Sure, but there has to be a level of complexity to it, otherwise it evokes no feeling.
So again, how much complexity is required? By what metric are you judging Justin Bieber's work to be insufficiently complex? Does it not have enough different notes in it or something? If the evocation of feeling is the important part then that's a subjective reaction on the part of the audience not an objective measurement criteria.
Impact anyone. Whether it's a positive or negative impact doesn't matter. Poor art won't have any impact and will be easily forgotten.
Justin Bieber seems to have had a strong negative impact on you and a strong positive impact on lots of other people (judging by the level of screaming at least).
Exactly. If it's so worthless as to be quickly forgotten, then it's crap.
I think you have your cause and effect backwards here. Great art is not great because it's remembered, it's remembered because it's great.
It's good that you admit it. Perhaps one day you'll acquire a sense of taste.
You're making a lot of snide comments about my personal preferences for someone that knows absolutely nothing about them.
So simple elegant things can't be art? How complex does it need to be before it counts? Is more complexity always better or is there a diminishing return?
refinement
Let's see...refinement, noun: "cultured elegance in behavior or manner.". Hmmm....elegance, noun: "the quality of being pleasingly ingenious and simple". So art must embody complexity and ingenious simplicity. Gotcha. Can't see any issues so far.
impact
Impact on who? How is impact measured? Sounds to me like impact is a function of entirely subjective reactions of the audience.
staying power
So something that is obscure and thus quickly forgotten about can't be art because it has no staying power?
The only reason Bieber is more popular is because most people are uncultured mooks and you appear to be one of them.
Perhaps. Or perhaps I just understand the difference between a subjective opinion and an objective fact and I'm not arrogant enough to assume that my opinions are somehow more worthy than anyone else's. But no, I'm sure you're right. It's probably the mook thing.
It's a zero-loss game for creators and a zero-profit game for backers.
I don't think it's entirely zero-profit for backers. If the project succeeds then I get a thing that I wanted that might not otherwise have been created. That's a benefit for me.
Because there is such a thing as reputation, and concealed carry.
Reputation only works as a behavior modifier if the people I have to do business with in some way give a crap about the people I'm screwing over. And concealed carry only works if your gun is bigger than mine.
Also, I didn't say get rid of governments, I said get them out of the markets. The only possible purpose of a government is to reduce aggression (ie murder, assault, theft, and their derivatives like rape and fraud).
You didn't say get rid of them but you did say they were "the root of the problems we have in the marketplace", which I took to mean you thought there would be no problems in the marketplace if we got rid of the government. IMHO you can't have a functioning marketplace without things like protection of property rights, protection against fraud and enforcement of contracts, and I've yet to hear of a credible proposal for how we maintain those things without some form of government.
The scarcity of a natural resource does not cause a monopoly to naturally occur.
It's certainly not guaranteed to to happen but are seriously suggesting that it's impossible for it to happen?
The scarcity of radio spectrum would not result in a single radio broadcast corporation monopolizing the spectrum.
What are you basing that assertion on?
Now, if it wasn't regulated, there would be some chaos - but the steady state equilibrium result may not be all that bad.
Who's to say the "steady state equilibrium" wouldn't be the one guy with the most powerful transmitter drowning out every other signal?
The fact that many are unhappy with cable companies and desire more competition shows that granting them government monopolies has downsides. Do you think the US would be better off if Google Fiber efforts were banned because "natural monopoly" and "duplication" and it might not be cost effective?
Don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying that government granted monopolies are good or desirable. I was merely trying to point out it was possible for monopolies to form without a specific government mandate.
Depends what you mean by enforce I guess. eg there is a limited radio broadcast spectrum. That's not government enforced, that just physics. If everyone just broadcast indiscriminately on whatever spectrum they felt like signal interference would render it useless.
Take cable - natural monopoly? Except it relies on government enforcement to create the actual monopoly.
Not really. Even if you removed all government regulation from building cable networks (which would in practice be next to impossible to do, but for the sake of argument) you'd still never see 27 different cable providers running wires into your house because it's simply not cost effective to duplicate that infrastructure. You'd end up fragmenting the market to the point where it's impossible to recover the capital costs of building the network. You may not see a strict monopoly with only one player (although you might), but the natural barriers to entry can be sufficient that normal "free market" solutions don't necessarily apply.
Currently these places are getting internet piggybacked on utility infrastructure. The costs are spread over the entire service area and traditionally, access to that service area was limited in exchange for servicing areas not profitable to serve.
Sure, but what I'm still not getting is how net neutrality rules change any of that?
[The unprofitable areas] will have to bear the costs of their connections when 5 different companies saturate the apartment complex
How does net neutrality magically give us 5 companies serving the profitable market when we've never had that before?
He likely wouldn't have internet af all. These rules allow service providers to flood the profitable markets and ignore the unprofitable ones. Expect rate increases in those unprofitable markets like low income areas and places where yhe population density isn't high.
Forgive my ignorance, but what regulation has been requiring ISPs to provide cheap access in unprofitable market up until now? If the answer is "none" then what makes you think these new rules will cause unprofitable markets to be any more undeserved than they currently are?
People don't realize that literally all evils in the marketplace are due to initiation of aggression, and in government we have an agency that claims that it has the right and moral obligation to initiate aggression at any time and in any place. Is it really a surprise that they are at the root of the problems we have in the marketplace?
What makes you think that, in the absence of government, all other actors would magically refrain from the "initiation of aggression"? After all, why would I want to engage in trade with you if it's easier for me to just club you over the head and take your stuff? If there's no recognized legal authority what's to stop me from doing so?
Not really. Look up the "proportional sharing" clause in the NAFTA treaty. I suppose Canada could back out of NAFTA but trade with the US is such a big part of our economy that doing so would be economically disastrous.
A truly free market by definition is responsive to the majority (will) of the people. If the people like "A" over "B" in a free market, that is what they invest/buy/suggest/endorse etc.
Not necessarily true. A free market solution might disproportionately benefit the very wealthy for example. That's not a priori bad, but it would certainly be a stretch to call it representing the will of the majority of the people.
So people who always agree with the Anointed One are thoughtful, but people who always disagree with Him are thoughtless. Got it. Your use of logic and reason are truly inspirational. Carry on, AC.
In fairness that's a strawman. The AC never claimed that people who always agree with "the Anointed One" are thoughtful. He merely claimed that a specific person who, by their own admission, is against anything Obama is for without even needing to think about it is thoughtless. And IMHO that's kind of hard to argue with.
Ah, so it's just your friends and / or loved ones that spend on their time on the internet looking at stuff with absolutely no intellectual, cultural or artistic merit. Feel free to carry on being smug then.
I'm confused. If every content page where these oh-so-terrible ads are being displayed is full of such obvious crap why are you visiting them in the first place? Or, if you're not visiting those pages, why do you give a $#%^@ what ads they do or don't show? Seems to me that it shouldn't be effecting you at all.
Why do I get flu symptoms whenever I get the flu shot?
Because the flu shot contains antigens from the influenza virus which can trigger a reaction in your immune system similar to that of contracting the actual virus.
Why does the CDC claim that vaccines do not prevent the illness?
Because no vaccine is 100% effective and they don't want to get sued by litigious idiots that don't understand math.
Why should I allow a foreign object to penetrante my body without my consent?
For the same reason you're not allowed to drive your car on a public street as fast as you feel like: because it makes you a danger to those around you.
Are the ingredients in these vaccines safe?
Yes.
Why are there no longterm studies in the effects of vaccines, if there are what are these effects on humans?
Where is all the money going from vaccine revenues?
Where do the revenues from anything go? To the people that manufacture and sell the stuff. Just because the company that makes seat belts turns a profit doesn't necessarily make seat belts a scam.
I haven't specifically seen it mentioned one way or the other but I have to imagine that there is. Why bother making the fee compulsory if you're going to allow people to just turn around and charge a fee of $0? Surely the lawmakers must have seen that one coming.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but there has to be a level of complexity to it, otherwise it evokes no feeling.
So again, how much complexity is required? By what metric are you judging Justin Bieber's work to be insufficiently complex? Does it not have enough different notes in it or something? If the evocation of feeling is the important part then that's a subjective reaction on the part of the audience not an objective measurement criteria.
Impact anyone. Whether it's a positive or negative impact doesn't matter. Poor art won't have any impact and will be easily forgotten.
Justin Bieber seems to have had a strong negative impact on you and a strong positive impact on lots of other people (judging by the level of screaming at least).
Exactly. If it's so worthless as to be quickly forgotten, then it's crap.
I think you have your cause and effect backwards here. Great art is not great because it's remembered, it's remembered because it's great.
It's good that you admit it. Perhaps one day you'll acquire a sense of taste.
You're making a lot of snide comments about my personal preferences for someone that knows absolutely nothing about them.
Complexity
So simple elegant things can't be art? How complex does it need to be before it counts? Is more complexity always better or is there a diminishing return?
refinement
Let's see...refinement, noun: "cultured elegance in behavior or manner.". Hmmm....elegance, noun: "the quality of being pleasingly ingenious and simple ". So art must embody complexity and ingenious simplicity. Gotcha. Can't see any issues so far.
impact
Impact on who? How is impact measured? Sounds to me like impact is a function of entirely subjective reactions of the audience.
staying power
So something that is obscure and thus quickly forgotten about can't be art because it has no staying power?
The only reason Bieber is more popular is because most people are uncultured mooks and you appear to be one of them.
Perhaps. Or perhaps I just understand the difference between a subjective opinion and an objective fact and I'm not arrogant enough to assume that my opinions are somehow more worthy than anyone else's. But no, I'm sure you're right. It's probably the mook thing.
Popularity doesn't equate to quality and you're an idiot for thinking that it does.
Please list the objective criteria for rating the quality of a piece of art. We'll wait.
Hence the "might not otherwise have been created" part. If everyone followed your advice the product doesn't get made and I have to do without.
It's a zero-loss game for creators and a zero-profit game for backers.
I don't think it's entirely zero-profit for backers. If the project succeeds then I get a thing that I wanted that might not otherwise have been created. That's a benefit for me.
Because there is such a thing as reputation, and concealed carry.
Reputation only works as a behavior modifier if the people I have to do business with in some way give a crap about the people I'm screwing over. And concealed carry only works if your gun is bigger than mine.
Also, I didn't say get rid of governments, I said get them out of the markets. The only possible purpose of a government is to reduce aggression (ie murder, assault, theft, and their derivatives like rape and fraud).
You didn't say get rid of them but you did say they were "the root of the problems we have in the marketplace", which I took to mean you thought there would be no problems in the marketplace if we got rid of the government. IMHO you can't have a functioning marketplace without things like protection of property rights, protection against fraud and enforcement of contracts, and I've yet to hear of a credible proposal for how we maintain those things without some form of government.
The scarcity of a natural resource does not cause a monopoly to naturally occur.
It's certainly not guaranteed to to happen but are seriously suggesting that it's impossible for it to happen?
The scarcity of radio spectrum would not result in a single radio broadcast corporation monopolizing the spectrum.
What are you basing that assertion on?
Now, if it wasn't regulated, there would be some chaos - but the steady state equilibrium result may not be all that bad.
Who's to say the "steady state equilibrium" wouldn't be the one guy with the most powerful transmitter drowning out every other signal?
The fact that many are unhappy with cable companies and desire more competition shows that granting them government monopolies has downsides. Do you think the US would be better off if Google Fiber efforts were banned because "natural monopoly" and "duplication" and it might not be cost effective?
Don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying that government granted monopolies are good or desirable. I was merely trying to point out it was possible for monopolies to form without a specific government mandate.
Physics doesn't enforce monopolies
Depends what you mean by enforce I guess. eg there is a limited radio broadcast spectrum. That's not government enforced, that just physics. If everyone just broadcast indiscriminately on whatever spectrum they felt like signal interference would render it useless.
Take cable - natural monopoly? Except it relies on government enforcement to create the actual monopoly.
Not really. Even if you removed all government regulation from building cable networks (which would in practice be next to impossible to do, but for the sake of argument) you'd still never see 27 different cable providers running wires into your house because it's simply not cost effective to duplicate that infrastructure. You'd end up fragmenting the market to the point where it's impossible to recover the capital costs of building the network. You may not see a strict monopoly with only one player (although you might), but the natural barriers to entry can be sufficient that normal "free market" solutions don't necessarily apply.
Currently these places are getting internet piggybacked on utility infrastructure. The costs are spread over the entire service area and traditionally, access to that service area was limited in exchange for servicing areas not profitable to serve.
Sure, but what I'm still not getting is how net neutrality rules change any of that?
[The unprofitable areas] will have to bear the costs of their connections when 5 different companies saturate the apartment complex
How does net neutrality magically give us 5 companies serving the profitable market when we've never had that before?
Who else has that power to restrict the competition?
The laws of physics?
He likely wouldn't have internet af all. These rules allow service providers to flood the profitable markets and ignore the unprofitable ones. Expect rate increases in those unprofitable markets like low income areas and places where yhe population density isn't high.
Forgive my ignorance, but what regulation has been requiring ISPs to provide cheap access in unprofitable market up until now? If the answer is "none" then what makes you think these new rules will cause unprofitable markets to be any more undeserved than they currently are?
People don't realize that literally all evils in the marketplace are due to initiation of aggression, and in government we have an agency that claims that it has the right and moral obligation to initiate aggression at any time and in any place. Is it really a surprise that they are at the root of the problems we have in the marketplace?
What makes you think that, in the absence of government, all other actors would magically refrain from the "initiation of aggression"? After all, why would I want to engage in trade with you if it's easier for me to just club you over the head and take your stuff? If there's no recognized legal authority what's to stop me from doing so?
Not really. Look up the "proportional sharing" clause in the NAFTA treaty. I suppose Canada could back out of NAFTA but trade with the US is such a big part of our economy that doing so would be economically disastrous.
So you'd take some 1/3.2" cellphone sensor at 24MP over a full-frame 16MP?
In what universe is that "all else being equal"?
Forcing Bell to do things with that infrastructure against their will is no more "fair" than forcing you by law to let my dog defecate in your yard.
How about forcing me by law to let Bell dig up my yard to run cables for their network? Because they do that all the time.
A truly free market by definition is responsive to the majority (will) of the people. If the people like "A" over "B" in a free market, that is what they invest/buy/suggest/endorse etc.
Not necessarily true. A free market solution might disproportionately benefit the very wealthy for example. That's not a priori bad, but it would certainly be a stretch to call it representing the will of the majority of the people.
I don't tell others what they should or should not do
Literally 6 words earlier
Stop telling "us" what to do and make definitive changes yourselves.
To argue you'd have to think...
<homersimpson>Ah, Lisa, the whole reason we have elected officials is so we don't have to think all the time</homersimpson>
So people who always agree with the Anointed One are thoughtful, but people who always disagree with Him are thoughtless. Got it. Your use of logic and reason are truly inspirational. Carry on, AC.
In fairness that's a strawman. The AC never claimed that people who always agree with "the Anointed One" are thoughtful. He merely claimed that a specific person who, by their own admission, is against anything Obama is for without even needing to think about it is thoughtless. And IMHO that's kind of hard to argue with.
Ah, so it's just your friends and / or loved ones that spend on their time on the internet looking at stuff with absolutely no intellectual, cultural or artistic merit. Feel free to carry on being smug then.
Twitter is as useless as all the rest of the "social" "media" crap out there. It's a massive waste of your time.
Exactly! Why can't all those people using twitter do something constructive with their time? You know, like posting smug AC comments on Slashdot.
I'm confused. If every content page where these oh-so-terrible ads are being displayed is full of such obvious crap why are you visiting them in the first place? Or, if you're not visiting those pages, why do you give a $#%^@ what ads they do or don't show? Seems to me that it shouldn't be effecting you at all.
Why do I get flu symptoms whenever I get the flu shot?
Because the flu shot contains antigens from the influenza virus which can trigger a reaction in your immune system similar to that of contracting the actual virus.
Why does the CDC claim that vaccines do not prevent the illness?
Because no vaccine is 100% effective and they don't want to get sued by litigious idiots that don't understand math.
Why should I allow a foreign object to penetrante my body without my consent?
For the same reason you're not allowed to drive your car on a public street as fast as you feel like: because it makes you a danger to those around you.
Are the ingredients in these vaccines safe?
Yes.
Why are there no longterm studies in the effects of vaccines, if there are what are these effects on humans?
lmgtfy
Where is all the money going from vaccine revenues?
Where do the revenues from anything go? To the people that manufacture and sell the stuff. Just because the company that makes seat belts turns a profit doesn't necessarily make seat belts a scam.
Anything else you'd like to know?
I haven't specifically seen it mentioned one way or the other but I have to imagine that there is. Why bother making the fee compulsory if you're going to allow people to just turn around and charge a fee of $0? Surely the lawmakers must have seen that one coming.