I didn't get the impression that CNN was all that antagonistic. I felt that CNN was playing a sort of devil's advocate, leading the interviewee to make his case. I think they would have interviewed someone would would have been more willing to be a spokesmouth for the RIAA if they were playing sides. Also note that the interview ended on the note of "intimidation". If the interviewer was consciously trying to mold the conversation to make the student look bad I don't think Mr. Hemmer would have allowed such a focus.
I know it's a rush transcript, and I realize that this is "news" so modifying a recorded conversation may be questionable, but I thought that interviews were typically edited. I wonder if this slip was intention, and why the interviewer would have made it.
"what is reality ? Is it waht your senses tell it is to your brain ?"- this is a very "budhist question" (not only Tibettan, but accross the differnt form of budhism), and definitely a very valid question !!
It probably was inspired by Plato or Descartes. It's the *Western* philosophy of rationalism.
I wish people would watch movies to watch movies instead of reading into them so much.
I'm speechless. I really don't know what to say to this, and I wonder what you are trying to say. Are you saying that movies shouldn't have anything to say and that people shouldn't look for what the movie says? Do we just sit a watch a movie mindlessly, without thinking about what it is doing?
i'd say that they are more artists than 90% of that recycled crap out there--and you'd probably be right.
so rather than bashing linkin park--I only mentioned them because the post that I responded to metioned them. It'd be pretty odd to bring up some unrelated band.
a group which IS making thoughtful, enjoyable music... How is only better than 90% of the recycled crap thoughtful?
Now, the *point* of my post was the fact that they went to some crappy art school in Pasadena for illustration doesn't make them musicians.
Moving on:At some point, yes, opinion or interpretation is important and becomes the deciding factor for which theory each person decides is most valid.
Part of my point was that I don't see this as a difference in opinion--at least in the way that I'm defining opinion in this context. When someone speaks of opinion in the context of value judgements, I think by "opinion" they mean merely "arbitrary preference" or "predispostion". When someone says: "Well that's just your/opinion/" (this is the sort of statement I read into your post), they are implying that your opinion is arbitrary and without persuasion. If I were to say: "Chinese food taste good," we would recognize this as arbitrary, as merely "an opinion". This is because the sense of taste is so widely varied, and is purely an arbitrary physical phenomenon. This definition of opinion differs somewhat from the strict definition as "a view or judgement".
Now, I understand that there are food critics/artists/what-have-you that might argue with my point, and state that one can have a system of aesthetics for food as well. Very well, I can grant that. However, I cannot see how consumption of food (beyond good nutritition and some basic desirable flavoring) can further develop a human being. If someone wishes to argue this point, I am willing to listen.
Now, when I say "interpretation", I mean how someone believes a particular phenonemon occurred. This interpretation is attended by a theory which explains the phenonemon. Hopefully, anyone who is convinced that one may only "go to way for their ideals" will have arrived at this conviction through some sort of deduction. There will be both logical and premises that one can refute. At some point, of course, there will be things that are just held to be true (axioms), with no direct proof. Hopefully, people will listen to discussions of any premise the hold, and re-evaluate based off of the discussions.
Now, music (and art), I believe, has great potential to change a human being. In fact, it can change a human like nothing else can. The purpose of art (here's a definition...this will likely vary from person to person which is what makes these discussions so difficult and apparently "opinionated") is to communicate human experience by recreating the experience in the participants/viewers. This allows for communication of ideas and mental states that would otherwise be impossible to communicate or would be very inaccessible. Therefore, the qualities by which we judge a "good" piece of music should have this goal in mind.
Most often it's just people putting down the opinions of others without going through the kind of analysis you talk about.
Unfortunately, music is a cultural signal. People assosiate what kind of person they are by what type of music they listen to. I would say this started in American with the slaves. It may also occur in any society where a particular group is marginalized. The current excess of musical genres/identification is most likely due the current music industry. The industry marginalizes certain groups, the groups react (or even continue current trends), sensing the marginalization, others stay away from the stylistic elements, the group gains popularity, the industry consumes it and markets it as a genre. Now, since people so heavily derive their identity from this music, statements of the "artistry" of music usually does become a simple put down of various genres that one does not associated with. This sort of genre music quite frequently only reinforces notions that the listener already has (important if someone is to associate with the music culturally).
I tend to find music from counter-culture genres to be marginally better, and I believe this is becuase they are more concerned with the overthrow of prevailing ideas (hence counter-culture) and may better serve to edify the listener than other types of music.
artists who met at ART SCHOOL while studying illustration.
Fucking illustration. You got to be kidding me. Now Jim Morrison studied Theatre at the University of California. And Thom York went to Exeter University where he studied English and art. At least they have some sort of sophistication to their language. What 'bout fricking Linkin' Park? What have they ever said that's so insightful?
At least you could have picked a highly regarded school and program as an example. Still, the fact that they went to some "art school" doesn't mean that their any good. *Especially* when it's a shit school, even more so when they went for something else than what they do! Hell, how does visual art connect to their performance? I frankly don't give a shit if they package their barf themselves. If you want to see good album art, check out some of Stanley Donwood's work at http://www.saunalahti.fi/hoge/artwork.htm .
..for something like music it[s] quality really is all relative.
Unless, of course, you have an aesthetic theory to back it up. Sure, quality is still measured relative to the *theory*--but the theory usually claims universality. Most importantly, it can be argued.
It's only as much of an opinion, or matter of taste, as is saying that the civil war was a result of economic differences. Sure, there may be differences of *interpretation*--different theories that vie to explain the particular phenomenon (notice the similarity of language between this explanation and that of scientific reasoning--it is no mere coincidence).
To then conclude that it must then be a matter of opinion or taste simply because these theories cannot always be reconciled is lazy. I sympathize with your want to "just enjoy the music and not defend it", but to berate someone for recognizing levels of sophistication, purity of intent, or whatever particular criteria they may have for judging a piece of music is just stubbornly ignorant.
How about asking someone why they think something is quality and something else is trash. Try to figure their reasoning. If you disagree, then point out where you think they are wrong. Then, present your aesthetic theries. It may sound infantile (perhaps I was a bit cheeky in my description), but it is the basis of modern thought. You may find that you'll experience a growing appreciation for the truly beautiful, and a repulsion for the crap that's so often pandered to you. It's called developing an aesthetic sense. Once you have it, you'll know how important it is and you'll wear it like a fucking badge.
Don't fret.
The word "artist" is applied to these crap pop idols mostly when discussing copyright issues. It's simply a euphemism that adds credence to whomever employes it (either as an indictment of the record labels, mistreating the "artists"...or as an argument for why "artists" should not be cheated by copyright theives). Personally, I think once we can freely copy music and redistribute it, the commodification of music will disappear and we will once again be presented with artists.
it's not an insult, it's backing you up. I assumed you knew *something* about art given the comment you posted, but I guess not.
First, I really didn't see the reference to Magritte. I just read: "this is not a good point" as a reply to my comment. I see now that you were pointing out the representation vs. reality dichotomy...and at the same had applied a feedback loop (by imitating art...which knowingly imitated life, while at the same time pointing out that the imitation is not the original, and has in fact become something different)... yada yada yada.
At any rate, you must admit... this was somewhat obscure. I didn't expect it, honestly.
Second, if I knew better french I might know if "ceci" could refer to my post. I figured you didn't know it well (since "good point" was "good point" and not "bon raisonnement"...or something like that (not really sure if this is right...).
Next, I wish to address:It seems like 90% of my comments these days include the phrase 'Bloody Americans'.
I understand it's en vogue to attack Americans as they certainly are wholly ignorant and reactionary... or something like that... but I don't see how my reaction: 1) is representative of American mentality (as opposed to human mentality) and 2)was not completely substansiated by the context in which you posted.
I wonder if I should say things like "pretensious brits" whenever someone British assumes I know nothing because I didn't immediately follow something they said? (I'm assuming you're British based off of your use of "Bloody".)
Finally, I wouldn't go around serving up Magritte as a posterboy for art. It makes you look cheap.
The movie was horribly executed. It had wonderful material to work with, and it didn't seem to know what to do with it. The movie didn't seem to know where to take itself seriously, and where to not. Nearly all of the social, economic, and political philosophy that is expounded upon so well in the book was conspicuously missing. It concentrated too much on special effects...
here's a quote from http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2001-09-27/ arts.asp : I happen to agree with it...
"Four years ago, Starship Troopers, directed by the wildly uneven Paul Verhoeven, was released. The futuristic film was based loosely on Robert Heinlein's 1959 science-fiction novel. Heinlein fans hated the movie, because Verhoeven took considerable liberties--turning the novelist's meditation on personal responsibility and survival into what looked like a teen drama adapted by Aaron Spelling for the Fox network, working from old Archie comics and Ayn Rand. " [stress is mine]
The movie was an utter piece of trash. Almost as bad as the semi-recent adaptations of _Eugene Onegin_ or _Count of Monte Cristo_.
I know this seems trite... isn't it common that a movie version is always worse than the book? Well, yes... but usually the movie captures at least something of what the book was trying to say... (for example, look at Kubrick's Lolita). _Starship Troopers_ OTOH was complete trash. It was caught somewhere in between a genuine sci-fi jingoistic action flick with awful acting--and a movie which occassionally made fun of itself, hinting that this was all a joke. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see any of the director's (or Heinlein's for that matter) actual ideas on the matter. It's easy enough to say that unabashed jingoism isn't a good thing (tm). I don't need some fucking movie to point that out. Hell, it accomplished that in the first five minutes. Why then, would anyone keep watching?
I guess what I'm saying is, even with a "good message", it had zero depth.
There is not a single thing brilliant about that movie.
You ever consider that this isn't about you? That it's about vendors running Linux on consumer electronics, who very well may be operating in the United States?
Hmm... maybe I'm wrong... that would be one *hell* of a stretch, wouldn't it?
At my University we have limited matlab licenses. If you try to start matlab it tries to use a license off of a license server. If all the licenses are already in use you are told that you can't use matlab right now becaue there is no license available for you.
Some licenses allow this sort of simultaneous usage restriction as long as you have "adequate means" of enforcing it. I had a senior project were I developed on of these license management systems. It sure as hell is acceptable according to many licenses. (Not sure about MS). I also don't know if they would accept any unknown license enforcement software (like what I developed, as opposed to known commercial versions), since my project never was deployed.
I hope this made sense; I type like I think and my thoughts are odd indeed...
Nah... it made perfect sense. It only seemd that you were attacking the/. editors for using the phrase "break the laws of nature", when it was the original wording in the original article. Your use of "you" led me to this conclusion.
I agree that the wording is not strictly correct. Surely it's not the laws that are breaking, but our understanding of them.
However, I am not so sure that the term "metamaterials" is just as condemnable. Since, as the article pointed out, component materials are arranged in a particular manner to create these other substances ("metamaterials") that have properties that extend beyond the sum of the materials. A sort of sum-is-greater-than-its-parts phenomenom. However, by this token is steel a metamaterial?
An earlier poster explained metmaterials in the form of an analogy. Atom : Molecule:: material : metamaterial .
Seriously though, just because Joe Physics "proved" something with a number of complex mathematical conjectures and theories 20 years ago, that doesn't mean that all future results that contradict this are "violations of the fundamental properties of Nature". Please get down off your high horse.
Who exactly are you attacking? Your comments are misplaced. The phraseolohy you object to can be found in the original article.
She has been asked by publishers to justify looking at fiction as a way of talking about 'the real world.'
This is one of the silliest demands I think I've ever heard. Any decent fiction should have direct application on the "real world". Fiction is, by nature, an argument, relevant to real problems--a discourse on reality. As soon as publishers become disabused of the notion that fiction is pure entertainment, they'll be in much better shape.
Mainly, you have to be sure that the canon you feed it is actually entirely written by the author.
Since: 1) The Shakespeare texts were pieced together by actors in the plays--each only having their own cue's and their own lines (and who knows what changes slipped in during this process
2) Since the authorship of some of the peices have been question -- which is the whole point of doing this right -- how do you know what you fed is actually part of shakespeare's canon
and 3) Since the program works mainly counting the frequency and type of certain devices (language, imagery, etc), and since Shakespeare's works are so incredibly varied
it may be very difficult to achieve accurate results.
I really doubt you're working your way through school working at the book store. I'd bet that your idea of hard economic times is when your parents forget to send you your allowance.
Actually, My mom is homeless right now. She stays at a homeless shelter ran by Middle Eastern nuns (believe it or not, they were burkas). My father's a druken bastard who lives off of the government and like to come over and threaten me every now and then.
My wife is Russian. He mother makes about $40 a month working two jobs. Her father has nothing to do with her. I have to support my wife through school (She's not allowed to work more than 20 hours a week until we get her green card--which takes years), and we have to do whatever we can to support our parents. Lukily enough, my brother's got his shit straight enough so that he was able to take my 13 year old sister in (who was living with my mother) so that she wouldn't have to go to a foster home. If it was up to me to take care of her I would have done what I can--even if it would have meant dropping out of school. Granted, I do get some governmental assistance to attend school. Without it, I wouldn't have a chance.
We're having a "Big Boy" discussion... you're more than welcome to join the discussion 6 years from now when you get a taste of real life.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't get the impression that CNN was all that antagonistic. I felt that CNN was playing a sort of devil's advocate, leading the interviewee to make his case. I think they would have interviewed someone would would have been more willing to be a spokesmouth for the RIAA if they were playing sides. Also note that the interview ended on the note of "intimidation". If the interviewer was consciously trying to mold the conversation to make the student look bad I don't think Mr. Hemmer would have allowed such a focus.
I know it's a rush transcript, and I realize that this is "news" so modifying a recorded conversation may be questionable, but I thought that interviews were typically edited. I wonder if this slip was intention, and why the interviewer would have made it.
"what is reality ? Is it waht your senses tell it is to your brain ?"- this is a very "budhist question" (not only Tibettan, but accross the differnt form of budhism), and definitely a very valid question !!
It probably was inspired by Plato or Descartes. It's the *Western* philosophy of rationalism.
See here
and
here .
I wish people would watch movies to watch movies instead of reading into them so much.
I'm speechless. I really don't know what to say to this, and I wonder what you are trying to say. Are you saying that movies shouldn't have anything to say and that people shouldn't look for what the movie says? Do we just sit a watch a movie mindlessly, without thinking about what it is doing?
This is a very, very odd thing to say.
even if it was deliberate, it doesn't mean it was *deliberated*.
i'd say that they are more artists than 90% of that recycled crap out there--and you'd probably be right.
so rather than bashing linkin park--I only mentioned them because the post that I responded to metioned them. It'd be pretty odd to bring up some unrelated band.
a group which IS making thoughtful, enjoyable music... How is only better than 90% of the recycled crap thoughtful?
Now, the *point* of my post was the fact that they went to some crappy art school in Pasadena for illustration doesn't make them musicians.
Arg... I assume the repetition was unintentional.
/opinion/" (this is the sort of statement I read into your post), they are implying that your opinion is arbitrary and without persuasion. If I were to say: "Chinese food taste good," we would recognize this as arbitrary, as merely "an opinion". This is because the sense of taste is so widely varied, and is purely an arbitrary physical phenomenon. This definition of opinion differs somewhat from the strict definition as "a view or judgement".
Moving on:At some point, yes, opinion or interpretation is important and becomes the deciding factor for which theory each person decides is most valid.
Part of my point was that I don't see this as a difference in opinion--at least in the way that I'm defining opinion in this context. When someone speaks of opinion in the context of value judgements, I think by "opinion" they mean merely "arbitrary preference" or "predispostion". When someone says: "Well that's just your
Now, I understand that there are food critics/artists/what-have-you that might argue with my point, and state that one can have a system of aesthetics for food as well. Very well, I can grant that. However, I cannot see how consumption of food (beyond good nutritition and some basic desirable flavoring) can further develop a human being. If someone wishes to argue this point, I am willing to listen.
Now, when I say "interpretation", I mean how someone believes a particular phenonemon occurred. This interpretation is attended by a theory which explains the phenonemon. Hopefully, anyone who is convinced that one may only "go to way for their ideals" will have arrived at this conviction through some sort of deduction. There will be both logical and premises that one can refute. At some point, of course, there will be things that are just held to be true (axioms), with no direct proof. Hopefully, people will listen to discussions of any premise the hold, and re-evaluate based off of the discussions.
Now, music (and art), I believe, has great potential to change a human being. In fact, it can change a human like nothing else can. The purpose of art (here's a definition...this will likely vary from person to person which is what makes these discussions so difficult and apparently "opinionated") is to communicate human experience by recreating the experience in the participants/viewers. This allows for communication of ideas and mental states that would otherwise be impossible to communicate or would be very inaccessible. Therefore, the qualities by which we judge a "good" piece of music should have this goal in mind.
Most often it's just people putting down the opinions of others without going through the kind of analysis you talk about.
Unfortunately, music is a cultural signal. People assosiate what kind of person they are by what type of music they listen to. I would say this started in American with the slaves. It may also occur in any society where a particular group is marginalized. The current excess of musical genres/identification is most likely due the current music industry. The industry marginalizes certain groups, the groups react (or even continue current trends), sensing the marginalization, others stay away from the stylistic elements, the group gains popularity, the industry consumes it and markets it as a genre. Now, since people so heavily derive their identity from this music, statements of the "artistry" of music usually does become a simple put down of various genres that one does not associated with. This sort of genre music quite frequently only reinforces notions that the listener already has (important if someone is to associate with the music culturally).
I tend to find music from counter-culture genres to be marginally better, and I believe this is becuase they are more concerned with the overthrow of prevailing ideas (hence counter-culture) and may better serve to edify the listener than other types of music.
artists who met at ART SCHOOL while studying illustration. Fucking illustration. You got to be kidding me. Now Jim Morrison studied Theatre at the University of California. And Thom York went to Exeter University where he studied English and art. At least they have some sort of sophistication to their language. What 'bout fricking Linkin' Park? What have they ever said that's so insightful?
At least you could have picked a highly regarded school and program as an example. Still, the fact that they went to some "art school" doesn't mean that their any good. *Especially* when it's a shit school, even more so when they went for something else than what they do! Hell, how does visual art connect to their performance? I frankly don't give a shit if they package their barf themselves. If you want to see good album art, check out some of Stanley Donwood's work at http://www.saunalahti.fi/hoge/artwork.htm .
..for something like music it[s] quality really is all relative.
Unless, of course, you have an aesthetic theory to back it up. Sure, quality is still measured relative to the *theory*--but the theory usually claims universality. Most importantly, it can be argued.
It's only as much of an opinion, or matter of taste, as is saying that the civil war was a result of economic differences. Sure, there may be differences of *interpretation*--different theories that vie to explain the particular phenomenon (notice the similarity of language between this explanation and that of scientific reasoning--it is no mere coincidence).
To then conclude that it must then be a matter of opinion or taste simply because these theories cannot always be reconciled is lazy. I sympathize with your want to "just enjoy the music and not defend it", but to berate someone for recognizing levels of sophistication, purity of intent, or whatever particular criteria they may have for judging a piece of music is just stubbornly ignorant.
How about asking someone why they think something is quality and something else is trash. Try to figure their reasoning. If you disagree, then point out where you think they are wrong. Then, present your aesthetic theries. It may sound infantile (perhaps I was a bit cheeky in my description), but it is the basis of modern thought. You may find that you'll experience a growing appreciation for the truly beautiful, and a repulsion for the crap that's so often pandered to you. It's called developing an aesthetic sense. Once you have it, you'll know how important it is and you'll wear it like a fucking badge.
I hate what the word 'artist' means anymore.
Don't fret. The word "artist" is applied to these crap pop idols mostly when discussing copyright issues. It's simply a euphemism that adds credence to whomever employes it (either as an indictment of the record labels, mistreating the "artists"...or as an argument for why "artists" should not be cheated by copyright theives). Personally, I think once we can freely copy music and redistribute it, the commodification of music will disappear and we will once again be presented with artists.
You mean pretentious. Yes, of course. I have no idea were that spelling came from. *bows head in shame*
It's too ironic, really.
it's not an insult, it's backing you up. I assumed you knew *something* about art given the comment you posted, but I guess not.
First, I really didn't see the reference to Magritte. I just read: "this is not a good point" as a reply to my comment. I see now that you were pointing out the representation vs. reality dichotomy...and at the same had applied a feedback loop (by imitating art...which knowingly imitated life, while at the same time pointing out that the imitation is not the original, and has in fact become something different)... yada yada yada.
At any rate, you must admit... this was somewhat obscure. I didn't expect it, honestly.
Second, if I knew better french I might know if "ceci" could refer to my post. I figured you didn't know it well (since "good point" was "good point" and not "bon raisonnement"...or something like that (not really sure if this is right...).
Next, I wish to address:It seems like 90% of my comments these days include the phrase 'Bloody Americans'.
I understand it's en vogue to attack Americans as they certainly are wholly ignorant and reactionary... or something like that... but I don't see how my reaction: 1) is representative of American mentality (as opposed to human mentality) and 2)was not completely substansiated by the context in which you posted.
I wonder if I should say things like "pretensious brits" whenever someone British assumes I know nothing because I didn't immediately follow something they said? (I'm assuming you're British based off of your use of "Bloody".)
Finally, I wouldn't go around serving up Magritte as a posterboy for art. It makes you look cheap.
The movie was horribly executed. It had wonderful material to work with, and it didn't seem to know what to do with it. The movie didn't seem to know where to take itself seriously, and where to not. Nearly all of the social, economic, and political philosophy that is expounded upon so well in the book was conspicuously missing. It concentrated too much on special effects...
/ arts.asp : I happen to agree with it...
"Four years ago, Starship Troopers, directed by the wildly uneven Paul Verhoeven, was released. The futuristic film was based loosely on Robert Heinlein's 1959 science-fiction novel. Heinlein fans hated the movie, because Verhoeven took considerable liberties--turning the novelist's meditation on personal responsibility and survival into what looked like a teen drama adapted by Aaron Spelling for the Fox network, working from old Archie comics and Ayn Rand. " [stress is mine]
here's a quote from http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2001-09-27
The movie was an utter piece of trash. Almost as bad as the semi-recent adaptations of _Eugene Onegin_ or _Count of Monte Cristo_.
I know this seems trite... isn't it common that a movie version is always worse than the book? Well, yes... but usually the movie captures at least something of what the book was trying to say... (for example, look at Kubrick's Lolita). _Starship Troopers_ OTOH was complete trash. It was caught somewhere in between a genuine sci-fi jingoistic action flick with awful acting--and a movie which occassionally made fun of itself, hinting that this was all a joke. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see any of the director's (or Heinlein's for that matter) actual ideas on the matter. It's easy enough to say that unabashed jingoism isn't a good thing (tm). I don't need some fucking movie to point that out. Hell, it accomplished that in the first five minutes. Why then, would anyone keep watching?
I guess what I'm saying is, even with a "good message", it had zero depth.
There is not a single thing brilliant about that movie.
uh huh. yeah. Care to back that up? without Frenglish?
Ever think that art is based on life, and to then base your life or otherwise derive anything from art is redundant?
What you have described is a feedback loop. Not a redundancy.
I feel I should mention that Heinlein kicks ass, whereas the movie sucked it...
Two words: Resident Evil.
Largely due to Milla Jovovich. *Especially* bare Milla Jovovich skin.
Tough. I live outside the US...
You ever consider that this isn't about you? That it's about vendors running Linux on consumer electronics, who very well may be operating in the United States?
Hmm... maybe I'm wrong... that would be one *hell* of a stretch, wouldn't it?
Basing a story on "universal messages" is great if you want to create a saturday morning cartoon.
Universality is a staple of literature. This is generally held true by critics. In fact, it is often used in the very definition of literature/art.
At my University we have limited matlab licenses. If you try to start matlab it tries to use a license off of a license server. If all the licenses are already in use you are told that you can't use matlab right now becaue there is no license available for you.
Some licenses allow this sort of simultaneous usage restriction as long as you have "adequate means" of enforcing it. I had a senior project were I developed on of these license management systems. It sure as hell is acceptable according to many licenses. (Not sure about MS). I also don't know if they would accept any unknown license enforcement software (like what I developed, as opposed to known commercial versions), since my project never was deployed.
I hope this made sense; I type like I think and my thoughts are odd indeed...
/. editors for using the phrase "break the laws of nature", when it was the original wording in the original article. Your use of "you" led me to this conclusion.
:: material : metamaterial .
Nah... it made perfect sense. It only seemd that you were attacking the
I agree that the wording is not strictly correct. Surely it's not the laws that are breaking, but our understanding of them.
However, I am not so sure that the term "metamaterials" is just as condemnable. Since, as the article pointed out, component materials are arranged in a particular manner to create these other substances ("metamaterials") that have properties that extend beyond the sum of the materials. A sort of sum-is-greater-than-its-parts phenomenom. However, by this token is steel a metamaterial?
An earlier poster explained metmaterials in the form of an analogy. Atom : Molecule
Seriously though, just because Joe Physics "proved" something with a number of complex mathematical conjectures and theories 20 years ago, that doesn't mean that all future results that contradict this are "violations of the fundamental properties of Nature". Please get down off your high horse.
Who exactly are you attacking? Your comments are misplaced. The phraseolohy you object to can be found in the original article.
She has been asked by publishers to justify looking at fiction as a way of talking about 'the real world.'
This is one of the silliest demands I think I've ever heard. Any decent fiction should have direct application on the "real world". Fiction is, by nature, an argument, relevant to real problems--a discourse on reality. As soon as publishers become disabused of the notion that fiction is pure entertainment, they'll be in much better shape.
I can foresee a number of problems with this.
Mainly, you have to be sure that the canon you feed it is actually entirely written by the author.
Since: 1) The Shakespeare texts were pieced together by actors in the plays--each only having their own cue's and their own lines (and who knows what changes slipped in during this process
2) Since the authorship of some of the peices have been question -- which is the whole point of doing this right -- how do you know what you fed is actually part of shakespeare's canon
and 3) Since the program works mainly counting the frequency and type of certain devices (language, imagery, etc), and since Shakespeare's works are so incredibly varied
it may be very difficult to achieve accurate results.
I really doubt you're working your way through school working at the book store. I'd bet that your idea of hard economic times is when your parents forget to send you your allowance.
Actually, My mom is homeless right now. She stays at a homeless shelter ran by Middle Eastern nuns (believe it or not, they were burkas). My father's a druken bastard who lives off of the government and like to come over and threaten me every now and then.
My wife is Russian. He mother makes about $40 a month working two jobs. Her father has nothing to do with her. I have to support my wife through school (She's not allowed to work more than 20 hours a week until we get her green card--which takes years), and we have to do whatever we can to support our parents. Lukily enough, my brother's got his shit straight enough so that he was able to take my 13 year old sister in (who was living with my mother) so that she wouldn't have to go to a foster home. If it was up to me to take care of her I would have done what I can--even if it would have meant dropping out of school. Granted, I do get some governmental assistance to attend school. Without it, I wouldn't have a chance.
We're having a "Big Boy" discussion... you're more than welcome to join the discussion 6 years from now when you get a taste of real life.
Your words betray you.