There are informed and uninformed tastes, and educated and uneducated tastes. When someone is exposed to more and learns how to recognize the elements in different types of music (or art, literature, etc.) they will probably gravitate away from one taste and toward another. Perhaps "interesting" isn't the right word, but "creative" is certainly somewhat objective (i.e., if I produce a Tetris clone, I'm certainly a less creative game designer than if I produced something as novel as Braid is.)
Funny how no one who has listened to music for 40 years still finds "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" interesting, which suggests that there is a certain objectivity there, too.
So, you, anonymous coward, are laboring under the delusion that all tastes are created equal, and arbitrary. They are not.
In the meantime, those of us who have been following what serious music have been doing for the past 80 or so years don't really treat program music (including game or film soundtracks) very seriously. I mean, I appreciate them for what they are - I think Nobuo Uematsu does a great job, is a very capable composer, etc - but ultimately, it's schmaltzy, cliche-ridden, and sentimental. It sort of has to be to do its work: I don't blame it for being what it is.
But the inferiority complex about it being "taken seriously" is really sad - it's still, generally, re-using classical music (high-romantic, to be specific) tropes from Wagner through Shostakovich, with an occasional nod to Holst thrown in. It's a hodge-podge of borrowed goods, and not done better than what came before. Videogame fans only get excited about it because they don't know very much about music.
In any case, my favorite game music is Jonathon Colton's "Still Alive" for Portal - it's just the end-credit song, but it actually works so well with the black humor of the game, is so fresh and surprising - it stands out completely.
Autodesk doesn't rely on split-second timing to make the difference between winning a game and losing a game, and it isn't about wringing every bit of eye candy you can out of your system. Look, I loves me the Parallels for things that aren't games, but when I'm playing a game, I want as little overhead as possible.
By making morality and purpose a human responsibility, rather than the object of revelation. It is thus a meta-ethical position: but then again, so are religious ethics.
That the determination of right and wrong, good and bad, is an entirely a human responsibility, that we cannot find a ground for ethical behavior (or indeed, any behavior) outside of the immediate reality of the human condition, and that our humans lives are meaningful and justified only in themselves, not in reference to something transcendent and beyond it. These are the precepts of atheism.
Given that, there is still a range of belief - from evolutionary psychologists to existentialists. But that kind of range exists among believers, too, from those who believe in pre-destination to those who do not.
Your chart depends on a model of belief that identifies belief with assertion. Lacking a belief in a God is not the same thing as asserting that he does not exist. I do not have a belief in the existence of a man wearing green underwear standing in Times Square on 2 am on February 21, 2008 - it isn't that I assert the impossibility of that man existing, nor that it is theoretically unknowable. I simply do not generate a certain mental state, "belief", that has the existence of that entity as its object. You could call this "Santa Claus" atheism, if you like - the position that YHWH has the same status as Santa Claus, or at least of the man wearing green underwear.
The existence of God has no explanatory force for me. It does not exist in my constellation of things which I have grounds to believe exist. I feel this justifies the term "atheist," rather than "agnostic."
Selective breeding really is a very different type of modification than creating trans-genic product. It's the difference between setting up a date between friends and an arranged , forced marriage, if you will. I think the current pace of genetic modification is irresponsible, because it is driven by short-term expediencies.
Re:For once, I'm fine with being locked out...
on
Does Santa Hate Linux?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Most people in the West who are not Jewish celebrate Christmas, with or without the religious part.
Actually many jewish people celebrate the holiday as well.
Santa is big in Japan as a symbol of Xmas, but Xmas in Japan isn't about kids getting gifts - it's actually more of a holiday for adults, in which couples exchange gift. It resembles the Anglo-American Valentine's Day more. Kids get gifts and money on New Year's day in Japan, and Santa's got little to do with it.
That "Christian fairy-tale" you are whining about is responsible for more joy, laughter, wonder, and good will in this world than anything else you can name.
You don't have to believe in God or Jesus Christ to appreciate the magic of Santa Claus, and what it means to millions of people with purer hearts than you or I possess. So lighten up.
And Merry Christmas.
I think I would put the near-end of slavery as an institution, the development of modern medicine, literacy, and vastly improved agricultural methods way ahead of Santa Claus (which is generally limited to a subset of European cultures, anyway.) And when the poor kid goes to school and finds out that Santa loves the rich kids more than he loves him, one can begin to criticize the Calvinist implications smuggled into the Santa Claus legend.
What Google gets out of this is the right to include all the content of most books ever written in their search results. That's a huge deal that would secure Google's position as the ultimate search engine. Google isn't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.
The "supported by my tax dollars" thing is a bit of a red-herring. A lot of things are supported by your tax dollars, yet still have various fees associated with them (such as camping in a National Park.) The research may be funded by your tax dollars, or it may not be (a lot of university research is privately funded) but the distribution of the paper still needs to be paid for institutionally. And academic writing may not even be funded at all.
People will think what they will about other people, and make decisions about their own lives accordingly. You can't expect people not to judge each other. You can be selective about what judgments you take seriously, and whose judgments are more meaningful to you.
To be so sensitive to being judged suggests a resentment based on a personal sense of failure. When you get over the resentment, judgment is just regular social interaction.
This isn't "lecturing", either. This is about a tool that would let people get feedback about their own progress in areas of their lives. Other forms of judgment seldom address the object of judgment directly - usually, it's either communicated as gossip, or as the creation of a set of expectations and frames.
Good point, and I suspect point 4 is definitely in play (and point 3 comes into play when you ask about prognosis, too.) But, are those diagnoses binary, or graded?
All of the above, and probably more as well. Only further research can determine which reason is more prominent, if the study results are even largely determined by any of the reasons in your list. What does your litmus test say about my political ideology?
There are many explanations, none of them happy-making:
1. families with dysfunctional dynamics that lead to serious behavior problems among children are more likely to be poor
2. families with histories of psychotic behavior are more likely to be poor
3. the same behavior is interpreted differently when it occurs among middle class and/or white children than when it occurs among poorer or non-white children
4. non-pharma interventions are more expensive.
Which of these explanations one jumps on first is a good litmus test of one's political ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
There are informed and uninformed tastes, and educated and uneducated tastes. When someone is exposed to more and learns how to recognize the elements in different types of music (or art, literature, etc.) they will probably gravitate away from one taste and toward another. Perhaps "interesting" isn't the right word, but "creative" is certainly somewhat objective (i.e., if I produce a Tetris clone, I'm certainly a less creative game designer than if I produced something as novel as Braid is.)
Funny how no one who has listened to music for 40 years still finds "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" interesting, which suggests that there is a certain objectivity there, too.
So, you, anonymous coward, are laboring under the delusion that all tastes are created equal, and arbitrary. They are not.
I thought I told you to get off my lawn.
Pope Ratzo, I am with you, but I must warn you: our elitism and snobbery is a long and lonely road.
In the meantime, those of us who have been following what serious music have been doing for the past 80 or so years don't really treat program music (including game or film soundtracks) very seriously. I mean, I appreciate them for what they are - I think Nobuo Uematsu does a great job, is a very capable composer, etc - but ultimately, it's schmaltzy, cliche-ridden, and sentimental. It sort of has to be to do its work: I don't blame it for being what it is.
But the inferiority complex about it being "taken seriously" is really sad - it's still, generally, re-using classical music (high-romantic, to be specific) tropes from Wagner through Shostakovich, with an occasional nod to Holst thrown in. It's a hodge-podge of borrowed goods, and not done better than what came before. Videogame fans only get excited about it because they don't know very much about music.
In any case, my favorite game music is Jonathon Colton's "Still Alive" for Portal - it's just the end-credit song, but it actually works so well with the black humor of the game, is so fresh and surprising - it stands out completely.
You don't think the RIAA is taking notes? I fully expect the massacre of virgins to begin next week.
(Run, Slashdotters, run!)
Such a gracious response! And how sadly rare: most would rush to defend the "evolution" of language.
Autodesk doesn't rely on split-second timing to make the difference between winning a game and losing a game, and it isn't about wringing every bit of eye candy you can out of your system. Look, I loves me the Parallels for things that aren't games, but when I'm playing a game, I want as little overhead as possible.
By making morality and purpose a human responsibility, rather than the object of revelation. It is thus a meta-ethical position: but then again, so are religious ethics.
That the determination of right and wrong, good and bad, is an entirely a human responsibility, that we cannot find a ground for ethical behavior (or indeed, any behavior) outside of the immediate reality of the human condition, and that our humans lives are meaningful and justified only in themselves, not in reference to something transcendent and beyond it. These are the precepts of atheism.
Given that, there is still a range of belief - from evolutionary psychologists to existentialists. But that kind of range exists among believers, too, from those who believe in pre-destination to those who do not.
Your chart depends on a model of belief that identifies belief with assertion. Lacking a belief in a God is not the same thing as asserting that he does not exist. I do not have a belief in the existence of a man wearing green underwear standing in Times Square on 2 am on February 21, 2008 - it isn't that I assert the impossibility of that man existing, nor that it is theoretically unknowable. I simply do not generate a certain mental state, "belief", that has the existence of that entity as its object. You could call this "Santa Claus" atheism, if you like - the position that YHWH has the same status as Santa Claus, or at least of the man wearing green underwear.
The existence of God has no explanatory force for me. It does not exist in my constellation of things which I have grounds to believe exist. I feel this justifies the term "atheist," rather than "agnostic."
Games games game games games. Games, games game games. Games = games. Game games; games, games games games, games and games. Games? Games!
Games.
Um, you realize that it's a story... without Sully, they would have written another way for them to overcome. (Or would have written a tragedy, etc.)
I'm taken aback by how often people think of the elements of a story as if they were historical facts, rather than human inventions.
Selective breeding really is a very different type of modification than creating trans-genic product. It's the difference between setting up a date between friends and an arranged , forced marriage, if you will. I think the current pace of genetic modification is irresponsible, because it is driven by short-term expediencies.
Actually many jewish people celebrate the holiday as well.
.. by going out for Chinese food.
That's because the original St. Nicholas came from what in the modern day is Turkey.
Santa is big in Japan as a symbol of Xmas, but Xmas in Japan isn't about kids getting gifts - it's actually more of a holiday for adults, in which couples exchange gift. It resembles the Anglo-American Valentine's Day more. Kids get gifts and money on New Year's day in Japan, and Santa's got little to do with it.
That "Christian fairy-tale" you are whining about is responsible for more joy, laughter, wonder, and good will in this world than anything else you can name.
You don't have to believe in God or Jesus Christ to appreciate the magic of Santa Claus, and what it means to millions of people with purer hearts than you or I possess. So lighten up.
And Merry Christmas.
I think I would put the near-end of slavery as an institution, the development of modern medicine, literacy, and vastly improved agricultural methods way ahead of Santa Claus (which is generally limited to a subset of European cultures, anyway.) And when the poor kid goes to school and finds out that Santa loves the rich kids more than he loves him, one can begin to criticize the Calvinist implications smuggled into the Santa Claus legend.
What Google gets out of this is the right to include all the content of most books ever written in their search results. That's a huge deal that would secure Google's position as the ultimate search engine. Google isn't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.
The "supported by my tax dollars" thing is a bit of a red-herring. A lot of things are supported by your tax dollars, yet still have various fees associated with them (such as camping in a National Park.) The research may be funded by your tax dollars, or it may not be (a lot of university research is privately funded) but the distribution of the paper still needs to be paid for institutionally. And academic writing may not even be funded at all.
People will think what they will about other people, and make decisions about their own lives accordingly. You can't expect people not to judge each other. You can be selective about what judgments you take seriously, and whose judgments are more meaningful to you.
To be so sensitive to being judged suggests a resentment based on a personal sense of failure. When you get over the resentment, judgment is just regular social interaction.
This isn't "lecturing", either. This is about a tool that would let people get feedback about their own progress in areas of their lives. Other forms of judgment seldom address the object of judgment directly - usually, it's either communicated as gossip, or as the creation of a set of expectations and frames.
I think that's called Black Mesa.
Good point, and I suspect point 4 is definitely in play (and point 3 comes into play when you ask about prognosis, too.) But, are those diagnoses binary, or graded?
All of the above, and probably more as well. Only further research can determine which reason is more prominent, if the study results are even largely determined by any of the reasons in your list. What does your litmus test say about my political ideology?
That you are cautious in the way that I am.
There are many explanations, none of them happy-making:
1. families with dysfunctional dynamics that lead to serious behavior problems among children are more likely to be poor
2. families with histories of psychotic behavior are more likely to be poor
3. the same behavior is interpreted differently when it occurs among middle class and/or white children than when it occurs among poorer or non-white children
4. non-pharma interventions are more expensive.
Which of these explanations one jumps on first is a good litmus test of one's political ideology.
So, just before the cancer kill you, you get smart enough to cure it?