It involves big big machines. It involves complex formulas. It involves a lot of money. It uses gruff test pilots (who may not survive!). It involves a lot of speculation. It involves a lot of speculation and play by play action!! not to mention competition!
Wait!
I have a great idea for a slashdot theme... lets give geeks a sport! It'll be called... Make it to Space! and it will have all the qualities of football/basketball/baseball... etc, but the goal will be for mass-suborbital-transportation! Yeah! Sign me up. Lead Polymer Designer here I come!
Where's my girlfriend!? Where's my ho!? I'm bigger than jesus! Lead Polymer Designer! yeah!
Couldn't they just brown bag their lunch and have it anywhere?
or did you mean "launch...from that kick ass arch"?
good comment btw... we need to find more uses for national monuments. They waste a lot of space and only seem to attract tourists. Why couldn't we launch a rocket from the Arch? Or launch the space needle into orbit a couple times a year... I'd be happy.
I know this is a dramatic title. But better translation systems will do as much for cross cultural communication as the internet has done for cutting through geography.
I am waiting for the day when I can read Middle Eastern texts without having them selected, censored, and biased by american publishers and editors.
"No, it's human interpretation the makes something poetry."
Then concludes that:
"Computers/processes are quite capable of producing works we percieve as art."
Where could I possibly get the idea that she/he suggests art can be made by a computer? He/she begins by saying that art is something defined by the individual; does this mean the poster can say: a mountain range is art? Or a lightning storm is art; or the random output created by the static inside the floppy drive of a computer, is that art? Where does it stop?
My attack is not simply based on a linguistic argument. His/her concept of art is flawed. And since the rest of the post can only make sense with the first sentence's qualification, I do believe I should comment on that.
The whole subject of my thread is how computers can NOT create art because art is made by humans. This poster decides "art is whatever" (shrugging off the definition I established in the beginning, without any proofs I might add) and simply says computers can create things we percieve as art. WELL, I don't percieve these "things" as art and I am defending my original position that computers can't create art.
Further, I will admit, I have a lot of anger at how geeks will loosely throw humanistic concepts the way of computers and computer output just because it seems to fit (this is where I wish the discussion went). There is as substantial a difference between what a computer creates and what a human creates, just as there is between tofu and turkey: no matter how similar they can visually appear, they are completely different. I feel like posters are saying tofu shaped like a turkey is turkey when they suggest that the output of a computer can be called art. No one seems to accept this and a few have seemed hurt by the fact that no other species/alien race/inanimate object/algorithm can produce art.
(Sorry to be repetetive, you know)
My definition of art is simple: a human's expression of itself. From there I can determine what it means (if anything) to me or how well it interprets/emulates the forms of the past and so on. So take that for what you will.
No one involved in the arts defines art as something that is simply "aesthetically pleasing." You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about. An appeal to "most of us" or authority isn't going to change that.
I did not "bag" or redefine my argument, I simply pointed out that the poster forgot the word/idea "human" in the concept "human expression" which is central to the definition of art.
And thank you, I will insist on my definition because it is right. IMO any argument that defends or defines a truth has merit.
Like I said in another post in this thread... because you can TRICK someone into believing that a work comes from a human, this does not mean that that work is art. What defines "Art" and "Poetry" is the human element in the expression/creation of that work. No matter what a human creates; it can be considered art. This is where the previous posters response could be acceptable (it's whatever humans define as.. blah blah). But as long as it is not produced by a human, it can not be considered art. PERIOD.
I agree that this experiment might have an interesting conclusion. My wager is that it will turn out like the "worlds favorite joke" or "the funniest joke in the world". It's the most over-wrought, uninsightful, least moving/interesting thing ever to be created.
Right. My human interpretation does not recognize this to be poetry.
(I'll adapt my response to the AC who responded to this too, because I think he made a good point. So I'll suppose there is no human input to select the phrases.)
Quit co-opting human terms for computer processes! Just because a computer CAN string words together or CAN make something that might (however I doubt universally) make something resemble a work of art, this is irrelevant; these are not examples of poetry or art. Whatever a computer produces independent of humans is its own thing -- NOT poetry and NOT art (these terms are reserved for HUMAN expression).
The fundamental difference here is WHAT creates the prose/poetry; art (poetry included) is created by humans; even if you fool an over-opinionated jerk into believing something is a work of art and created by a human, does not make it a work of art - it just makes for one more rediculous candid camera sketch.
So yeah. I'm wrong.
Get Turing out of your butt.
I think disney sees two things: 1) downloaders of their movies are not part of the demographic who would by the movies, therefore, the d/l'ers would never buy the video in the first place. 2) They produce a lot of terrible movies (sequels mainly) that are probably more expensive to put onto store shelves than the make.
don't be rediculous. I meant that in the sense that now it's common to recycle cans. People in US cities have curbside recycle pickup. Less than 15 years ago no one thought anything of cans, there wasn't any mind to have that service at all.
I don't remember the exact title of the article, but a study was commissioned by the UN to see how much resources it took to create a single processor (or memory chip) in Tawain and the results were startling. It's amazing how chips so small, require such a huge chemical and mineral investment in addition to the need for dams for power etc...
Many people don't think of the environmental costs of producing such devices, since they are so ubuquitous now. But soon it will be on everyones minds, just like recycling cans. And someday we might all be tempted to by "green" processors.
It doesn't seem like the schools are necessarily interested in protecting the students as they are protecting themselves from later, procedural litigation, in the chance that a student sues the school.
At some point the US will need to adjust to economic conditions outside the US. While in the past computer programmers and administrators were highly educated people, now community colleges and trade schools are pumping these "trained" people out. In addition to this, programming is not the work of a small squad or an individual anymore, instead it is a large conglomerate of people, and parts of software - think backend. The only thing that really needs a US/English cultural touch is the interface, for the most part (I in no way mean to minimize the importance of the interface). But thats it.
An educated anybody can really do these jobs now. The investment in education is nowhere near as high anymore (no programmer will be paying off $80k for school, think 2k at most at CC), and the decentralizing of software development has made the language barrier a thing of the past.
While I see why they would want to implement a system like this, has anyone answered the question of just how accurate biometrics are? I've heard that fingerprints taken from a crime scene can be 30-40% different from a "matching" print.
So how accurate is facial recognition? or retinal scans? or even electronic fingerprint scans? I mean, with 32Kbytes, is that more than enough information to positively id someone?
"and the expectation that everything from your phone to your washing machine will soon have its own IP address"
Didn't people realize that there is no point in connecting their washing machine to the internet? And even if they want to, they don't have to get it an individual IP, they can just have it running on the house lan?
I have four people in my house connecting to the internet with one IP.
While I think getting more IP's is nice, I think that "your dishwasher/washing machine/toaster will need an IP" comment is really dated.
So, I'm refraining from my usual punch out comment. Why? Basically: it's early, I'm slightly hungover, and I sit at my computer.
It seems very frustrating lately at how unnecessary this administration is making people feel. In a way it's alienating, patronizing, and slightly humiliating.
I for one protested the Iraq War. On February 15th I was in a march in Seattle that was mimicked around the world with more than several million protesters. Just in the US there were hundreds of thousands.
Now I don't want to sound bitter, but to spend an afternoon trying to get the Presidents attention with 20 thousand other individuals walking the streets of Seattle, and to have him say, in effect: "I'm not listening to you because you are a special interest" is complete crap. All he did to make a case for that war was to state his "evidence" that didn't persuade anyone, then repeat this "evidence", until it seemed like common knowledge.
Back to this article. I feel this webpage, however effecient it might make mail handling, seems like its designed simply to pidgeonhole people and their opinions. I for one don't want my e-mails tagged as "not in support of the white house" after seeing the way Bush handles dissent; I bet I would get a "think straight, vote bush" button in the mail or some crap.
Personally, I think this system is designed to dehumanize people. The same thing this web interface requires is the same thing a script could do (I know because I can watch resumes being scanned/recieved and keywords being checked...). But they want to force people to deal with the interface? I don't want to mess around with some supposed "tour de force" of a website. I certainly don't want my letter to be reduced to "yay" or "nay". (maybe I'm just a grandstander, and want to be listened to) but the way this administration is run, it doesn't seem like anyone is getting heard... people's protests aren't even addressed... and it's just like blah. As if whatever they do I'm not capable of understanding , as if I'm not alive, as if my actions are not worth anything... hence patronizing, alienation, and humiliation.
Slashdot Mirror
too bad his contribution to science will die along with the universe.
I was right! I was right!
--- existence ended ---
before I could even understand the problem there is a solution. I'm impressed. And to think, these people do this in their spare time.
It involves big big machines. It involves complex formulas. It involves a lot of money. It uses gruff test pilots (who may not survive!). It involves a lot of speculation. It involves a lot of speculation and play by play action!! not to mention competition! ... etc, but the goal will be for mass-suborbital-transportation! Yeah! Sign me up. Lead Polymer Designer here I come!
Wait!
I have a great idea for a slashdot theme... lets give geeks a sport! It'll be called... Make it to Space! and it will have all the qualities of football/basketball/baseball
Where's my girlfriend!? Where's my ho!? I'm bigger than jesus! Lead Polymer Designer! yeah!
Couldn't they just brown bag their lunch and have it anywhere? or did you mean "launch...from that kick ass arch"? good comment btw... we need to find more uses for national monuments. They waste a lot of space and only seem to attract tourists. Why couldn't we launch a rocket from the Arch? Or launch the space needle into orbit a couple times a year... I'd be happy.
translator who makes the source texts.
I think DirectX has proven itself quite well over the last few years. Maybe that should be on the list?
Microsoft named the initiative "'executing with excellence on multiple fronts' as a key business risk in the discussion of its annual results."
Well, scientists haven't finished the matrix yet. So, I'll keep my pen at my side until then.
I know this is a dramatic title. But better translation systems will do as much for cross cultural communication as the internet has done for cutting through geography.
I am waiting for the day when I can read Middle Eastern texts without having them selected, censored, and biased by american publishers and editors.
Yes! Art is anthropocentric. Get over it.
Okay,
boomgopher says:
"No, it's human interpretation the makes something poetry."
Then concludes that:
"Computers/processes are quite capable of producing works we percieve as art."
Where could I possibly get the idea that she/he suggests art can be made by a computer? He/she begins by saying that art is something defined by the individual; does this mean the poster can say: a mountain range is art? Or a lightning storm is art; or the random output created by the static inside the floppy drive of a computer, is that art? Where does it stop?
My attack is not simply based on a linguistic argument. His/her concept of art is flawed. And since the rest of the post can only make sense with the first sentence's qualification, I do believe I should comment on that.
The whole subject of my thread is how computers can NOT create art because art is made by humans. This poster decides "art is whatever" (shrugging off the definition I established in the beginning, without any proofs I might add) and simply says computers can create things we percieve as art. WELL, I don't percieve these "things" as art and I am defending my original position that computers can't create art.
Further, I will admit, I have a lot of anger at how geeks will loosely throw humanistic concepts the way of computers and computer output just because it seems to fit (this is where I wish the discussion went). There is as substantial a difference between what a computer creates and what a human creates, just as there is between tofu and turkey: no matter how similar they can visually appear, they are completely different. I feel like posters are saying tofu shaped like a turkey is turkey when they suggest that the output of a computer can be called art. No one seems to accept this and a few have seemed hurt by the fact that no other species/alien race/inanimate object/algorithm can produce art.
(Sorry to be repetetive, you know)
My definition of art is simple: a human's expression of itself. From there I can determine what it means (if anything) to me or how well it interprets/emulates the forms of the past and so on. So take that for what you will.
No one involved in the arts defines art as something that is simply "aesthetically pleasing." You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about. An appeal to "most of us" or authority isn't going to change that.
I did not "bag" or redefine my argument, I simply pointed out that the poster forgot the word/idea "human" in the concept "human expression" which is central to the definition of art.
And thank you, I will insist on my definition because it is right. IMO any argument that defends or defines a truth has merit.
Like I said in another post in this thread... because you can TRICK someone into believing that a work comes from a human, this does not mean that that work is art. What defines "Art" and "Poetry" is the human element in the expression/creation of that work. No matter what a human creates; it can be considered art. This is where the previous posters response could be acceptable (it's whatever humans define as .. blah blah). But as long as it is not produced by a human, it can not be considered art. PERIOD.
I agree that this experiment might have an interesting conclusion. My wager is that it will turn out like the "worlds favorite joke" or "the funniest joke in the world". It's the most over-wrought, uninsightful, least moving/interesting thing ever to be created.
Right. My human interpretation does not recognize this to be poetry. (I'll adapt my response to the AC who responded to this too, because I think he made a good point. So I'll suppose there is no human input to select the phrases.) Quit co-opting human terms for computer processes! Just because a computer CAN string words together or CAN make something that might (however I doubt universally) make something resemble a work of art, this is irrelevant; these are not examples of poetry or art. Whatever a computer produces independent of humans is its own thing -- NOT poetry and NOT art (these terms are reserved for HUMAN expression). The fundamental difference here is WHAT creates the prose/poetry; art (poetry included) is created by humans; even if you fool an over-opinionated jerk into believing something is a work of art and created by a human, does not make it a work of art - it just makes for one more rediculous candid camera sketch. So yeah. I'm wrong. Get Turing out of your butt.
I hate to be old fashioned about this, but poetry is made by humans. Wearing prose or garbage (in this case) into sensible meter does not a poem make.
Human expression makes poetry.
I think disney sees two things: 1) downloaders of their movies are not part of the demographic who would by the movies, therefore, the d/l'ers would never buy the video in the first place. 2) They produce a lot of terrible movies (sequels mainly) that are probably more expensive to put onto store shelves than the make.
So that's all I have to say.
don't be rediculous. I meant that in the sense that now it's common to recycle cans. People in US cities have curbside recycle pickup. Less than 15 years ago no one thought anything of cans, there wasn't any mind to have that service at all.
I don't remember the exact title of the article, but a study was commissioned by the UN to see how much resources it took to create a single processor (or memory chip) in Tawain and the results were startling. It's amazing how chips so small, require such a huge chemical and mineral investment in addition to the need for dams for power etc...
Many people don't think of the environmental costs of producing such devices, since they are so ubuquitous now. But soon it will be on everyones minds, just like recycling cans. And someday we might all be tempted to by "green" processors.
It doesn't seem like the schools are necessarily interested in protecting the students as they are protecting themselves from later, procedural litigation, in the chance that a student sues the school.
At some point the US will need to adjust to economic conditions outside the US. While in the past computer programmers and administrators were highly educated people, now community colleges and trade schools are pumping these "trained" people out. In addition to this, programming is not the work of a small squad or an individual anymore, instead it is a large conglomerate of people, and parts of software - think backend. The only thing that really needs a US/English cultural touch is the interface, for the most part (I in no way mean to minimize the importance of the interface). But thats it.
An educated anybody can really do these jobs now. The investment in education is nowhere near as high anymore (no programmer will be paying off $80k for school, think 2k at most at CC), and the decentralizing of software development has made the language barrier a thing of the past.
So now what?
While I see why they would want to implement a system like this, has anyone answered the question of just how accurate biometrics are? I've heard that fingerprints taken from a crime scene can be 30-40% different from a "matching" print.
So how accurate is facial recognition? or retinal scans? or even electronic fingerprint scans? I mean, with 32Kbytes, is that more than enough information to positively id someone?
"and the expectation that everything from your phone to your washing machine will soon have its own IP address" Didn't people realize that there is no point in connecting their washing machine to the internet? And even if they want to, they don't have to get it an individual IP, they can just have it running on the house lan? I have four people in my house connecting to the internet with one IP. While I think getting more IP's is nice, I think that "your dishwasher/washing machine/toaster will need an IP" comment is really dated.
I love you.
Dip the paper in ink. Dry. Shred. It's like that puzzle that has one solid shape and one solid color and thousands of pieces.
So, I'm refraining from my usual punch out comment. Why? Basically: it's early, I'm slightly hungover, and I sit at my computer. ... and it's just like blah. As if whatever they do I'm not capable of understanding , as if I'm not alive, as if my actions are not worth anything ... hence patronizing, alienation, and humiliation.
It seems very frustrating lately at how unnecessary this administration is making people feel. In a way it's alienating, patronizing, and slightly humiliating.
I for one protested the Iraq War. On February 15th I was in a march in Seattle that was mimicked around the world with more than several million protesters. Just in the US there were hundreds of thousands.
Now I don't want to sound bitter, but to spend an afternoon trying to get the Presidents attention with 20 thousand other individuals walking the streets of Seattle, and to have him say, in effect: "I'm not listening to you because you are a special interest" is complete crap. All he did to make a case for that war was to state his "evidence" that didn't persuade anyone, then repeat this "evidence", until it seemed like common knowledge.
Back to this article. I feel this webpage, however effecient it might make mail handling, seems like its designed simply to pidgeonhole people and their opinions. I for one don't want my e-mails tagged as "not in support of the white house" after seeing the way Bush handles dissent; I bet I would get a "think straight, vote bush" button in the mail or some crap.
Personally, I think this system is designed to dehumanize people. The same thing this web interface requires is the same thing a script could do (I know because I can watch resumes being scanned/recieved and keywords being checked...). But they want to force people to deal with the interface? I don't want to mess around with some supposed "tour de force" of a website. I certainly don't want my letter to be reduced to "yay" or "nay". (maybe I'm just a grandstander, and want to be listened to) but the way this administration is run, it doesn't seem like anyone is getting heard... people's protests aren't even addressed