Well, assuming the fashion world is a self-adoration circle (I have yet to see something which would make that impression certainly false), making the designs look better than they really are does serve a purpose...
And BTW some people are working on space suit (proper) technology which does end up looking rather fashionable; relying on the obserbation that human skin is already a pretty good "space suit", except for providing mechanical pressure:
PS. Definatelly provides an argument to my views that, while there really isn't something like too little breasts, there is something like "too big" ones - seems they have some some chance of being containing to Earth and dying out once we set for the stairs;p
I don't think it's a matter of resolution and feeling speed - there were plenty of games where you drive in first person view, giving you helluva great feel of speed (often somewhat overblown one even, when they had "nose by the asphalt" camera) and unobstructed view.
More to do with peripheral vision and general awareness of your surrounding - games generally gave you very narrow window into their reality. But it has recently improven, with big widescreen (I imagine triple screen setups are even better)
So, it seems the automtive industry simply failed some of us, not providing (in my case) vehicles like in Wipeout 2097, with Negcon-like steering of course...;(
But...there was evidence that "something's up" before 9/11. Wasn't followed properly.Not much of an evidence what exactly will happen of course, but it was quite clearly established that some people are capable of suicide missions, taking many bystanders with them. And that you can hit a building with a plane.
Somewhat the opposite of what we have here - we are preparing for such attacks all the time after all, trying to secure our networks. Now, it seems, al we need is perpetrators.
Recognising that, in current system, benefits of semi-random whim of popularity are strangely overblown (most pronounced when applied to immaterial works, suddenly giving your past time ridiculously large value (and you might not even know it for some time...heck, you might be dead by then); there should be of course some benefits...but to such ridiculous degree?), while many great works remain obscure; saying that value of many things is skewed...and most importantly not pointing to any clear solution (I simply don't know) really seems to you like a definitive, black-and white view?
The example you have chosen doesn't strenghten your point (and is not an analogy of evolutionary psychology; which btw does't work only on the level of genetics, also memetics) - there are no animals of comparable weight to humans which can fly. Heck, the birds that do weight similarly to us...lost their ability of flight.
So no, evolution can't explain "almost anything you can imagine". It can explain how circumstances (and that includes fundamental physical reality) have led to the traits we observe. Those are traits are more restricted than our imagination.
It would be wastefull for starters. Wasting resources, energy which might be better used elsewhere, hence organisms which tone down their immune systems, when not needed, would also have some slight advantage.
Plus I wouldn't be surprised if it would give slight autoimmune symptoms or increased risk of some tumors (of immune system), in the long term.
I simply don't see it as black and white. You know, apart from dismissing any value of intellectual property, attaching rigid one or accepting overinflated one there's also an option of trying to assing proper value to it, differing one depending on circumstances, to boot... ("how?" is an unresolved problem; you migth argue that the market will take care of it; I was arguing at the beginning that it's failing at that)
cNo, physical objects can't be copied at whim; for starters. Arbitrary values don't apply to them to such a degree (notice I said exactly that, not "at all")
And yes, that includes also clothes. You really don't know that people are buying also into the brand? Into the design? ("fashion" of the moment...which has not much to do with costs of production; but all to do with intellectual work that went into designing it)
Don't pretend it's to such a degree for physical objects, the distinction about which it was about (physical vs. intellectual products; fashion designs are an example of the latter, btw, too...)
Uhm, not likely. Your immune system is simply working properly; that includes boosting its activity when its needed (and toning it down when it would be a waste of energy, high activity needlessly increasing the risk of some tumors, etc.)
Better talk about it the other way around, or some people might strenghten their weird understanding of evolution.
When our ancestors were encountering visibly sick individuals, those with traits of discovered mechanism were somewhat more likely to survive and leave offspring.
And can say with certainity that it's suffering...how? It seems to me you would agree that many of what we consider the greatest works of art came from "struggling idealists".
To be fair, it works both ways. Old people casting vote in their likely to be last, or one of the last elections; influencing the outcome in a way that won't make much (if any) difference to them. But fraks things up for the younger.
So you haven't heard about Gaussian distribution, or that only small part of the population needs to suceptible to infuence things greatly?
(note - I do think that, ultimatelly, governments, etc. are simply a reflection of society...but it's certainly a more complex web of dependancies under the hood)
As is my rule in many other areas - don't look at what bolsheviks (and those after them, also in other places) claimed they are, look at what they actually were. Oligarchies, not communist states. The point is that they didn't treat all people as identical, not even close. I should know very well, I live in place which was beyond the Iron Courtain...
And for that matter, I do think that communism on national level is outright unworkable (even if it can work on smaller scales), similarly to any other pure ideology - picking what works from many is much better (as US does...); but it's better to be precise in terminology...
And you know, in those examples it's not just taxation and keeping society ticking along...those are hidden, massive subsidies to only very few industries, very few social groups. Well, but I guess they have equal right to succeed as others, even if their business model is unsustainable...right?
The value of such work time is so arbitrarily determined that there is some qualitative shift happening, yes (one which changes rules fundamentally, even if we haven't adapted to them yet)
Consider a plausible scenario: you're coding some per project or recording a song with an expectation that it should contribute to sustaining you, or in taking a bit further what you do, and that's fine of course. In 99.99+% of cases that's the best you can hope for.
But suddenly, some time later, through some fickle whim of societal dynamics, your application or song becomes a huge hit. Mind you, your product was not bad of course...but is it really thousands times better than countless those which, while good or even much better, will remain obscure?
Did that event suddenly made the time you've spent worth thousands time more?
And can you point out any place where some people actually honestly tried to implement communism on a national level? (as contrasted with small, informal communities or modern-day communes, which can and do work sensibly)
Look, "communism" was just a dream, a different kind of religion if you will, that some people tried to sold here and there at few point in time; without actually any intent of implementing it (apparently it was partially succesfull, seems you bought it). Similar to, say, "Land of Opportunity".
(btw, I take it you are againt socialist funding of highways (hence few industries getting unfair advantage), airports (again) or military?)
I do prefer something where artists have to earn their living comparably to the rest of population, yes. As was the case almost always and, as you noticed, is the case for vast majority of artists today.
That includes a system where ridiculous rewards and excesses of the few are restrained too, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, assuming the fashion world is a self-adoration circle (I have yet to see something which would make that impression certainly false), making the designs look better than they really are does serve a purpose...
Stars! Once we set for the stars! Not the stairs... (don't be too hard on me, lexical nazis...)
And BTW some people are working on space suit (proper) technology which does end up looking rather fashionable; relying on the obserbation that human skin is already a pretty good "space suit", except for providing mechanical pressure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit
http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/index.html
PS. Definatelly provides an argument to my views that, while there really isn't something like too little breasts, there is something like "too big" ones - seems they have some some chance of being containing to Earth and dying out once we set for the stairs ;p
I don't think it's a matter of resolution and feeling speed - there were plenty of games where you drive in first person view, giving you helluva great feel of speed (often somewhat overblown one even, when they had "nose by the asphalt" camera) and unobstructed view.
More to do with peripheral vision and general awareness of your surrounding - games generally gave you very narrow window into their reality. But it has recently improven, with big widescreen (I imagine triple screen setups are even better)
So, it seems the automtive industry simply failed some of us, not providing (in my case) vehicles like in Wipeout 2097, with Negcon-like steering of course... ;(
But...there was evidence that "something's up" before 9/11. Wasn't followed properly.Not much of an evidence what exactly will happen of course, but it was quite clearly established that some people are capable of suicide missions, taking many bystanders with them. And that you can hit a building with a plane.
Somewhat the opposite of what we have here - we are preparing for such attacks all the time after all, trying to secure our networks. Now, it seems, al we need is perpetrators.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Not at all...
Recognising that, in current system, benefits of semi-random whim of popularity are strangely overblown (most pronounced when applied to immaterial works, suddenly giving your past time ridiculously large value (and you might not even know it for some time...heck, you might be dead by then); there should be of course some benefits...but to such ridiculous degree?), while many great works remain obscure; saying that value of many things is skewed...and most importantly not pointing to any clear solution (I simply don't know) really seems to you like a definitive, black-and white view?
The example you have chosen doesn't strenghten your point (and is not an analogy of evolutionary psychology; which btw does't work only on the level of genetics, also memetics) - there are no animals of comparable weight to humans which can fly. Heck, the birds that do weight similarly to us...lost their ability of flight.
So no, evolution can't explain "almost anything you can imagine". It can explain how circumstances (and that includes fundamental physical reality) have led to the traits we observe. Those are traits are more restricted than our imagination.
It would be wastefull for starters. Wasting resources, energy which might be better used elsewhere, hence organisms which tone down their immune systems, when not needed, would also have some slight advantage.
Plus I wouldn't be surprised if it would give slight autoimmune symptoms or increased risk of some tumors (of immune system), in the long term.
I simply don't see it as black and white. You know, apart from dismissing any value of intellectual property, attaching rigid one or accepting overinflated one there's also an option of trying to assing proper value to it, differing one depending on circumstances, to boot... ("how?" is an unresolved problem; you migth argue that the market will take care of it; I was arguing at the beginning that it's failing at that)
We all know that children generated from dysfunctional parents create Zombies!
Please continue...
cNo, physical objects can't be copied at whim; for starters. Arbitrary values don't apply to them to such a degree (notice I said exactly that, not "at all")
And yes, that includes also clothes. You really don't know that people are buying also into the brand? Into the design? ("fashion" of the moment...which has not much to do with costs of production; but all to do with intellectual work that went into designing it)
Don't pretend it's to such a degree for physical objects, the distinction about which it was about (physical vs. intellectual products; fashion designs are an example of the latter, btw, too...)
They also took blood samples from the control group...
Uhm, not likely. Your immune system is simply working properly; that includes boosting its activity when its needed (and toning it down when it would be a waste of energy, high activity needlessly increasing the risk of some tumors, etc.)
Better talk about it the other way around, or some people might strenghten their weird understanding of evolution.
When our ancestors were encountering visibly sick individuals, those with traits of discovered mechanism were somewhat more likely to survive and leave offspring.
And can say with certainity that it's suffering...how? It seems to me you would agree that many of what we consider the greatest works of art came from "struggling idealists".
To be fair, it works both ways. Old people casting vote in their likely to be last, or one of the last elections; influencing the outcome in a way that won't make much (if any) difference to them. But fraks things up for the younger.
It's a cultural thing in your culture.
But, for example, what notable can you say, from the top of your head, about "Captain Abu Raed" film?
So you haven't heard about Gaussian distribution, or that only small part of the population needs to suceptible to infuence things greatly?
(note - I do think that, ultimatelly, governments, etc. are simply a reflection of society...but it's certainly a more complex web of dependancies under the hood)
As is my rule in many other areas - don't look at what bolsheviks (and those after them, also in other places) claimed they are, look at what they actually were. Oligarchies, not communist states. The point is that they didn't treat all people as identical, not even close. I should know very well, I live in place which was beyond the Iron Courtain...
And for that matter, I do think that communism on national level is outright unworkable (even if it can work on smaller scales), similarly to any other pure ideology - picking what works from many is much better (as US does...); but it's better to be precise in terminology...
And you know, in those examples it's not just taxation and keeping society ticking along...those are hidden, massive subsidies to only very few industries, very few social groups. Well, but I guess they have equal right to succeed as others, even if their business model is unsustainable...right?
The value of such work time is so arbitrarily determined that there is some qualitative shift happening, yes (one which changes rules fundamentally, even if we haven't adapted to them yet)
Consider a plausible scenario: you're coding some per project or recording a song with an expectation that it should contribute to sustaining you, or in taking a bit further what you do, and that's fine of course. In 99.99+% of cases that's the best you can hope for.
But suddenly, some time later, through some fickle whim of societal dynamics, your application or song becomes a huge hit. Mind you, your product was not bad of course...but is it really thousands times better than countless those which, while good or even much better, will remain obscure?
Did that event suddenly made the time you've spent worth thousands time more?
And can you point out any place where some people actually honestly tried to implement communism on a national level? (as contrasted with small, informal communities or modern-day communes, which can and do work sensibly)
Look, "communism" was just a dream, a different kind of religion if you will, that some people tried to sold here and there at few point in time; without actually any intent of implementing it (apparently it was partially succesfull, seems you bought it). Similar to, say, "Land of Opportunity".
(btw, I take it you are againt socialist funding of highways (hence few industries getting unfair advantage), airports (again) or military?)
I do prefer something where artists have to earn their living comparably to the rest of population, yes. As was the case almost always and, as you noticed, is the case for vast majority of artists today.
That includes a system where ridiculous rewards and excesses of the few are restrained too, of course.