I'm not sure which list you're looking at (I'm looking at this one), but I don't see them in alphabetical order or with a ctrl-f search.
Perhaps you're responding to the wrong message?
I believe Kranky, Constellation and spinArt are independent and not members of the RIAA. Constellation (Canadian) has Do Make Say Think and Godspeed You Black Emperor. Kranky bands include Low and Pan American and I think they're the American distributor for GYBE. spinArt is home to the Poster Children and The Wedding Present, among others.
>Maybe this will put the final nail in the coffin >of the "riding Kurt Cobain's coattails" meme.
Yeah, she's well into the "riding Billy Corgan's musical coattails" phase of her career.
And did anybody else puke when reading that Ms. Love wouldn't allow her daughter to drink cola? No problem shooting smack while you're pregnant though, hey, Courtney? Fucking sick.
>> Spirituality is an attribute of the human mind, not one of the world around us.
True enough (though a hard-core materialist might wonder about the distinction between "the world" and "the mind"), but physics is every bit as much an attribute of the human mind and thus a human social construction as any flavour of "spirituality" you'd care to mention.
Check out Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method" for some interesting arguments _for_ the applicability of heremeneutics to science. Even if you don't agree with his ideas, you'll have to agree that his team (the "Epistemological Anarchists") has the coolest name!;)
(Now I know that a lot of people use such arguments about the basis of science to do things like attempt to equate astronomy and astrology. I think they're wrong, but I also think that the best way to argue against such mistakes is on the basis of the results of the two modes of knowledge, not on what can easily be written off as "anti-minority oppression" or some such silliness).
M-W lists "mutually or reciprocally active" as one definition of "interactive" (and I think it's the common usage of the word). Under this definition, however, books, television and newspapers are not and can not be interactive. Aside from tearing up a paper, burning a book or shooting the television, the action is all one-way. Playing q3a against human players is interactive. Books and television are not.
I saw this link on NTK) last April or May, so when I was in SF last June for JavaOne, I dropped in on Cliff Stoll in Berkeley to pick up a few bottles for my very own. He has a shack behind his house filled with Klein bottles and a bunch of old calculating machines, which he's rebuilding. He regaled me and my buddy for about an hour with stories about the intricacies of glass sculpture and a few other random topics. He was also planning to make knitted Klein bottles with a recently-acquired knitting machine. I was also privileged to receive an old sock sewn into a projective plane! Quite the guy!
I think the short answer is that people are fascinated with celebrities because these celebrities appear in the media.
Suppose I own a magazine. Being a good capitalist, I want to maximize the number of issues that I sell. I don't think it's a big leap to see that it's in my self-interest to do everything I can to identify certain people as inherently newsworthy and persuade my readers that they should consume any material related to these newsworthies. Whether this newsworthiness is somehow defensible (in the case of politicians, artists, technologists) or not (pop musicians, glitterati) is immaterial.
So, if I can persuade you that JFKJ is a person you should be interested in because he's good-looking, rich and the son of a former president, I can make more money. If throwing in meaningless adjectives like "hero to a generation" pumps the bottom line, so much the better.
People end up caring about these media projections because their peers do, because there are billion-dollar companies trying to get them to care and because it distracts them from their lives (who of us has a life that can match the non-stop excitement of that of a media-mediated celebrity?).
I believe that this issue is at heart a sociological, not a technical, issue. The newspapers in my city (Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun and National Post) all devoted above-the-fold pictures and headlines to the JFKJ incident for several days.
I think the short answer is that people are fascinated with celebrities because these celebrities appear in the media.
Suppose I own a magazine. Being a good capitalist, I want to maximize the number of issues that I sell. I don't think it's a big leap to see that it's in my self-interest to do everything I can to identify certain people as inherently newsworthy and persuade my readers that they should consume any material related to these newsworthies. Whether this newsworthiness is somehow defensible (in the case of politicians, artists, technologists) or not (pop musicians, glitterati) is immaterial.
So, if I can persuade you that JFKJ is a person you should be interested in because he's good-looking, rich and the son of a former president, I can make more money. If throwing in meaningless adjectives like "hero to a generation" pumps the bottom line, so much the better.
People end up caring about these media projections because their peers do, because there are billion-dollar companies trying to get them to care and because it distracts them from their lives (who of us has a life that can match the non-stop excitement of that of a media-mediated celebrity?).
Slashdot Mirror
The Globe and Mail also revi ewed this book recently.
I'm not sure which list you're looking at (I'm looking at this one), but I don't see them in alphabetical order or with a ctrl-f search. Perhaps you're responding to the wrong message?
I believe Kranky, Constellation and spinArt are independent and not members of the RIAA. Constellation (Canadian) has Do Make Say Think and Godspeed You Black Emperor. Kranky bands include Low and Pan American and I think they're the American distributor for GYBE. spinArt is home to the Poster Children and The Wedding Present, among others.
Here's an answer.
>Maybe this will put the final nail in the coffin
>of the "riding Kurt Cobain's coattails" meme.
Yeah, she's well into the "riding Billy Corgan's
musical coattails" phase of her career.
And did anybody else puke when reading that Ms.
Love wouldn't allow her daughter to drink cola?
No problem shooting smack while you're pregnant
though, hey, Courtney? Fucking sick.
Maple Music does something like this.
>> Spirituality is an attribute of the human mind, not one of the world around us.
;)
True enough (though a hard-core materialist might wonder about the distinction between "the world" and "the mind"), but physics is every bit as much an attribute of the human mind and thus a human social construction as any flavour of "spirituality" you'd care to mention.
Check out Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method" for some interesting arguments _for_ the applicability of heremeneutics to science. Even if you don't agree with his ideas, you'll have to agree that his team (the "Epistemological Anarchists") has the coolest name!
(Now I know that a lot of people use such arguments about the basis of science to do things like attempt to equate astronomy and astrology. I think they're wrong, but I also think that the best way to argue against such mistakes is on the basis of the results of the two modes of knowledge, not on what can easily be written off as "anti-minority oppression" or some such silliness).
M-W lists "mutually or reciprocally active" as one definition of "interactive" (and I think it's the common usage of the word). Under this definition, however, books, television and newspapers are not and can not be interactive. Aside from tearing up a paper, burning a book or shooting the television, the action is all one-way. Playing q3a against human players is interactive. Books and television are not.
This, apparently, is not the case with Mr. Katz. A case of perfect arrogance casting out all fear?
I saw this link on NTK) last April or May, so when I was in SF last June for JavaOne, I dropped in on Cliff Stoll in Berkeley to pick up a few bottles for my very own. He has a shack behind his house filled with Klein bottles and a bunch of old calculating machines, which he's rebuilding. He regaled me and my buddy for about an hour with stories about the intricacies of glass sculpture and a few other random topics. He was also planning to make knitted Klein bottles with a recently-acquired knitting machine. I was also privileged to receive an old sock sewn into a projective plane! Quite the guy!
I think the short answer is that people are
fascinated with celebrities because these
celebrities appear in the media.
Suppose I own a magazine. Being a good
capitalist, I want to maximize the number of
issues that I sell. I don't think it's a big
leap to see that it's in my self-interest to
do everything I can to identify certain people
as inherently newsworthy and persuade my
readers that they should consume any material
related to these newsworthies. Whether this
newsworthiness is somehow defensible (in the
case of politicians, artists, technologists)
or not (pop musicians, glitterati) is immaterial.
So, if I can persuade you that JFKJ is a person
you should be interested in because he's
good-looking, rich and the son of a former
president, I can make more money. If throwing
in meaningless adjectives like "hero to a
generation" pumps the bottom line, so much the
better.
People end up caring about these media projections
because their peers do, because there are
billion-dollar companies trying to get them to
care and because it distracts them from their
lives (who of us has a life that can match the
non-stop excitement of that of a media-mediated
celebrity?).
I believe that this issue is at heart a
sociological, not a technical, issue. The
newspapers in my city (Globe & Mail, Toronto Star,
Toronto Sun and National Post) all devoted
above-the-fold pictures and headlines to the
JFKJ incident for several days.
SS
You can never be too rich, thin or cynical.
I think the short answer is that people are
fascinated with celebrities because these
celebrities appear in the media.
Suppose I own a magazine. Being a good
capitalist, I want to maximize the number of
issues that I sell. I don't think it's a big
leap to see that it's in my self-interest to
do everything I can to identify certain people
as inherently newsworthy and persuade my
readers that they should consume any material
related to these newsworthies. Whether this
newsworthiness is somehow defensible (in the
case of politicians, artists, technologists)
or not (pop musicians, glitterati) is immaterial.
So, if I can persuade you that JFKJ is a person
you should be interested in because he's
good-looking, rich and the son of a former
president, I can make more money. If throwing
in meaningless adjectives like "hero to a
generation" pumps the bottom line, so much the
better.
People end up caring about these media projections
because their peers do, because there are
billion-dollar companies trying to get them to
care and because it distracts them from their
lives (who of us has a life that can match the
non-stop excitement of that of a media-mediated
celebrity?).
SS
You can never be too rich, thin or cynical.