Yeah, all life and our enjoyment of life is insignificant:P
Sorry, but you've got to admit, it would be an awful shame to have come so far, and make a blunder like this.
Re:There's no such thing as art
on
Are Videogames Art?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A great piece of music is still a great piece of music, even if it's only a dog that ever listens to it. The situation and atmosphere (e.g. supermarket enviroment) are external variables which affect the enjoyment of said music.
Oh and John Cage's music 4'33" in my opinion is completely neutral, offering nothing or bad. If you could put every theoretical piece of music on a multi-dimensional tree, then the 4'33 would certainly occupy an important place in that tree. However, it lacks any of the enjoyment that can be gained from good music. I think it's a gimmick in that sense, and the any enjoyment people derive from it comes from another source (the silence may inspire them to a pleasant memory etc.).
The question is off because we can barely define 'art' anyway. In any case, games subsume art, because they contains music and graphics anyway, so are we talking about the raw playability of a game? If so, then Outrun, Bubble Bobble, Sega Rally, Lemmings, Strider, Speedball 2, Super Aleste, and Zelda 3, are classic examples of games that have stood the test of time and continue to be fun to play even today.
They should give the AVERAGE score of the person playing aswell. Anyone can keep playing a long time, but it takes someone with a good knowledge to score well on average.
I think they should have two scores because of this.
Except when my (liquid bearing) HD starts making the usual clicking noises, stopping me getting to sleep, since Windows XP insists on accessing the HD *constantly* even while doing apparently nothing.
Google's mistaken moves in China have blown off the remaining gloss on Do No Evil
A lots been said on it I know, but just to conclude that they did not make that decision lightly. See the Google Blog.
For all you know (and let's face it, neither of us has a clue), maybe it is the fastest way to globally uncensored speech. We'll see you eat your words if in 5-10 years, China accepts the uncensored Google. Oh, and one other thing, Yahoo or other search engines aren't THAT much worse than Google, so China wouldn't have been missing an awful lot. Thus they would not have cared, and kept their censoring policy anyway.
Thanks for asking this - so concise too. I've wondered about the same question for years, without any newspaper, pop science magazine, TV programme, website or ANYTHING actually asking or providing info to that 'super obvious' question. Like you, I've always thought (or used to think) that just because we don't know, it doesn't mean that there's not a definite reality behind it all. Contact me for $5 if you have a paypal account (through my website).
Thanks also to the responders mentioning the hidden variables theory, and how it doesn't quite account for the data.
But with widescreen, we can have two or more programs easily open at once. I can have the browser on the left half, and one or two programs on the right (such as notepad and a calculator).
I like a good degree of height too, but this can always be solved by bigger overall screens and resolutions.
The sooner this (or another) technology comes along the better. Standard incandescent bulbs have a terrible colour balance (48% red, 33% green, and only 19% blue!). This distorts surroundings away from their natural hue.
What keeps people away from 'white' flourescents is how they buzz, flicker, and also spike in the green range (giving a sickly green hue to many surfaces).
Did you manage to create that program to rate the music?
didn't want to use 'good' or 'bad' because that would lead to a lot of arguments based on taste, not music
Especially in this hyper-postmodern age, where every piece is supposed to be as good as every other. The only arguments would come from those who were wrong about what aesthetics was about in the first place.
I for one though would be impressed by someone who claimed that one piece was actually... shock... better (or worse), than another.
Just as day follows night, Abba's 'Dancing Queen' is better than what you would get if you loaded an exe program through a sample editor (i.e. harsh noise), and Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata 1st or 3rd movement, Debussy's Claire de Lune, or Chopin's 3rd Ballade beats the heck out of something like... Pachelbel's Canon in D:)
To find a complete science of happiness, we'd need to find out a master formula to create/rate good music, a formula for art, one for thought and games (sport, console or otherwise), and the various other senses (touch, smell, taste).
There was a story a while ago about a system which used hamsters to generate music. What I can say is that this is probably/better/ than that;)
However, it's still profoundly far from being listenable. We want a key centre/s, proper cadences, decent timbre, singable melodies, augmented/diminished triads, nice chord combinations, and decent orchestration!
Just because something isn't falsifiable, does not mean it can't be/true/. Truth subsumes 'science' (or maybe it equals science if you don't believe in anything remotely supernatural like souls, qualia and what not).
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps this is why we should simply change the system to miles per dollar. This would cover any technology, past and present.
Yeah, all life and our enjoyment of life is insignificant :P
Sorry, but you've got to admit, it would be an awful shame to have come so far, and make a blunder like this.
A great piece of music is still a great piece of music, even if it's only a dog that ever listens to it. The situation and atmosphere (e.g. supermarket enviroment) are external variables which affect the enjoyment of said music.
Oh and John Cage's music 4'33" in my opinion is completely neutral, offering nothing or bad. If you could put every theoretical piece of music on a multi-dimensional tree, then the 4'33 would certainly occupy an important place in that tree. However, it lacks any of the enjoyment that can be gained from good music. I think it's a gimmick in that sense, and the any enjoyment people derive from it comes from another source (the silence may inspire them to a pleasant memory etc.).
The question is off because we can barely define 'art' anyway. In any case, games subsume art, because they contains music and graphics anyway, so are we talking about the raw playability of a game? If so, then Outrun, Bubble Bobble, Sega Rally, Lemmings, Strider, Speedball 2, Super Aleste, and Zelda 3, are classic examples of games that have stood the test of time and continue to be fun to play even today.
They should give the AVERAGE score of the person playing aswell. Anyone can keep playing a long time, but it takes someone with a good knowledge to score well on average.
I think they should have two scores because of this.
Is this ????? step supposed to be unknown just to outsiders, or to the person who's made the money aswell?
Except when my (liquid bearing) HD starts making the usual clicking noises, stopping me getting to sleep, since Windows XP insists on accessing the HD *constantly* even while doing apparently nothing.
Yes, and how about if we downsample an MP3 down to 32, 16 or even 8 kbit sound quality?
A lots been said on it I know, but just to conclude that they did not make that decision lightly. See the Google Blog.
For all you know (and let's face it, neither of us has a clue), maybe it is the fastest way to globally uncensored speech. We'll see you eat your words if in 5-10 years, China accepts the uncensored Google. Oh, and one other thing, Yahoo or other search engines aren't THAT much worse than Google, so China wouldn't have been missing an awful lot. Thus they would not have cared, and kept their censoring policy anyway.
Quoted from the linked page:
Thanks for asking this - so concise too. I've wondered about the same question for years, without any newspaper, pop science magazine, TV programme, website or ANYTHING actually asking or providing info to that 'super obvious' question. Like you, I've always thought (or used to think) that just because we don't know, it doesn't mean that there's not a definite reality behind it all. Contact me for $5 if you have a paypal account (through my website).
Thanks also to the responders mentioning the hidden variables theory, and how it doesn't quite account for the data.
Does anyone think that if it weren't for unix/linux, then the internet would have come much later?
But with widescreen, we can have two or more programs easily open at once. I can have the browser on the left half, and one or two programs on the right (such as notepad and a calculator).
I like a good degree of height too, but this can always be solved by bigger overall screens and resolutions.
The sooner this (or another) technology comes along the better. Standard incandescent bulbs have a terrible colour balance (48% red, 33% green, and only 19% blue!). This distorts surroundings away from their natural hue.
What keeps people away from 'white' flourescents is how they buzz, flicker, and also spike in the green range (giving a sickly green hue to many surfaces).
I like 'begs' better even if it's 'wrong'. It implies that there's emotion and a strong steering towards the question.
'Raises' seems to fall flat on its face. English language changes all the time, so it'd be nice for a change in meaning.
Then you would have good and bad taste in different ways.
But who would honestly like the uninventive and plainly boring Pachelbel's Canon in D?
Especially in this hyper-postmodern age, where every piece is supposed to be as good as every other. The only arguments would come from those who were wrong about what aesthetics was about in the first place.
I for one though would be impressed by someone who claimed that one piece was actually... shock... better (or worse), than another.
Just as day follows night, Abba's 'Dancing Queen' is better than what you would get if you loaded an exe program through a sample editor (i.e. harsh noise), and Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata 1st or 3rd movement, Debussy's Claire de Lune, or Chopin's 3rd Ballade beats the heck out of something like... Pachelbel's Canon in D
Drugs can only do so much. I'm guessing there's a difference between 'craving' and true happiness.
Take music for example. The happiness gained through some of the best music, could never be 'emulated' via drugs and so forth.
To find a complete science of happiness, we'd need to find out a master formula to create/rate good music, a formula for art, one for thought and games (sport, console or otherwise), and the various other senses (touch, smell, taste).
Those are the fundamentals.
Not if people are forced to buy the chip because they dominate the market. Then it is the buyer.
The amount of emotion is at least partially determined by the structure and form.
There was a story a while ago about a system which used hamsters to generate music. What I can say is that this is probably /better/ than that ;)
However, it's still profoundly far from being listenable. We want a key centre/s, proper cadences, decent timbre, singable melodies, augmented/diminished triads, nice chord combinations, and decent orchestration!
Just because something isn't falsifiable, does not mean it can't be /true/. Truth subsumes 'science' (or maybe it equals science if you don't believe in anything remotely supernatural like souls, qualia and what not).
- Because it will not, and can not, be free.
Because technology is getting better, bandwidth and startup costs will always get cheaper and cheaper, so in the end it may as well be free.Think of cost as in 1/n, where n progresses towards infinity