I've posted something similar above so mod me as you will...
I think digital art forms age quite differently than others. While old photographs have a very cool appearance, old digital images (old video games, images, what have you) have a way of just looking tacky.
It's a bit like Comic Books as art. Looking back on old comics, it's hard to see real "Art" as opposed to nifty cultural artifacts. Anyone arguing that comic books could be art back in the 1940s wouldn't have had much to support themselves on. But now there is a (small) number of artists producing really great things with that medium, check out the work of Chris Ware and Dan Clowes to see what I'm talking about.
Also even modern digital images show too much of the medium. They are very identifiably digital and seem to be making statements about technology regardless of what they portray. Hmmmm... maybe a better analogy: digital art today is painting in pre-reniassance Europe, the form has to evolve some before the art can escape the trappings of the medium.
The biggest problem with computer graphics being fine art is that its such a rapidly evolving technology, works quickly show their age in bad ways. CG "art" from just a few years ago looks really plastic and cheasy compared to modern graphics, an effect that the artist probably didn't intend. I think the medium will have to stabilize for a few years before it can be viewed as legitimate art.
Oh shut the fuck up. I'm no GWB supporter. It made me mad when idiot rednecks said that about Clinton, so I'm not about to tolerate it now. The American people occasionally (read: almost every single damn time) elect really bad people to the office. Deal with it and wait for '04.
Ever been to Atlanta? In NYC and Boston you have valid options for getting around without dealing with the roads.
But ing Atlanta (and in Houston, and LA) you just have to drive, or rather park on the highway, sit and wait for someone to go insane in the july heat and do something monumentally stupid, like driving INTO a stopped oil truck.
You've just proven the other guy's point. Statistics ARE meaningful, you just have to be careful about the meaning that you draw from them. In Science nothing is "absolute" a scientist cannot really be 100% sure that gravity will work the next time you drop a pencil, but it's never gone wrong before, and so they can say with ALMOST total certainty.
Now on race and crime or race and intelligence. Those are meaningful statistics, but to really get at what they mean, they have to be compared to other meaningful statistics: such as race and economics, race and education, and those factors again on crime and intelligence. Heres another meaningful statistic: first generation African immigrants in america have a lower crime rate and greater level of income than whites on average. Yes there is a correlation between race and position in society, but the suggestion that the blame lies in a problem with the race rather than a problem with the society has little backing in fact.
So yes, if you excercise it will reduce the PROBABILITY that you will have heart trouble. They can't say "Eat right and excercise and you'll never have a heart attack" because that would be blatantly untrue, but saying that it "may" prevent heart disease covers the fact that yes, on average, healthy people have a much lower rate of heart disease, but some people are still just unlucky and we can't assure you of anything 100%
Sorry to be so offtopic, but I had time to kill and this guy was letting his mouth run where he shouldn't have.
But on a related note... I just thaught of a good use for computer electroshock equipment: bad karma = *pain*
Re:No, a bomb isn't so easy
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
Or steal the stuff right here in the good old US of A, you'd be amazed at how lax security around some reactors and (hint hint) universities is.
The bottom line is: fission and fusion weapons are actually surprisingly simple to construct, given basic raw materials. Any sufficiently devoted nation or orginization should be able to have them without a whole lot of difficulty. Reports to the contrary are propaganda via ignorance.
Re:Not physicaly possible to travel faster then li
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
It's not just that we can't do it with any machines, we can't even think of a way to do it without violating things that just plain can't be violated. This isn't a barrier of sound type situation at all. For the barrier of sound we knew that some object could go faster than the speed of sound at sea level, plenty of things do, just outside of the atmosphere. It was just considered a very very difficult engineering problem, not a physical impossibility. On the other hand, the speed of light is a barrier imposed by our most fundamental understanding of the nature of space and time. We cannot conceive of a way that ANYTHING could go faster than light.
Re:High Warp Restriction?
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
Uhmmm... no. When two cars approach each other at 60 MPH they see 120 MPH, but when two things approach at very close to the speed of light, things are a bit different. You still see the thing coming at you at below the speed of light. How is this possible? Time slows down for you. This is why you age slower on a quickly moving spaceship than on earth. It is impossible to observe anything moving faster than light. This has been proven by actual observation many times over since Einstein.
In the case of the train, you're wrong again. If you're on a train moving close to the speed of light, space gets deformed to prevent you moving faster than light. Things get "squashed" together. The train and its contents, relative to the outside world, get compressed in the direction of their velocity (it loses length) so that relative to the outside world you are traveling a lesser distance on that train and are still going slower than light. Bottom line: it's impossible for anything to go faster than light relative to anything else.
It boggles the mind. But physics gets really strange under extreme conditions.
Re:High Warp Restriction?
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
The problem with this (and just about all other speed of light workarounds) is that there are TWO restrictions on going FTL. The first is that its physically impossible, the second is that it will create a nasty paradox no matter how it is achieved. ANYTHING that lets a message arrive somewhere faster than a beam of light could be used to send messages back in time, which obviously breaks everything down. By "warping space time" you are warping time, and backwards time travel is impossible.
One of the fundamental ideas that relativity was derived from is that the ORDER of events is the same for all observers. FTL travel or backwards time travel violates this principle.
In short:no type of mini-worm hole creating, negative energy harvesting, black-hole sling shot utilizing, warp drives, no matter how cleverly they try to get around the speed of light, could ever work unless physics as we know it are VERY VERY wrong.
Which is a possibility. I sure want faster than light travel, but from any sort of realistic educated outlook, it isn't bloody likely. Worm holes are purely hypothetical, basically conceived as science fiction conveniences, and othes schemes are fundamentally impossible. Our travel in the cosmos may well be seriously limited.
As far as love stories intertwined with historical tragedies go, Titanic was a better movie. Much better.
Sadly, I'm inclined to believe you. Leave it up to the continuing degradation of popular film to make that overrated overlong stinker look like a shining example of quality.
What makes you so sure it is? I can't imagine a secret council in a shady room plotting lies and misinformation to thwart the... history channel.
Honestly conspiracy theories give human organization way too much credit. Bad history is almost always the result of existing stereotypes and plain laziness, not "revisionist propaganda"
Re:What are the ethical implications here?
on
BoyCott Advance
·
· Score: 1
Least to most:
Connie
Dave
Bill
Alice
Connie is the least because in Bill and Dave's cases, there is one purchaser of the book lending or copying for a very limited number of recipiants. In connies case one purchaser has probably distributed it to thousands of people. Bill and Alice are both totally in the clear.
P.S. Why electronic "libraries" of current works won't succeed. One of the reasons that publishers allow libraries to exist is that they are inconvenient. If a library could print an unlimited amount of any work that they are short on, so everyone could have access to it at once, then publishers would go out of business. Publishers will see to it that libraries are always less convenient than owning the book yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I've posted something similar above so mod me as you will...
I think digital art forms age quite differently than others. While old photographs have a very cool appearance, old digital images (old video games, images, what have you) have a way of just looking tacky.
It's a bit like Comic Books as art. Looking back on old comics, it's hard to see real "Art" as opposed to nifty cultural artifacts. Anyone arguing that comic books could be art back in the 1940s wouldn't have had much to support themselves on. But now there is a (small) number of artists producing really great things with that medium, check out the work of Chris Ware and Dan Clowes to see what I'm talking about.
Also even modern digital images show too much of the medium. They are very identifiably digital and seem to be making statements about technology regardless of what they portray. Hmmmm... maybe a better analogy: digital art today is painting in pre-reniassance Europe, the form has to evolve some before the art can escape the trappings of the medium.
The biggest problem with computer graphics being fine art is that its such a rapidly evolving technology, works quickly show their age in bad ways. CG "art" from just a few years ago looks really plastic and cheasy compared to modern graphics, an effect that the artist probably didn't intend. I think the medium will have to stabilize for a few years before it can be viewed as legitimate art.
Oh shut the fuck up. I'm no GWB supporter. It made me mad when idiot rednecks said that about Clinton, so I'm not about to tolerate it now. The American people occasionally (read: almost every single damn time) elect really bad people to the office. Deal with it and wait for '04.
Ever been to Atlanta? In NYC and Boston you have valid options for getting around without dealing with the roads.
But ing Atlanta (and in Houston, and LA) you just have to drive, or rather park on the highway, sit and wait for someone to go insane in the july heat and do something monumentally stupid, like driving INTO a stopped oil truck.
Geez these rednecks amaze me.
In GA i've never heard of anyone getting busted outside of a school zone for anything less than 15.
I actually think that the truly universal rule is go as fast as you want as long as someone is going faster.
Also, laws do not apparently apply to sport bikes.
Will it play all my old Genesis games?
Sweet! Earthworm Jim on the go.
You've just proven the other guy's point. Statistics ARE meaningful, you just have to be careful about the meaning that you draw from them. In Science nothing is "absolute" a scientist cannot really be 100% sure that gravity will work the next time you drop a pencil, but it's never gone wrong before, and so they can say with ALMOST total certainty.
Now on race and crime or race and intelligence. Those are meaningful statistics, but to really get at what they mean, they have to be compared to other meaningful statistics: such as race and economics, race and education, and those factors again on crime and intelligence. Heres another meaningful statistic: first generation African immigrants in america have a lower crime rate and greater level of income than whites on average. Yes there is a correlation between race and position in society, but the suggestion that the blame lies in a problem with the race rather than a problem with the society has little backing in fact.
So yes, if you excercise it will reduce the PROBABILITY that you will have heart trouble. They can't say "Eat right and excercise and you'll never have a heart attack" because that would be blatantly untrue, but saying that it "may" prevent heart disease covers the fact that yes, on average, healthy people have a much lower rate of heart disease, but some people are still just unlucky and we can't assure you of anything 100%
Sorry to be so offtopic, but I had time to kill and this guy was letting his mouth run where he shouldn't have.
"They proably wanted to keep up the damn voters in New York for putting Clintion in the sennet."
You know there is a statistical correspondence between higher education and liberal political views.
Actually there hasn't been inflation since the early nineties, but in '97 CDs were $13-$16 where I live, and now they're $15-$18. Why?
greed, and monopoly economics.
Why the hell would they not want to be the next MS... I mean, I want to be the next MS.
The fans turn off when your network goes down? Why so that your boxes can overheat everytime the server hiccups?
Accck! Just when I ran out of my own points.
But on a related note... I just thaught of a good use for computer electroshock equipment: bad karma = *pain*
Or steal the stuff right here in the good old US of A, you'd be amazed at how lax security around some reactors and (hint hint) universities is.
The bottom line is: fission and fusion weapons are actually surprisingly simple to construct, given basic raw materials. Any sufficiently devoted nation or orginization should be able to have them without a whole lot of difficulty. Reports to the contrary are propaganda via ignorance.
To a very old Bloom County strip which pertains to this? Something about Oliver Holmes Jr. and a bunch of watches.
I love the powerglove©©© it is soooo rad! Of all the 90 minute commercials that I watched in my youth, the Wizard had to be the best© They showed shots of MARIO THREE!
Someone tell me he's joking. He's joking, right?
It's not just that we can't do it with any machines, we can't even think of a way to do it without violating things that just plain can't be violated. This isn't a barrier of sound type situation at all. For the barrier of sound we knew that some object could go faster than the speed of sound at sea level, plenty of things do, just outside of the atmosphere. It was just considered a very very difficult engineering problem, not a physical impossibility. On the other hand, the speed of light is a barrier imposed by our most fundamental understanding of the nature of space and time. We cannot conceive of a way that ANYTHING could go faster than light.
Uhmmm... no. When two cars approach each other at 60 MPH they see 120 MPH, but when two things approach at very close to the speed of light, things are a bit different. You still see the thing coming at you at below the speed of light. How is this possible? Time slows down for you. This is why you age slower on a quickly moving spaceship than on earth. It is impossible to observe anything moving faster than light. This has been proven by actual observation many times over since Einstein.
In the case of the train, you're wrong again. If you're on a train moving close to the speed of light, space gets deformed to prevent you moving faster than light. Things get "squashed" together. The train and its contents, relative to the outside world, get compressed in the direction of their velocity (it loses length) so that relative to the outside world you are traveling a lesser distance on that train and are still going slower than light. Bottom line: it's impossible for anything to go faster than light relative to anything else.
It boggles the mind. But physics gets really strange under extreme conditions.
The problem with this (and just about all other speed of light workarounds) is that there are TWO restrictions on going FTL. The first is that its physically impossible, the second is that it will create a nasty paradox no matter how it is achieved. ANYTHING that lets a message arrive somewhere faster than a beam of light could be used to send messages back in time, which obviously breaks everything down. By "warping space time" you are warping time, and backwards time travel is impossible.
One of the fundamental ideas that relativity was derived from is that the ORDER of events is the same for all observers. FTL travel or backwards time travel violates this principle.
In short:no type of mini-worm hole creating, negative energy harvesting, black-hole sling shot utilizing, warp drives, no matter how cleverly they try to get around the speed of light, could ever work unless physics as we know it are VERY VERY wrong.
Which is a possibility. I sure want faster than light travel, but from any sort of realistic educated outlook, it isn't bloody likely. Worm holes are purely hypothetical, basically conceived as science fiction conveniences, and othes schemes are fundamentally impossible. Our travel in the cosmos may well be seriously limited.
As far as love stories intertwined with historical tragedies go, Titanic was a better movie. Much better.
Sadly, I'm inclined to believe you. Leave it up to the continuing degradation of popular film to make that overrated overlong stinker look like a shining example of quality.
Yeah, but George Orwell shouldn't talk. I've read 1984, and trust me, the real 1984 was almost NOTHING like that.
But people really didget their heads blown off of their shoulders. Hollywood doesn't have much excuse to not make it accurate.
Umm you don't use "whom" as the subject of a noun clause.
You also shouldn't capitalize "class" in English class.
Additionally, "Or better yet have obviously-heavy things dropped on them" is a sentence fragment.
However, I do agree that Katz is a pretty piss-poor writer.
What makes you so sure it is? I can't imagine a secret council in a shady room plotting lies and misinformation to thwart the... history channel.
Honestly conspiracy theories give human organization way too much credit. Bad history is almost always the result of existing stereotypes and plain laziness, not "revisionist propaganda"
Least to most:
Connie
Dave
Bill
Alice
Connie is the least because in Bill and Dave's cases, there is one purchaser of the book lending or copying for a very limited number of recipiants. In connies case one purchaser has probably distributed it to thousands of people. Bill and Alice are both totally in the clear.
P.S. Why electronic "libraries" of current works won't succeed. One of the reasons that publishers allow libraries to exist is that they are inconvenient. If a library could print an unlimited amount of any work that they are short on, so everyone could have access to it at once, then publishers would go out of business. Publishers will see to it that libraries are always less convenient than owning the book yourself.