You raise the "principles of beauty" argument and you have made a good point, to some extent. How do you explain languished art, art of pain and darkness, art that paints sorrow? Beauty is what triggers a positive emotion so in my opinion, your statement that art is about aesthetics is lacking because it only expresses one of many rich emotions possible to be generated through art. Visual art, feeling art, art of noise; these are the contrasts of art and each has a place. To suggest that only one fraction of one part is what art is all about is like saying clam chowder is about the milk.
And that makes it clear, that anyone acting as if he's an "authority" on what is and what is not art, is full of shit.
Except of course curators, professors of art, graduate students of art, artists, art enthusiasts, and anyone else with an opinion. One thing is true and will remain true forever; art is what the people think it is.
You do have a point. I tend to trust someone who would admit to a little shenanigans than someone trying too hard to appear as a paragon of virtue. Sadly, trust doesn't butter the bread.
I don't think the parent comment is any good, but it is definitely a comment.
Good troll. You fail to understand the art world. Things are either art or they are not art; the article posted on Slashdot was presenting the idea that the hard drive was not art. I argued very well that it is in fact art because it meets the criteria of what art is; art makes the audience feel something, art is risky, and art is topical. The hard drive passes these three tests for what can classify as art. Now the fact that I don't think it's good art is because the artist did not actually do anything artistic; the artist presented someone else's work and merely arranged it in a way that would change the classification of an ordinary object into art. There are artists that specialize in this, and they create good art.
This is imaginary art; it's not really there... the idea is the art and that part of it is good art. The object itself is not good art.
But it's still art. And your comment barely qualifies as a comment; more like a slew of horrible conjecture designed by a bot.
I know a lot of you are going to protest and complain that this isn't art, much like the protest over that sculpture made of raw meat... but in a sense this really is art because of the people downloading, the controversy over copyright, the flagrant copyright violation involved in the artist downloading these files and presenting them as an artistic work. I think it's commendable, and it definitely involves taking a risk and it does make you feel something, so it's art.
I didn't say it was good art, but it is art, and I think it's interesting.
You patent a specific way of doing something, not the general thing itself. Therefore it's not possible for Microsoft to patent the idea of virtual entertainment because that idea already exists. All Microsoft can do is patent the way THEY would do virtual entertainment and then the patent lawyers and judges decide if patent infringing cases apply to the patent or not.
In order to get all the answers from the bacterium, you'll need more pandas. Plus there's the problem of everyone breathing in panda farts on a large scale. This could be worse than current emissions!
You're right but I couldn't resist the urge to expose this near fatal flaw of panda physiology. My fear is that now if we turn to Panda poop for biofuel that the human race will become so content that we too will not be enthusiastic about sex from breathing in all the panda biofuel farts on a large scale.
You'll need to convince pandas to have more panda-sex in order to get enough panda poo to fuel the biofuel for this whole planet as their numbers are in pretty short supply right now. For some reason pandas hate panda-sex, and I have no idea why. It's awesome!
Isn't there a rule of law against blaming the guy who encourages you to jump off a bridge? I know I've heard Judge Judy say something to that effect and she is the law.
Human beings among other mammals are comprised of many many fleshy robots that make up our systems. When nanotech reaches an apex, it will mimic nature to the extent that instead of three robots, you'll have infinite robots in any given robotic organism. The more the merrier; this is a survival tactic for organisms when cells die off or become injured the backup cells take over.
When a non-cellular robot is injured it must rely on the injury being located away from its repair features or the robot is written off completely. Not so with nanotech! If one falls, there are millions to take its place with the same functionality.
What this all comes down to is that we have a distinct need present that is not being met. The need we all have is to have a site that reviews specific content types and vets it against objective truth; the best results are measured by scientists, and the result is delivered.
Google used to do this somehow. But since the SEO people basically managed to figure out how to circumnavigate the search engine's security or algorithms to prevent corruption of results, we now see more and more search results that simply put, suck the big one compared to actual possible results available with the right fine-tuning.
The problem here is that Google isn't asking any questions to the users of search. They are just offering up results and hoping for the best. But really if you want to have search get to the next level, you've got to have rep play a part of it, and have moderators who have more rep than everyone else in control of how sites get exposure.
I can take five seconds and tell you if a search result is bogus. I was looking for a review of a virtual assistant website today and I found a slew of reviews that were phony. It was totally obvious, but still the same this is what is occupying Google's first page of results.
How many of you remember when Google destroyed Yahoo in terms of search quality? Look at them now and it's like the same website.
At this stage, blackhat activity would lead that project to a negative conclusion, and the feature wouldn't be implemented, and it couldn't be manipulated.
Unless the blackhats were smart, which most are. In which case they will use this testing stage as a way to elicit false confidence in this new avenue while gathering information they will need to make the new changes work in their favour. Black hats almost never do what you'd expect them to do. They often do the exact opposite until just the very proper moment.
Changes to any system will elicit unpredictable changes by forces acting upon said system.
+1 data is a good thing if you accept that it is delivered by people who have been vetted by Google. What's to stop Google from then only listening to those that represent Google's interests? From a fiduciary perspective they would be foolish not to listen to those they revere the most.
The +1 data is useful, but is it useful enough? Not without a -1 button, imho. But in the big picture, +/- is just a perspective from a subjective opinion. It doesn't reflect real objective perspectives. There is a better way.
What America needs now is an old dude to assume the role of high church office so that America can officially become a religious state. They can then live off the proceeds offered by the superstitious tourists.
I mean when you have a great Empire that implodes on itself after having succumbed to military spending insanity, what's left to do when everything goes to shit?
Slashdot Mirror
I would prefer, "phaedrus5001 writes,..." but if people cared what I preferred, we'd still have a CmdrTaco.
You raise the "principles of beauty" argument and you have made a good point, to some extent. How do you explain languished art, art of pain and darkness, art that paints sorrow? Beauty is what triggers a positive emotion so in my opinion, your statement that art is about aesthetics is lacking because it only expresses one of many rich emotions possible to be generated through art. Visual art, feeling art, art of noise; these are the contrasts of art and each has a place. To suggest that only one fraction of one part is what art is all about is like saying clam chowder is about the milk.
Except of course curators, professors of art, graduate students of art, artists, art enthusiasts, and anyone else with an opinion. One thing is true and will remain true forever; art is what the people think it is.
You do have a point. I tend to trust someone who would admit to a little shenanigans than someone trying too hard to appear as a paragon of virtue. Sadly, trust doesn't butter the bread.
Good troll. You fail to understand the art world. Things are either art or they are not art; the article posted on Slashdot was presenting the idea that the hard drive was not art. I argued very well that it is in fact art because it meets the criteria of what art is; art makes the audience feel something, art is risky, and art is topical. The hard drive passes these three tests for what can classify as art. Now the fact that I don't think it's good art is because the artist did not actually do anything artistic; the artist presented someone else's work and merely arranged it in a way that would change the classification of an ordinary object into art. There are artists that specialize in this, and they create good art.
This is imaginary art; it's not really there... the idea is the art and that part of it is good art. The object itself is not good art.
But it's still art. And your comment barely qualifies as a comment; more like a slew of horrible conjecture designed by a bot.
I always trust what Blackhats tell me.
I know a lot of you are going to protest and complain that this isn't art, much like the protest over that sculpture made of raw meat... but in a sense this really is art because of the people downloading, the controversy over copyright, the flagrant copyright violation involved in the artist downloading these files and presenting them as an artistic work. I think it's commendable, and it definitely involves taking a risk and it does make you feel something, so it's art.
I didn't say it was good art, but it is art, and I think it's interesting.
You patent a specific way of doing something, not the general thing itself. Therefore it's not possible for Microsoft to patent the idea of virtual entertainment because that idea already exists. All Microsoft can do is patent the way THEY would do virtual entertainment and then the patent lawyers and judges decide if patent infringing cases apply to the patent or not.
With the current Harper government in power, I am totally amazed at this ruling. I applaud the judge for standing up for online anonymity.
Also:
RIP Jack Layton
You should never be sorry for a Godwin if it's relevant.
If you run a firm that provides IT snooping for war criminals, then you too are being a war criminal and you too should face criminal charges.
In order to get all the answers from the bacterium, you'll need more pandas. Plus there's the problem of everyone breathing in panda farts on a large scale. This could be worse than current emissions!
You're right but I couldn't resist the urge to expose this near fatal flaw of panda physiology. My fear is that now if we turn to Panda poop for biofuel that the human race will become so content that we too will not be enthusiastic about sex from breathing in all the panda biofuel farts on a large scale.
You'll need to convince pandas to have more panda-sex in order to get enough panda poo to fuel the biofuel for this whole planet as their numbers are in pretty short supply right now. For some reason pandas hate panda-sex, and I have no idea why. It's awesome!
Isn't there a rule of law against blaming the guy who encourages you to jump off a bridge? I know I've heard Judge Judy say something to that effect and she is the law.
It's a story about a fable within a fable within a fable within a fable, so you're right to use the word inception in this context!
Geeks will inherit the Earth.
This kind of fear is akin to the fear of oxygen and it's fueled by the fear of science by the superstitious.
Human beings among other mammals are comprised of many many fleshy robots that make up our systems. When nanotech reaches an apex, it will mimic nature to the extent that instead of three robots, you'll have infinite robots in any given robotic organism. The more the merrier; this is a survival tactic for organisms when cells die off or become injured the backup cells take over.
When a non-cellular robot is injured it must rely on the injury being located away from its repair features or the robot is written off completely. Not so with nanotech! If one falls, there are millions to take its place with the same functionality.
What this all comes down to is that we have a distinct need present that is not being met. The need we all have is to have a site that reviews specific content types and vets it against objective truth; the best results are measured by scientists, and the result is delivered.
Google used to do this somehow. But since the SEO people basically managed to figure out how to circumnavigate the search engine's security or algorithms to prevent corruption of results, we now see more and more search results that simply put, suck the big one compared to actual possible results available with the right fine-tuning.
The problem here is that Google isn't asking any questions to the users of search. They are just offering up results and hoping for the best. But really if you want to have search get to the next level, you've got to have rep play a part of it, and have moderators who have more rep than everyone else in control of how sites get exposure.
I can take five seconds and tell you if a search result is bogus. I was looking for a review of a virtual assistant website today and I found a slew of reviews that were phony. It was totally obvious, but still the same this is what is occupying Google's first page of results.
How many of you remember when Google destroyed Yahoo in terms of search quality? Look at them now and it's like the same website.
Okay okay, I'll be quiet now. :D
Well if it's trivial for SEO people to exploit, then it's trivial for Google to identify SEO firms and put them in the great ethereal void.
Unless the blackhats were smart, which most are. In which case they will use this testing stage as a way to elicit false confidence in this new avenue while gathering information they will need to make the new changes work in their favour. Black hats almost never do what you'd expect them to do. They often do the exact opposite until just the very proper moment.
Changes to any system will elicit unpredictable changes by forces acting upon said system.
+1 data is a good thing if you accept that it is delivered by people who have been vetted by Google. What's to stop Google from then only listening to those that represent Google's interests? From a fiduciary perspective they would be foolish not to listen to those they revere the most.
The +1 data is useful, but is it useful enough? Not without a -1 button, imho. But in the big picture, +/- is just a perspective from a subjective opinion. It doesn't reflect real objective perspectives. There is a better way.
What America needs now is an old dude to assume the role of high church office so that America can officially become a religious state. They can then live off the proceeds offered by the superstitious tourists.
I mean when you have a great Empire that implodes on itself after having succumbed to military spending insanity, what's left to do when everything goes to shit?