One: is M$ still selling XBox's (console hardware support)? Yes, and they plan to continue through the end of the year (at least).
Two: is M$ producing new software titles (console software support) for the XBox? No, the rep says in a nice way that the first party titles have to be ground breaking and genre defining (meaning: our work is done here, time to work on the 360) and then talks up the third party stuff, the 200 titles.
In brief, take a look at the Mona Lisa. A sitter is posed with an odd look on her face. Nice background, use of sfumato. A good bit of realism. But does it tell a story? Does it make a point? We can contemplate it, sure, does that make it art? We can study it and come up with dozens of theories about the silly look on her face, does that make it art? Does the fact that it was painted make it art? Micheangelo's David isn't painted, is it not art? Was my yearbook picture art? I've got a silly grin. No, the Mona Lisa is not art.
Well actually it is. The problem with modern people is that we are surrounded by art all the time. Virtually every product we buy has a design (by an artist, often many) on it. The cars we drive, the houses we live in, the white stripe underneath the word Coke. All of it, art.
For Roger Ebert to claim that Film is art and games are not is ludicrous. Film and television have a different artistic language than any prior artistic medium. Imagine the theater conniseur in 1924 going to a cinema and walking out saying "That was nice, but its not art!" Well its not theater!
Video games aren't movies. The artistic langauge is different. Most creators of TV, Film, painting, sculpture, and the rest would love the praise: "You made me feel like I was part of the action!" Well in a video game, that is a given. Do the artists behind the video game use this language to thrill or do they use it for more? Sure their is eye-candy video games, well there's eye candy movies. But they are ALL art.
Next a symphony conniseur is going to claim that heavy metal, industrial and particularly rap are not "music". Please, if your subjectivity of taste is that short sighted. Spare us and spare yourself from looking silly.
Art is craftsmanship used to produce things beyond the bonds of utility. Virtually all entertainment media are art. This is why architecture is considered art, but so are TV, comics, rap music, poetry, and finger painting.
"Art for art's sake"? What's that supposed to mean? Artists are doing their stuff to worship God, to make money, to get laid, just because they can, or some other reason.
The article implies that art necessitates wide viewership. What percentage of the earth's population walked through the Sistine chapel before the camera was invented? (A: very small number) How many great works of art have spent their existence on the wall of a private collector? (A: very big number) What a clueless idea!
Or the idea that a large number of people need to contribute to make something an Art. Yeah, the majority of Roman citizens had time to carve statues. Along with the majority of middle ages serfs painting icons. Stained glass workers, architects, novelists, movie producers, etc. etc. etc.
Then there is the notion that something is horribly wrong with games because a great number of them are similar in story and play. Guess what, literature has had genre's and has had them for decades if not centuries. And there are still people writing romance, western, spy, mystery, etc. and getting published. Just because the history of computer games has always had "its never been done before" as a selling point does not mean that its an industry requirement.
What did Iraq ever do to the United States that warranted full invasion? Iraq didn't live under Islamic law, they were the most secularized middle east society.
The 9-11 guys were almost all Saudis. The reason that they did what they did was because we installed military bases in Saudi Arabia.
You are arrogant if you think any normal person in the world hates the United States because of our lack of Muslim law. Most Musilims just want to eat, sleep, drink, and attend their kids soccer games in peace. We also have an extremely large Muslim population. Do they hate America, too?
Also W has done what to "fight terrorism"? Invaded countries to spark more hatred of our militarist expansionism? Thanks W, I feel so much safer.
I voted for Harry Brown in 96 and 00, as well as non-LP Jesse Ventura for Governor in 98 who the libertarians disowned because he thought governement should be involved in transportation.
The Libertarian Party is the "party of principle", but governing the masses and winning elections requires pragmatism. (Even Gingrich was way to much of an ideologue for the American public.) No taxes, no drug laws, no gun laws is an awfully tough sell, but moderation might weaken the LP base. Comment on this conundrum.
The catch is easy, most journal publishing houses are off American soil, Springer Verlag comes to mind. (Also explains why Europe didn't beat us to the punch in going electronic.)
If this bill doesn't fly we can go look at the up and coming generous support to congressional campaigns by these friendly corporations.
I'm looking forward to "The Intelligence
Advantage" which will state that the smartest 25% are much smarter than the other 75% percent of people then discuss how to arrange your life to live in a society full of idiots.
-Insanity, the sane adjustment to an insane world.
More jobs to India, Indians have more money, Indians buy more stuff or capitally invest, this spreads around wealth, India is now a richer country, Indian salaries go up. The same thing already happened to Japan. Is Japan being a rich country good or bad for us? It is good. India getting richer will be the same.
Think of what happened to this country when all the "great" manufacturing jobs and textile jobs and all the other jobs went to foreign nations over the last 50 years? We pay them in dollars and ultimately, the only place where you can spend dollars is in the USA. The world gets rich with our money and so do we. Thats economics kids. Americans have had this bitch for a long time and we end up crying all the way to the bank.
Now if it is my job or your job, its a damn stark reality. Salaries may plateau or go down. Too many became IT personnel in the 90s, they will get weeded out. But there will always, always be service industry jobs in this country for lower wages. If evolution weeds you out you may find yourself in one. It sucks to be you. But thats freedom folks, freedom to succeed, freedom to fail.
Remember one thing about economic collapse, it will happen only if those in power allow it and they will only allow it if it is to their benefit. I can't see this as likely anytime soon. Have faith in our little corporate plutocracy. And work harder, stop reading so much slashdot!
If you think games are not fine art, what do you think fine art is?
Fine art is not only the ceiling of the sistine chapel, but also the gazillion portraits painted of the virgin and child, still life and scenic meadows. Fine art is not only Beethoven's ninth and Miles Davis' solos but also the minor works of Saliari and the Spice Girls. Fine art contains Gone with the Wind, Schlindler's List, and Freddy Got Fingered. Fine art is Shakespeare, Vonnegut, and silly romance novels. The creative use of media on a professional level to entertain is fine art.
Fine art CAN have a philosophical point, be deep, meaningful, emotionally wrought, thematically interesting and all that, but it can be and often is quite shallow and trite. Every see Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup can? Ever listen to modern pop music? Have you been to a movie lately? Have you ever tried to delve into the meaning of Christopher Wren's St. Paul's Cathedral?
Sure the history of painting and sculpture contains masterpieces, same with music, architecture, literature, movies, and even TV. I'll tell you this for nothing, the history of video games is going to contain masterpieces as well, and because the medium is interactive and popular, it has the potential to produce more of them in the future than the other media combined.
Q1: In the long run, will biology rewrite computing or will modern day technology concepts and theory be integrated into biology? If both are true, which will have the greater effect? I understand long run is ambiguous in this question, but Iâ(TM)m interested in all thoughts using any applicable definition. A1: No. The informational aspects of DNA have been known for 50 years, only slightly longer than computers and failed to influence computer development. Nor does the computer science theory of information help biologists because they don't understand the intermediate mechanisms thoroughly (like precisely how a cell works).
Q2:Tied to the first question: How will the nature of computing, and how we perceive it, change due to biology integration? More to the point, how much of the theory we learn today may change? A2: The underlying theory, which is essentially irrelevant, will not change.
Q3: What will be the biggest issue determining the success of the adoption of biology-integrated computing? Will it be technology factors or will it be societal factors (e.g., rebellion by the Right Wing), or something else? What things must hold true to make the idea succeed? A3: Digital computers will always be better computers than biological based systems, that is why biological computational systems are going to be relegated to university labs and academic papers.
Q4: And perhaps the hottest issue of all: Is there anything inherently wrong with pursuing this avenue? What may be some of the consequences? A4: If society declares such research forbidden, some other society will pursue it, if it has any value. Ethics only apply in a closed system, which world science is not.
A5: Biological systems and engineered systems are as different as a dog and an engine. Either can pull a sled, but it easy to pick out the engineered version and the biological version. Ask a mechanical engineer how much animal anatomy affects his craft or how much mechanical engineering affects a dog breeder. The questions are as relevant as the ones you asked.
Q1: In the long run, will biology rewrite computing or will modern day technology concepts and theory be integrated into biology? If both are true, which will have the greater effect? I understand long run is ambiguous in this question, but Iâ(TM)m interested in all thoughts using any applicable definition.
A1: No. The informational aspects of DNA have been known for 50 years, only slightly longer than computers and failed to influence computer development. Nor does the computer science theory of information help biologists because they don't understand the intermediate mechanisms thoroughly (like precisely how a cell works).
Q2:Tied to the first question: How will the nature of computing, and how we perceive it, change due to biology integration? More to the point, how much of the theory we learn today may change?
A2: The underlying theory, which is essentially irrelevant, will not change.
Q3: What will be the biggest issue determining the success of the adoption of biology-integrated computing? Will it be technology factors or will it be societal factors (e.g., rebellion by the Right Wing), or something else? What things must hold true to make the idea succeed?
A3: Digital computers will always be better computers than biological based systems, that is why biological computational systems are going to be relegated to university labs and academic papers.
Q4: And perhaps the hottest issue of all: Is there anything inherently wrong with pursuing this avenue? What may be some of the consequences?
A4: If society declares such research forbidden, some other society will pursue it, if it has any value. Ethics only apply in a closed system, which world science is not.
A5: Biological systems and engineered systems are as different as a dog and an engine. Either can pull a sled, but it easy to pick out the engineered version and the biological version. Ask a mechanical engineer how much animal anatomy affects his craft or how much mechanical engineering affects a dog breeder. The questions are as relevant as the ones you asked.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever comparing geek-cred, I mention that I've received personal email responses from Larry Wall and Guido Von Rossum.
What's the most famous person/people you've exchanged email with? Steve, Bill, Linus, Bjarne?
P.S. I use Perl every day at work. Thank you.
Two: is M$ producing new software titles (console software support) for the XBox? No, the rep says in a nice way that the first party titles have to be ground breaking and genre defining (meaning: our work is done here, time to work on the 360) and then talks up the third party stuff, the 200 titles.
Well actually it is. The problem with modern people is that we are surrounded by art all the time. Virtually every product we buy has a design (by an artist, often many) on it. The cars we drive, the houses we live in, the white stripe underneath the word Coke. All of it, art.
For Roger Ebert to claim that Film is art and games are not is ludicrous. Film and television have a different artistic language than any prior artistic medium. Imagine the theater conniseur in 1924 going to a cinema and walking out saying "That was nice, but its not art!" Well its not theater!
Video games aren't movies. The artistic langauge is different. Most creators of TV, Film, painting, sculpture, and the rest would love the praise: "You made me feel like I was part of the action!" Well in a video game, that is a given. Do the artists behind the video game use this language to thrill or do they use it for more? Sure their is eye-candy video games, well there's eye candy movies. But they are ALL art.
Next a symphony conniseur is going to claim that heavy metal, industrial and particularly rap are not "music". Please, if your subjectivity of taste is that short sighted. Spare us and spare yourself from looking silly.
"Art for art's sake"? What's that supposed to mean? Artists are doing their stuff to worship God, to make money, to get laid, just because they can, or some other reason.
The article implies that art necessitates wide viewership. What percentage of the earth's population walked through the Sistine chapel before the camera was invented? (A: very small number) How many great works of art have spent their existence on the wall of a private collector? (A: very big number) What a clueless idea!
Or the idea that a large number of people need to contribute to make something an Art. Yeah, the majority of Roman citizens had time to carve statues. Along with the majority of middle ages serfs painting icons. Stained glass workers, architects, novelists, movie producers, etc. etc. etc.
Then there is the notion that something is horribly wrong with games because a great number of them are similar in story and play. Guess what, literature has had genre's and has had them for decades if not centuries. And there are still people writing romance, western, spy, mystery, etc. and getting published. Just because the history of computer games has always had "its never been done before" as a selling point does not mean that its an industry requirement.
The 9-11 guys were almost all Saudis. The reason that they did what they did was because we installed military bases in Saudi Arabia.
You are arrogant if you think any normal person in the world hates the United States because of our lack of Muslim law. Most Musilims just want to eat, sleep, drink, and attend their kids soccer games in peace. We also have an extremely large Muslim population. Do they hate America, too?
Also W has done what to "fight terrorism"? Invaded countries to spark more hatred of our militarist expansionism? Thanks W, I feel so much safer.
I voted for Harry Brown in 96 and 00, as well as non-LP Jesse Ventura for Governor in 98 who the libertarians disowned because he thought governement should be involved in transportation. The Libertarian Party is the "party of principle", but governing the masses and winning elections requires pragmatism. (Even Gingrich was way to much of an ideologue for the American public.) No taxes, no drug laws, no gun laws is an awfully tough sell, but moderation might weaken the LP base. Comment on this conundrum.
If this bill doesn't fly we can go look at the up and coming generous support to congressional campaigns by these friendly corporations.
which will state that the smartest 25% are much smarter
than the other 75% percent of people then discuss
how to arrange your life to live in a society full of idiots.
-Insanity, the sane adjustment to an insane world.
Think of what happened to this country when all the "great" manufacturing jobs and textile jobs and all the other jobs went to foreign nations over the last 50 years? We pay them in dollars and ultimately, the only place where you can spend dollars is in the USA. The world gets rich with our money and so do we. Thats economics kids. Americans have had this bitch for a long time and we end up crying all the way to the bank.
Now if it is my job or your job, its a damn stark reality. Salaries may plateau or go down. Too many became IT personnel in the 90s, they will get weeded out. But there will always, always be service industry jobs in this country for lower wages. If evolution weeds you out you may find yourself in one. It sucks to be you. But thats freedom folks, freedom to succeed, freedom to fail.
Remember one thing about economic collapse, it will happen only if those in power allow it and they will only allow it if it is to their benefit. I can't see this as likely anytime soon. Have faith in our little corporate plutocracy. And work harder, stop reading so much slashdot!
Fine art is not only the ceiling of the sistine chapel, but also the gazillion portraits painted of the virgin and child, still life and scenic meadows. Fine art is not only Beethoven's ninth and Miles Davis' solos but also the minor works of Saliari and the Spice Girls. Fine art contains Gone with the Wind, Schlindler's List, and Freddy Got Fingered. Fine art is Shakespeare, Vonnegut, and silly romance novels. The creative use of media on a professional level to entertain is fine art.
Fine art CAN have a philosophical point, be deep, meaningful, emotionally wrought, thematically interesting and all that, but it can be and often is quite shallow and trite. Every see Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup can? Ever listen to modern pop music? Have you been to a movie lately? Have you ever tried to delve into the meaning of Christopher Wren's St. Paul's Cathedral?
Sure the history of painting and sculpture contains masterpieces, same with music, architecture, literature, movies, and even TV. I'll tell you this for nothing, the history of video games is going to contain masterpieces as well, and because the medium is interactive and popular, it has the potential to produce more of them in the future than the other media combined.
A1: No. The informational aspects of DNA have been known for 50 years, only slightly longer than computers and failed to influence computer development. Nor does the computer science theory of information help biologists because they don't understand the intermediate mechanisms thoroughly (like precisely how a cell works).
Q2:Tied to the first question: How will the nature of computing, and how we perceive it, change due to biology integration? More to the point, how much of the theory we learn today may change?
A2: The underlying theory, which is essentially irrelevant, will not change.
Q3: What will be the biggest issue determining the success of the adoption of biology-integrated computing? Will it be technology factors or will it be societal factors (e.g., rebellion by the Right Wing), or something else? What things must hold true to make the idea succeed?
A3: Digital computers will always be better computers than biological based systems, that is why biological computational systems are going to be relegated to university labs and academic papers.
Q4: And perhaps the hottest issue of all: Is there anything inherently wrong with pursuing this avenue? What may be some of the consequences?
A4: If society declares such research forbidden, some other society will pursue it, if it has any value. Ethics only apply in a closed system, which world science is not.
A5: Biological systems and engineered systems are as different as a dog and an engine. Either can pull a sled, but it easy to pick out the engineered version and the biological version. Ask a mechanical engineer how much animal anatomy affects his craft or how much mechanical engineering affects a dog breeder. The questions are as relevant as the ones you asked.
Q1: In the long run, will biology rewrite computing or will modern day technology concepts and theory be integrated into biology? If both are true, which will have the greater effect? I understand long run is ambiguous in this question, but Iâ(TM)m interested in all thoughts using any applicable definition. A1: No. The informational aspects of DNA have been known for 50 years, only slightly longer than computers and failed to influence computer development. Nor does the computer science theory of information help biologists because they don't understand the intermediate mechanisms thoroughly (like precisely how a cell works). Q2:Tied to the first question: How will the nature of computing, and how we perceive it, change due to biology integration? More to the point, how much of the theory we learn today may change? A2: The underlying theory, which is essentially irrelevant, will not change. Q3: What will be the biggest issue determining the success of the adoption of biology-integrated computing? Will it be technology factors or will it be societal factors (e.g., rebellion by the Right Wing), or something else? What things must hold true to make the idea succeed? A3: Digital computers will always be better computers than biological based systems, that is why biological computational systems are going to be relegated to university labs and academic papers. Q4: And perhaps the hottest issue of all: Is there anything inherently wrong with pursuing this avenue? What may be some of the consequences? A4: If society declares such research forbidden, some other society will pursue it, if it has any value. Ethics only apply in a closed system, which world science is not. A5: Biological systems and engineered systems are as different as a dog and an engine. Either can pull a sled, but it easy to pick out the engineered version and the biological version. Ask a mechanical engineer how much animal anatomy affects his craft or how much mechanical engineering affects a dog breeder. The questions are as relevant as the ones you asked.