And for every Van Gogh there are probably 100,000 artists who never, ever sold, and deservedly so.
My point is this: Commercialism and artistic merit are not in conflict, and never have been. I've never bought the argument that artists are "above it all", that money somehow degrades art.
Quite the opposite - an artist who disdains commercialism completely is probably not going to produce anything anyone will want. Commercial success does not guarantee artistic success, but it does not preclude it either.
Notice I actually managed to completed the "Subject" line this time.
It is name calling, in that it impugns the speaker's motives. To say someone is spreading FUD is to say that they are maliciously spreading misinformation with the objective of creating baseless fear in the audience.
I say forget the motives. We may assume that Steve Ballmer is going to have certain biases (as do we all). So concentrate on explaining why his arguments are wrong.
I was, actually, quite aware that it's an acronym, and assumed that it stood for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". I wasn't aware of the other definition. Whether an acronym can properly be referred to as a word I leave up to Merriam-Webster's definition of acronym:
a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters :
I would suggest that even if you think it's FUD, you should refrain from calling it that.
Why?
It's a turn off for people who have not taken a position on subject,
the very people you want to convince. To them it just sounds like name calling.
We all think we're right, and are often convinced that only people with impure motives could possibly disagree with us. By easing up on the name calling, we're recognizing and compensating for our own biases.
It distracts from the important task of pointing out exactly why the article is
so badly misguided.
Don't you think it's a sad commentary on society when "large money-making opportunities" far outweigh traditional expansions of culture?
"Traditional expansions of culture" have always been closely tied to making money. Michelangelo did most of his work on commission. That's not to say he didn't love what he did (especially sculpture), but he made money at it.
And you know, that's probably a good thing. When an artist produces work that can't make money, that's just one way of saying that nobody wants to own it very badly (or at all).
I can think of hundreds of modern examples of works that are both commercial AND artistic successes. I count the movie version of LOTR amongst them. Granted, a lot of schlock gets produced along the way, but that has always been the case - with the passage of time, the schlock and crassly commercial fades into the background, giving the illusion of "the good old days".
But telling her to take an action that is far more severe and dangerous than the bullying is a dubious reaction at best.
I don't know if a fight is more severe and dangerous than bullying. A fight hurts, but even the loser usually gets over it pretty quick, at least at the grade school level. Bullying, however, causes severe emotional stress over a prolonged period.
That one fight might have prevented far more damage than it caused.
I read the article. It isn't near as bad as the denizens of Groklaw make it out to be. It isn't an "attack on open source" as some there claimed - more of an analysis. Jeez, The Economist even makes the point that some companies are are copying the methods of the open source community.
PJ and her followers do not take even mild criticism of open source well at all.
Your point seems rather obscure, but I assume you're accusing me of accusing other posters of subjectivity. I think.
That was not my point. The more radical forms of postmodernism (it's a rather amorphous field) do not believe in objective truth. The validity of an argument comes far more from who says it than what is actually said. In particular, the arguments of the oppressed (read female or visible minority) are generally assumed to be valid, and those of the oppressor to be invalid.
With such beliefs, the question of who is making an argument becomes of paramount importance. Such an attitude might easily seep into student's brains whether they bought into the rest of postmodernism or not.
If an article is full of lies and distortions, then you should have no problem pointing that out. And if you can't, then maybe the article makes a valid point no matter who authored it.
And quit using the word FUD when you disagree with something. Jeez, you sound like Pamela Jones.
I think the article makes a fair point, although it could have used more facts and explanation.
RMS has repeatedly stated that he considers all proprietary software evil. Eben Moglen views are similar (e.g., read "Freeing the Mind :
Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture").
These are radical views, and out of sync with many supporters of open source software. Indeed many programmers wonder how they are supposed to make a living if all proprietary software is abolished. It seems a reasonable assertion that this will eventually cause a rift in the open source movement.
Great, so why don't you criticize the article - not the author - as being "little more than a list of unsupported assertions about other peoples motives." That's fair game.
It is all the rage these days to attack a person's motives rather than their arguments.
I wonder sometimes if it's due to the prevalence of postmodernism in the universities, where subjectivity (e.g., "whose truth?") reigns supreme.
Quite apart from any moral questions about outsourcing is the fact that opposing it is futile.
Outsourcing is international trade. Two companies, one in America, one in India, exchange money for software.
If outsourcing is to a company's advantage then they will try to do it. That's a given. The only way to prevent outsourcing is to put up massive and draconian trade barriers.
Unfortunately, such trade barriers would impoverish the American people
and cripple the American economy. An enormous amount of America's (and indeed the world's) wealth is due to international trade. It's one of the few points that most economists agree on.
So do you want to lose your job from outsourcing or from a crippled economy?
Slashdot Mirror
My point is this: Commercialism and artistic merit are not in conflict, and never have been. I've never bought the argument that artists are "above it all", that money somehow degrades art.
Quite the opposite - an artist who disdains commercialism completely is probably not going to produce anything anyone will want. Commercial success does not guarantee artistic success, but it does not preclude it either.
Notice I actually managed to completed the "Subject" line this time.
"Troll" is not another term for "I disagree".
Blatant moderator abuse.
Very impressive. It is not for us mortals question the actions of the moderator gods.
An important distinction. and apparantly a subtle one.
As to who it doesn't impress, I would suggest just about everyone.
I say forget the motives. We may assume that Steve Ballmer is going to have certain biases (as do we all). So concentrate on explaining why his arguments are wrong.
Is there reason to disagree to this article? Yep, lots. So state the reasons, and ease off of the name calling. It doesn't impress.
And you know, that's probably a good thing. When an artist produces work that can't make money, that's just one way of saying that nobody wants to own it very badly (or at all).
I can think of hundreds of modern examples of works that are both commercial AND artistic successes. I count the movie version of LOTR amongst them. Granted, a lot of schlock gets produced along the way, but that has always been the case - with the passage of time, the schlock and crassly commercial fades into the background, giving the illusion of "the good old days".
I don't know if a fight is more severe and dangerous than bullying. A fight hurts, but even the loser usually gets over it pretty quick, at least at the grade school level. Bullying, however, causes severe emotional stress over a prolonged period.
That one fight might have prevented far more damage than it caused.
And I didn't understand your first paragraph at all, though it kind of sounded like a gratuitous swipe at elected conservative governments.
To rise up in arms against violations of nonexistant "rights", basking in the warm glow of victomhood.
And all the while submitting sheep-like to many universities' "speech codes" and indoctrination programs which truly do violate their legal rights.
It's okay to insist students only say and think certain things, but you'll have to take away their laptaps from their cold, dead hands.
I just knew a war between the Catholics and Protestants was going to break out somewhere in this discussion. You didn't disappoint.
PJ and her followers do not take even mild criticism of open source well at all.
I'm going to jahannam (Islamic hell) for that remark, aren't I? They're going to bury me face down with the pigs.
That was not my point. The more radical forms of postmodernism (it's a rather amorphous field) do not believe in objective truth. The validity of an argument comes far more from who says it than what is actually said. In particular, the arguments of the oppressed (read female or visible minority) are generally assumed to be valid, and those of the oppressor to be invalid.
With such beliefs, the question of who is making an argument becomes of paramount importance. Such an attitude might easily seep into student's brains whether they bought into the rest of postmodernism or not.
And quit using the word FUD when you disagree with something. Jeez, you sound like Pamela Jones.
I never claimed that personal attacks were never known throughout history, only that they appear to be currently on the rise from recent decades.
RMS has repeatedly stated that he considers all proprietary software evil. Eben Moglen views are similar (e.g., read "Freeing the Mind : Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture").
These are radical views, and out of sync with many supporters of open source software. Indeed many programmers wonder how they are supposed to make a living if all proprietary software is abolished. It seems a reasonable assertion that this will eventually cause a rift in the open source movement.
Great, so why don't you criticize the article - not the author - as being "little more than a list of unsupported assertions about other peoples motives." That's fair game.
It's sad and intellectually lazy.
Jeez, where have you been these last few years. The loonie's worth about .88 cents American.
Thus $8 Can ~ $7 U.S.
Outsourcing is international trade. Two companies, one in America, one in India, exchange money for software.
If outsourcing is to a company's advantage then they will try to do it. That's a given. The only way to prevent outsourcing is to put up massive and draconian trade barriers.
Unfortunately, such trade barriers would impoverish the American people and cripple the American economy. An enormous amount of America's (and indeed the world's) wealth is due to international trade. It's one of the few points that most economists agree on.
So do you want to lose your job from outsourcing or from a crippled economy?