulate VoIP.
No.
And if they do use the connection to the existing phone network as their definition, then what happens 5-10 years down the line when VoIP dwarfs the old network. Do we just disconnect and saev ourselves a lot of money?
This is going to take much longer than 5-10 years. Think about the amount of investment that the telcos have put into copper lines. They make Billions of dolalrs off of that investment and are not likely to just let it go.
Additionally, VOIP cannot become bigger than the PSTN until there is sufficient broadband deployment across all of teh US - not just urban areas.
The bottom line is that the PSTN is going to be a part of our communications system for many years to come. Once VOIP becomes bigger than the PSTN the regulators will establish new regulations for VOIP...
It seems to me that a pure VOIP company (even if perhaps the device you speak into looks like a telephone) where there is no POTS based phone number attached nor does it traverse any of the POTS networks, should have no fees incurred.
If there is no interconnection with the PSTN then no charges are incurred. The problem is that most voip companies are routing voip traffic over the public internet and then interconnecting to the PSTN for the last-mile.
It makes it easier to embrace if its just a fancy phone.
The problem is that voip is going to be used by everyone - not just techies. The average person is not going to see the difference between POTS and voip. They will expect voip service to behave the same as POTS. However, becasue it is not regulated, voip service does not currently need to provdie 911 service, full battery backup or meet any other quality of service standards.
Many people who will purchase voip services in order to save a buck will not understand that these standards are not there. So when one of these consumers tries to call 911 from their voip phone and the 911 operator thinks they are in NYC when they are really in Albany - there will be excessive bitching from the general public - and with good reason.
The same will be true in situations where the power goes out and these people can't use their phones. The regulators are just trying to stay "ahead of the curve"...
Knows how to argue. Negative.
I think the rest of your post clearly demonstrates how good Valenti actually is at arguing. As you read Valennti's case everything appears quite reasonable except for one or two glaringly obvious inflammatory points. For example:
Valenti: "But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
So people are directed to attack the straw man (debate over minority rights in a democratic system) when the actual issue is:
A true "right" shouldn't be conditioned to buying a machine. I have the right to watch a film recorded in an analog tape. I can buy a tape player, or I can build one myself, it doesn't matter.
You honestly think that one cent per megabyte is a fair price?
Yes it does - Once you have decided you like something - then you do. Your objective analysis is just a way of trying to figure out why you like it.
Correct. But if you strive to be objective you can minimize that. A person who has studied music is going to have an easyer time being as objective as possible.
A person that has put an effort into exercising their objectivity is going to find it easier to be as objective as possible. Agreed. But you have to realize that this objectivity is really a bit of a sham.
Your opinions of a work of art are determined by how the art makes you feel and think. Some people then search for objective reasons for why a particular work of art affects them in a certain way. But the value of a work of art is more than just the sum of its parts. This is my point - you can apply all the objective criteria you like to work of art in order to figure why you find it good or bad. But, make no mistake, you have already subjectively decided the value of the art before you ever started analysing it.
And I'm saying that they are wrong. Not all people choose to make objective decisions about a work, that does not mean that that process does not exist.
I disagree. Nobody is ever completely objective. You simply can't escape yourself- senses and perceptions and feelings are what makes a person human. So while some may strive to be objective their personal opinions are going to seep in to any assesment they make. It's inescapable.
So, the reality is that each person judges the value of a work of art subjectively. All opinions are valid and all art is good.
I can obviously intrepret a work of art in different ways - but each of these interpretations directly influence the value that I will ultimately place on the work. "Objective" assesments of the work (brush technique, type of paints/colors used and so on)do not affect the a person's process of assigning value to a work of art.
You have said yourself that there are works of art that you like but are not "objectively good". However your method for determining whether something is good from an objective standpoint is based on your subjective opinion that there is an objective scale for evaluating a work of art.
I am saying that some people do not share your subjective opinion that "objective evaluation" is a way to determine artistic value.
Columbus: It'll be awfully hard to pillage the Incas with those sailboats though. Some much for the glory of Spain.
No, their opinions will be no more accurate. Their knowledge of the facts will be greater but their opinions will have the same value as an uneducated person. So while an art historian may know the life histories of and the painting syles used by monet, picasso and van gogh - their evaluation of those artists works will still not be any better than the evaluation of a layman.
That's just the nature of subjective interpretation.
I the late 19th century the "better informed" never really knew about van Gogh, that was the problem. His lack of success was due to the fact that he didn't have a wide enough audience to reach the "better informed".
That is patently untrue. The artistic community was well aware of Van Gogh's work - he travelled in the same ciricles as Degas and Monet - he even roomed with Gauguin. So, it's not as if nobody was aware of what he was doing. His style was just not in vogue at the time.
His worth as an artist doesn't lie in communal judgements of his work, his worth lies in the innovation and lasting impact he's had on expressionism and abstraction.
His worth doesn't lie in his lasting impact anymore than it lies in the communal judgements of his work. Every individual decides what the worth of each Van Gogh work is separately. The judgements when combined give a person an opinion on the collective works of Van Gogh.
Those judgements come from people far more educated in art history then you or I. It's equivilent to me arguing with a NASA engineer about what's inside the sun. He can't physically proove he's right, but that doesn't lessen the weight of his claim against me. The claims certainly hold weight, you don't have standing to dispute that, I told you if you wanted to refute his worth as an artist produce a credible source that validates your side of the argument.
The point is that I don't need to provide a "credible source" -my argument is that each person's opinion is credible. It is silly to claim that any one person's aesthetic view is greater than another's.
You NASA analogy just doesn't work in this case. Of course an astrophysicist who studies data collected from the sun will know more about the sun than me. And he can prove it. It isn't open for debate. Science is very objective, with quantifiable, measurable data - there are no value judgements being made. It is not a matter of aesthetics.
Now if we were discussing whether or not the study of the sun was a "good" thing to be doing (in a moral sense) then we could argue that everyone can have an opinion.
If someones judgement is based on a wider base of knowledge and they are better informed, that certainly makes their judgement better then those less informed. That's no more pretentious then a teacher assuming he knows more then the average person about his subject.
In matters of aesthetics and taste, like art, a wider base of knowledge doesn't give one better judgement. So, a math teacher will know more about math than a student and an art teacher will know more about art than a student. But, the student and the teacher are equal when it comes to evaluating a piece of art. And I guess if they were analysing the aesthetics of mathematics then the math teacher and student would be equal as well.
Mozart, van Gogh, da Vinci; those people's works stand by and far above the rest. Their contributions to the art world can be traced through history, not because everyone in the world want to buy one for their living room, but because the experts in the field, the people that really study art, can show exactly what these people did to set them above the rest.
Well, those art experts can demonstrate why they think that these people deserve to be considered the greatest. The survival of these artists' work through history is generally attributable to their popularity among the elite (professors, aristocrats, art historians and patrons). Many agree that these are the works of masterful artists. And they are entitled to their view. But their judgement is not absolute. Those with dissenting interpretations of what art is good are not wrong. All opinions are valid - we each have our own aesthetic sense - this is what makes humanity so great.
Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black... I'm fully aware of my stubborn nature, don't pretend that it doesn't exist in you also.
Agreed.
As proof to my theory that the value of art is not intrinsically linked to an induviduals enjoyment we can look at Vincent van Gogh as an example. Probably every art history book in use today will tell you he was one of the best of his time. It will also tell you that his success during his lifetime was minimal at best, people at the time simply did not enjoy his work. But as the content of his paintings have not changed neither has their value.
Agreed. The art itself has no value until an observer comtemplates it. So, Van Gogh's paintings are the same now as they ever were while the general perception of them has changed. We can then see that general perception doesn't determine the goodness of a work of art. In the late 19th century the "better informed" public thought his work was garbage. Presently Van Gogh is considered the greatest painter of his era (or one of them). Neither of these communal judgements really holds any weight. It is only the individual's aesthetic sense that determines what is good, in their own mind.
To say that everything is subjective is to deny the basics of human perception.
On the contrary, by arguing that everything is subjective I am affirming human perception - in fact I am arguing that all there is is individual perception.
Quality is always determined through comparison.
I disagree. I think we have an innate ability to determine the quality of any given work - in our own judgement.
But if another person has been exposed to a wider base of music and he comparitivly deems your song bad, is that him being pretentious or better informed?
If they have been exposed to a wider base of music then they are better informed. If they don't like my song that is ok. If they think that having a wider base of knowledge makes their jdgement somehow better than my own - then they are pretentious.
To simply state that it's all relative is a cop out intended to excuse you from standing by your beliefs. As an argument it's weak, that's something I've gone through great pains to try and express to you.
On the contrary it is a solid argument. We can all make our own judgements. We can even make those judgements based on our experience. But that does not make one person's judgement better than another's.
What proof can you offer that your position is correct? Can you give an example of a great artist who is suddenly deemed worthless because you say so?
Of course there is no example of a "great" artist who has suddenly been deemed worthless. Once a work has been deemed "great" it is added to the cannon. Succeeding generations are taught that this work is great. They are told that the methods used to create this "great" work have more value than other methods. I am saying that the value of a work of art is not determined by how well it conforms to the style of its prdecessors, how innovative it is, or even what ideas it is intended to convey. Each observer determines the value of a work of art for themselves - they might agree with the general public - they might not. Both opinions are valid..
There's a reason these people have made it into history books, because they are good, not because the person writing the history books has an affinity for them. Their worth as an artist is not subjective, it is lasting and tangible.
History, as they say, is written by the winners. So the most popular works of art over the ages have lasted. This doesn't mean that they are any better than works that have faded away. Art is not a popularity competition.
Your also confusing interpretation with quality. Knowone is arguing that the interpretation of art is not subjective. That's one of the things that makes art great.
I am saying that personal interpretation is the way we determine quality. There is no objective scale for measuring quality. Only the individual's evaluation can determine what is a quality work of art in their mind.
Are you stupid?
No.
Haha! The argument flew entirely over your head. Mozart is universally accepted by every knowledgable authority as being good art.
I knew I said I was done with you but - I'm bored at work so - on we go. You are one of those people that loves to have the last word right? We could go on forever because you will never let go!! It's freaking great!!
As I have said many times there is no universal acceptance of Mozart's greatness. Your claims that every "knowledgeabe authority" agree that Mozart is good does not prove your point. That is just a collection of opinions.
My argument is that the interpretation of art is subjective. You have yet to refute it. Keep trying if you like -it is entertainment for me.
C'mon champ - show me what you got =P.