Oh, I see where you're coming from. No, I wasn't saying the news media is objective. I do not believe it is elitist to call eyewitness accounts unreliable - there's plenty of evidence to know this as a statement of fact, not opinion. So whether the original post was referring to individuals or to the media being elitist doesn't matter, and my reply is not specific to the news media but also includes my personal view. It's comparatively easy to be objective when discussing general rules about how to be objective, but nonetheless impossible to consistently be objective when actually covering the news of the day. Hence the part about why I feel the BBC, while not perfect, makes the best attempt I've seen.
I'd like to think Ron Paul would have got better coverage over here. Of course, it's easy to say that but impossible to know.
Would it be fair to say that a license that has been tested in court is better defined than a license that hasn't?
Yes. Thankfully, the people that wrote the GPL didn't hold that point of view.
Would it be fair to say that microsoft does not have a history of open specifications?
Yes. Which means that if you want that to change for the better, FUD is a waste of everybody's time. If you don't want to see that change, reading anything about M$ is a waste of time.
If microsoft wanted a well defined open license, they should have used one that is already available (GPL, etc.)
Yes, this would have been preferable, although your reference to the GPL being applicable to M$ suggests a slight disconnect from reality. Nonetheless, this is no excuse for FUD.
Of course the intelligent person's response should be "so don't use the specification if you don't like it"--and that would be the point of TFA and the FUD surrounding it.
I disagree. You make a clear argument of how things could go wrong - that's fine, and that's worth a discussion. But TFA is simple "it's ambiguous, don't touch it" FUD bullshit.
On your argument, I don't see how using a certain file format suddenly opens up rights to all of the spreadsheet software. It should be possible to separate the file handling from the spreadsheet itself, say by use of a converter module. Any patent on a converter module is liable to have the specification as prior art anyway, so M$ isn't doing anything that wouldn't play our in a court case anyway. So overall your point sounds like the kind of FUD used against the GPL that turns out not to hold up in court. But - I wouldn't say I'm sure of that. Your point is something worth discussing.
A typo is not unprofessional, it's just a typo. Picking up on a typo but ignoring the substance of a post, however, runs the risk of being unprofessional.
On the subject of substance, could you point out the insult? I point out that even with a strong command of English, I still wouldn't be so egotistical as to claim I understood a complex document like the GPL without any problem. How does that insult his language skills?
Bullshit. There would need to be a definition "the OOXML structure", and if you RTFA and the link you'll find that demarcating what is covered by the agreement is precisely one of M$'s concerns.
Your implication that developers should get a legal opinion before working with OOXML is the exact kind of FUD some people tried to use against the GPL.
I never said it wasn't, so I'm not sure what your point was.
That said, you're post isn't too smart. English is my native language and I happen to understand it better than most. I have never found a document of any substance that cannot be interpreted in different ways. Anyone who claims they have understood a document's intent, literal meaning and consequential impact "without any problem" is simply a fool. This is particularly so with respect to a legal document.
This is exactly why I have no patience for someone posting an article which has no greater semantic content than "it is possible to misinterpret this document".
One thing you cannot say for the GPL is that it is ambiguous.. there may be some wriggle room for any lawyer in there.
Those phrases contradict each other. Do you know what "ambiguous" means?
you can still read and understand the GPL even if you can not fully appreciate what bits might not hold up in court.
Did you even RTFA?! That is the exact argument this guy is using! And I say it is a bullshit argument, using the example of how people tried to use the same bullshit against the GPL.
I have no patience for people that are happy with bullshit as long as it supports their own preference. FUD is FUD, and you diminish yourself for using it. I read the M$ document linked to from this angle, and did not see the ambiguity. If you can point it out, do so: otherwise don't insult my intelligence.
If "it's not been tested in court" or "non-lawyers may not understand legalese" is all you've got, STFU.
If M$ made no legal commitments at all, people would complain. When they do, anyone beyond the mental age of twelve years old knows that you can always find something to complain about in a legal contract. Lawyers are hated for a reason.
Don't believe the hype. Don't believe the FUD. There are real reasons to complain about M$. This isn't one of them.
True objectivity is not possible. That's why eyewitness accounts - known to be unreliable - are still valuable. I notice you've taken the exact opposite meaning out of my post. Even attempting to objective is clearly not one of your strong points.
If you think people can't handle the whole part of the news
You'll have to explain this one to me. How does pointing out the well known fact that eyewitness accounts are unreliable in any way suggestion that I'm talking some kind of second rate Jack Nicholson-style "you can't handle the truth" bullshit?
Psycho babble is always tricky territory, but it sounds like your projecting some issues here.
Any given socially-driven news site is highly likely to a partisan instance of groupthink. So when the question is asked why would I value a major outlet over a such a website, the answer is that because the major outlet's viewpoint is significantly more likely to be better informed and closer to the truth. I don't think this is elitism - there's a lot of funding, career development, professional reputation and so forth that makes this possible. The fact I believe the typical session musician is better than the typical busker doesn't mean there aren't some very talented amateur musicians.
I make this comment in the context of the approach taken here in the UK, where the BBC sets the standard. The US is a completely different, ratings different pile of excrement it often seems...
Why is it that somebody with a video camera of first-person experience is considered a monkey?
The incredible inaccuracy of eye witness accounts is well known. It is also a truism that the camera lies; a singe perspective can be dangerous. Grammar has nothing to do with it. Being objective does not mean elitism.
There's a helluva lot to be said for people interested in journalism to be able to earn a living from it, to earn respect for doing a good job, and for having an organisation that can support them, mentor them as they learn their trade, and get them direct access to the highest politicians in their country.
I personally don't think anyone has managed to beat the model of the UK's BBC, where the state-funded-but-independently-governed design allows for experienced commentary and challenging interviews without the ratings and advertisers having any influence. Not a perfect system, but the best I'm aware of. The BBC takes in photos and other submissions from the public, which allows the first person experience even where the network does not have resources on the ground, while still allowing for some editorial quality control.
The point is that many people dismiss video games as art because they are 'games'.
Strawman argument. Don't confuse things with what "many people" do, it does not support your argument in any way.
they completly miss that not all video games are like chess or soccer.
Another straw man. Each game I provided has different primary characteristics. I'd be an idiot to compare soccer to a text adventure, but I would however compare role playing games to a text adventure. It's bad form to ignore inconvenient facts that might contradict your point of view.
Books can be art, so why shouldn't video games when they aren't all that different?
RTFA. This discussion is about art as a "serious form of cultural discourse". It is about the desire of some game designers to escape the "comic book ghetto". It is about being more than the equivalent of pulp fiction or a B-movie schlockfest. Given the context of the discussion, it is easy to treat video games exactly like books and films, and still say that video games are not art.
The concept of playing games is inherently so. For instance, board games, field sports, TV quiz shows, tiddly winks, KerPlunk, Operation, roulette, poker, the 100m sprint, the pole vault, swimming, golf, sailing, table tennis, murder mystery nights, the lottery, skiing, snowboarding, horse racing, and role-playing games cover a lot of ground.
However, I'm not clear on the point you are making in the context of video gaming as a serious art form. Writing a novel uses a fairly restrictive medium, so is the flexibility even relevant?
I'm going to argue that video games are not art, and may never be. But this is not a criticism of video games. The fact that I do not see games as "high art" is not to look down upon games. For example, I consider chess one of the finest achievements of human kind, something of cultural and political significance, and the worthwhile past time of some of the greatest minds that have ever lived. Maybe a goal of seeing video games as high art is not a good standard to judge them by.
Games can be important, of interest to all people, and held in respect. Their "artistic" role however is generally to act as an inspiration for, or a metaphor within, a work of art. You'll be able to find references to chess in every art form humankind has ever devised. A game of chess could be animated, delivered in 3D with incredible graphics and audio, with chess pieces designed by a world class sculptor moving on a board designed by a reknowned architect, against a backdrop painted by a famous artist, to a soundtrack written by a talented composer, orchestrated by a genius and performed by a philharmonic orchestra. You could devise some sophisticated plot that is reflected in the almost infinite variety of moves the game allows.
And yet, most would still call it a game rather than a work of art. All the "art" mentioned is simply window dressing for the game itself. The chess pieces may be sculpture, but are not part of the game of chess as such.
So what would video games need to achieve recognition as a serious art form? I don't think we'll know until we've reached the point they've earned that status. Then we'll look back with hindsight and go, "This is what it means for a games to become high art". But I'll take a stab at how we'll know we've reached that point. Once lead game designers start to achieve general recognition for their games and their meaning, just as everyone's heard of Shakespeare, Dickens and Hitchcock (insert locally relevant artists here...) then video games will have achieved the same status as "art".
Once they have, we'll be able to look back to now and consider where it all started. But currently, it may just be that even examples of great art direction (I liked the atmosphere of Thief, personally) is really just great interior decoration for a game. Current technology does not allow for the finesse of expression of actors in a film, or oil paints on a canvas, after all, and rarely do you feel the game has been designed to tackle complex dramatic themes - most plots and scripts are fairly cliched, frankly. This could all change however as technology advances and designers / directors are freed up to work on the art rather than the mechanics of their creations.
Go take a look at Crucial, note the wide variety of speeds, capacities and prices they offer in different formats (e.g. 184 pin vs. 240 pin), and then explain why you think there is a single standard of RAM.
Fair enough. As for my opinion, I'll certainly provide a few facts: My only absolutely regular reading is The Economist. Occasionally I pick up a Financial Times, and I've subscribed to the Harvard Business Review ever since doing my MBA in the US. Today I was job hunting via The Times (I'm based in London) which is well known as a conservative paper here. So yes, I know the media is full of right wingers because I read them, even in a country where I can get state funded news for free.
The bias of the media is towards making money. Some do so by staking out an attention seeking, pandering ideology - Rush Limbaugh being a good example. Some by trying to provide an attractive product for their customers, which means information biased towards the target market's tastes. Therefore there is no more bias than already exists in the population. Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, for instance, changes sides in Scotland vs. England according to the local politics. Which is why to a European, looking at the US with its centre right and far right politics, with a population clearly split fairly evenly between the two, it's just funny to hear the "liberal bias" claim. Claiming to be out-numbered or otherwise threatened is simply the oldest trick in the book.
It's a fair comment, but there are powerful arguments against it:
If there was only one standard, maybe prices would be higher for lack of competition Maybe development would be stalled as compromises and politics get in the way. It's not always possible upfront to determine the key design criteria e.g. cost to manufacture vs. capacity of disc (which I think was the basic split here). A government enforced compromise would probably be even worse.
When we're not talking about a case of e.g. new medicines not being available to those who need them - I'm happy to let the market approach work.
Because you seem to be wandering all over the logical landscape rather than directly responding to anything I'm posting, I'll make a few quick points and hope one of them is still relevant:
If we're talking about what Limbaugh "should" do, note I didn't say he should do or change anything.
If we're talking about his audience, note I do not talk about Limbaugh having any responsibility for them. (note: you seem to be fond of straw man arguments.)
If we're talking about news vs. opinion programs: Don't forget that except for ideologues and the weak minded, we all know we have the right to our own opinion but not our own facts. Limbaugh's a smart guy, so he knows this and corrects himself when necessary.
If you just acting as an apologist for loud mouthed arseholes, then of course you have the right to your opinion.
"so the tendancy of journalists - who graduate from liberal arts schools, and typically vote Democrat, is right-wing?"
There is absolutely no logical path from my pointing out that Limbaugh does not provide an objective opinion, to the conclusion that I believe journalists are right wing. If that kind of willful misunderstanding (or simply poor logic) is indicative of your objectivity, you're only supporting my case.
"Journalists are typically liberals, and newspaper owners are typically right-wing big corporation types (sans Ted Turner)."
Exactly. There's no clear case to make that the media as a whole displays a liberal bias, but Limbaugh will have plenty of material given to him to make a compelling argument irrespective of the truth of the matter.
Yes, everyone is biased, and not just in the media. But if you accept the opinion of someone who chooses an extreme bias, to the extent that his career, power and finances depends on it, you're a fool.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I see where you're coming from. No, I wasn't saying the news media is objective. I do not believe it is elitist to call eyewitness accounts unreliable - there's plenty of evidence to know this as a statement of fact, not opinion. So whether the original post was referring to individuals or to the media being elitist doesn't matter, and my reply is not specific to the news media but also includes my personal view. It's comparatively easy to be objective when discussing general rules about how to be objective, but nonetheless impossible to consistently be objective when actually covering the news of the day. Hence the part about why I feel the BBC, while not perfect, makes the best attempt I've seen.
I'd like to think Ron Paul would have got better coverage over here. Of course, it's easy to say that but impossible to know.
Heh :)
So you agree with me, then? That bitching about a specification simply because a lawyer might play with the technical details is bullshit?
Yes. Thankfully, the people that wrote the GPL didn't hold that point of view.
Yes. Which means that if you want that to change for the better, FUD is a waste of everybody's time. If you don't want to see that change, reading anything about M$ is a waste of time.
Yes, this would have been preferable, although your reference to the GPL being applicable to M$ suggests a slight disconnect from reality. Nonetheless, this is no excuse for FUD.
I disagree. You make a clear argument of how things could go wrong - that's fine, and that's worth a discussion. But TFA is simple "it's ambiguous, don't touch it" FUD bullshit.
On your argument, I don't see how using a certain file format suddenly opens up rights to all of the spreadsheet software. It should be possible to separate the file handling from the spreadsheet itself, say by use of a converter module. Any patent on a converter module is liable to have the specification as prior art anyway, so M$ isn't doing anything that wouldn't play our in a court case anyway. So overall your point sounds like the kind of FUD used against the GPL that turns out not to hold up in court. But - I wouldn't say I'm sure of that. Your point is something worth discussing.
A typo is not unprofessional, it's just a typo. Picking up on a typo but ignoring the substance of a post, however, runs the risk of being unprofessional.
On the subject of substance, could you point out the insult? I point out that even with a strong command of English, I still wouldn't be so egotistical as to claim I understood a complex document like the GPL without any problem. How does that insult his language skills?
Sorry, kid, until you learn to write I can't take your opinions seriously on whether a specification is genuinely ambiguous or not.
If there was a single fact or reference in that reply, it would drag itself out of the same intellectual swamp that gave birth to intelligent design.
Bullshit. There would need to be a definition "the OOXML structure", and if you RTFA and the link you'll find that demarcating what is covered by the agreement is precisely one of M$'s concerns.
Your implication that developers should get a legal opinion before working with OOXML is the exact kind of FUD some people tried to use against the GPL.
I never said it wasn't, so I'm not sure what your point was.
That said, you're post isn't too smart. English is my native language and I happen to understand it better than most. I have never found a document of any substance that cannot be interpreted in different ways. Anyone who claims they have understood a document's intent, literal meaning and consequential impact "without any problem" is simply a fool. This is particularly so with respect to a legal document.
This is exactly why I have no patience for someone posting an article which has no greater semantic content than "it is possible to misinterpret this document".
Those phrases contradict each other. Do you know what "ambiguous" means?
Did you even RTFA?! That is the exact argument this guy is using! And I say it is a bullshit argument, using the example of how people tried to use the same bullshit against the GPL.
I have no patience for people that are happy with bullshit as long as it supports their own preference. FUD is FUD, and you diminish yourself for using it. I read the M$ document linked to from this angle, and did not see the ambiguity. If you can point it out, do so: otherwise don't insult my intelligence.
Erm. I didn't even reply to your post. What's the rant for?
Exactly.
If you think about it (did you think about it?), you'll realise you're providing a supporting argument to my post.
If "it's not been tested in court" or "non-lawyers may not understand legalese" is all you've got, STFU.
If M$ made no legal commitments at all, people would complain. When they do, anyone beyond the mental age of twelve years old knows that you can always find something to complain about in a legal contract. Lawyers are hated for a reason.
Don't believe the hype. Don't believe the FUD. There are real reasons to complain about M$. This isn't one of them.
I certainly didn't. So well done for pointing out the obvious.
True objectivity is not possible. That's why eyewitness accounts - known to be unreliable - are still valuable. I notice you've taken the exact opposite meaning out of my post. Even attempting to objective is clearly not one of your strong points.
You'll have to explain this one to me. How does pointing out the well known fact that eyewitness accounts are unreliable in any way suggestion that I'm talking some kind of second rate Jack Nicholson-style "you can't handle the truth" bullshit?
Psycho babble is always tricky territory, but it sounds like your projecting some issues here.
I agree, but that wasn't what the GP asked.
Any given socially-driven news site is highly likely to a partisan instance of groupthink. So when the question is asked why would I value a major outlet over a such a website, the answer is that because the major outlet's viewpoint is significantly more likely to be better informed and closer to the truth. I don't think this is elitism - there's a lot of funding, career development, professional reputation and so forth that makes this possible. The fact I believe the typical session musician is better than the typical busker doesn't mean there aren't some very talented amateur musicians.
I make this comment in the context of the approach taken here in the UK, where the BBC sets the standard. The US is a completely different, ratings different pile of excrement it often seems...
The incredible inaccuracy of eye witness accounts is well known. It is also a truism that the camera lies; a singe perspective can be dangerous. Grammar has nothing to do with it. Being objective does not mean elitism.
There's a helluva lot to be said for people interested in journalism to be able to earn a living from it, to earn respect for doing a good job, and for having an organisation that can support them, mentor them as they learn their trade, and get them direct access to the highest politicians in their country.
I personally don't think anyone has managed to beat the model of the UK's BBC, where the state-funded-but-independently-governed design allows for experienced commentary and challenging interviews without the ratings and advertisers having any influence. Not a perfect system, but the best I'm aware of. The BBC takes in photos and other submissions from the public, which allows the first person experience even where the network does not have resources on the ground, while still allowing for some editorial quality control.
Strawman argument. Don't confuse things with what "many people" do, it does not support your argument in any way.
Another straw man. Each game I provided has different primary characteristics. I'd be an idiot to compare soccer to a text adventure, but I would however compare role playing games to a text adventure. It's bad form to ignore inconvenient facts that might contradict your point of view.
RTFA. This discussion is about art as a "serious form of cultural discourse". It is about the desire of some game designers to escape the "comic book ghetto". It is about being more than the equivalent of pulp fiction or a B-movie schlockfest. Given the context of the discussion, it is easy to treat video games exactly like books and films, and still say that video games are not art.
Yes, video games are flexible.
The concept of playing games is inherently so. For instance, board games, field sports, TV quiz shows, tiddly winks, KerPlunk, Operation, roulette, poker, the 100m sprint, the pole vault, swimming, golf, sailing, table tennis, murder mystery nights, the lottery, skiing, snowboarding, horse racing, and role-playing games cover a lot of ground.
However, I'm not clear on the point you are making in the context of video gaming as a serious art form. Writing a novel uses a fairly restrictive medium, so is the flexibility even relevant?
I'm going to argue that video games are not art, and may never be. But this is not a criticism of video games. The fact that I do not see games as "high art" is not to look down upon games. For example, I consider chess one of the finest achievements of human kind, something of cultural and political significance, and the worthwhile past time of some of the greatest minds that have ever lived. Maybe a goal of seeing video games as high art is not a good standard to judge them by.
Games can be important, of interest to all people, and held in respect. Their "artistic" role however is generally to act as an inspiration for, or a metaphor within, a work of art. You'll be able to find references to chess in every art form humankind has ever devised. A game of chess could be animated, delivered in 3D with incredible graphics and audio, with chess pieces designed by a world class sculptor moving on a board designed by a reknowned architect, against a backdrop painted by a famous artist, to a soundtrack written by a talented composer, orchestrated by a genius and performed by a philharmonic orchestra. You could devise some sophisticated plot that is reflected in the almost infinite variety of moves the game allows.
And yet, most would still call it a game rather than a work of art. All the "art" mentioned is simply window dressing for the game itself. The chess pieces may be sculpture, but are not part of the game of chess as such.
So what would video games need to achieve recognition as a serious art form? I don't think we'll know until we've reached the point they've earned that status. Then we'll look back with hindsight and go, "This is what it means for a games to become high art". But I'll take a stab at how we'll know we've reached that point. Once lead game designers start to achieve general recognition for their games and their meaning, just as everyone's heard of Shakespeare, Dickens and Hitchcock (insert locally relevant artists here...) then video games will have achieved the same status as "art".
Once they have, we'll be able to look back to now and consider where it all started. But currently, it may just be that even examples of great art direction (I liked the atmosphere of Thief, personally) is really just great interior decoration for a game. Current technology does not allow for the finesse of expression of actors in a film, or oil paints on a canvas, after all, and rarely do you feel the game has been designed to tackle complex dramatic themes - most plots and scripts are fairly cliched, frankly. This could all change however as technology advances and designers / directors are freed up to work on the art rather than the mechanics of their creations.
I dearly hope this is not a serious post.
Go take a look at Crucial, note the wide variety of speeds, capacities and prices they offer in different formats (e.g. 184 pin vs. 240 pin), and then explain why you think there is a single standard of RAM.
My bad.
Fair enough. As for my opinion, I'll certainly provide a few facts: My only absolutely regular reading is The Economist. Occasionally I pick up a Financial Times, and I've subscribed to the Harvard Business Review ever since doing my MBA in the US. Today I was job hunting via The Times (I'm based in London) which is well known as a conservative paper here. So yes, I know the media is full of right wingers because I read them, even in a country where I can get state funded news for free.
The bias of the media is towards making money. Some do so by staking out an attention seeking, pandering ideology - Rush Limbaugh being a good example. Some by trying to provide an attractive product for their customers, which means information biased towards the target market's tastes. Therefore there is no more bias than already exists in the population. Rupert Murdoch's The Sun, for instance, changes sides in Scotland vs. England according to the local politics. Which is why to a European, looking at the US with its centre right and far right politics, with a population clearly split fairly evenly between the two, it's just funny to hear the "liberal bias" claim. Claiming to be out-numbered or otherwise threatened is simply the oldest trick in the book.
It's a fair comment, but there are powerful arguments against it:
If there was only one standard, maybe prices would be higher for lack of competition
Maybe development would be stalled as compromises and politics get in the way.
It's not always possible upfront to determine the key design criteria e.g. cost to manufacture vs. capacity of disc (which I think was the basic split here). A government enforced compromise would probably be even worse.
When we're not talking about a case of e.g. new medicines not being available to those who need them - I'm happy to let the market approach work.
Because you seem to be wandering all over the logical landscape rather than directly responding to anything I'm posting, I'll make a few quick points and hope one of them is still relevant:
If we're talking about what Limbaugh "should" do, note I didn't say he should do or change anything.
If we're talking about his audience, note I do not talk about Limbaugh having any responsibility for them. (note: you seem to be fond of straw man arguments.)
If we're talking about news vs. opinion programs: Don't forget that except for ideologues and the weak minded, we all know we have the right to our own opinion but not our own facts. Limbaugh's a smart guy, so he knows this and corrects himself when necessary.
If you just acting as an apologist for loud mouthed arseholes, then of course you have the right to your opinion.
"so the tendancy of journalists - who graduate from liberal arts schools, and typically vote Democrat, is right-wing?"
There is absolutely no logical path from my pointing out that Limbaugh does not provide an objective opinion, to the conclusion that I believe journalists are right wing. If that kind of willful misunderstanding (or simply poor logic) is indicative of your objectivity, you're only supporting my case.
"Journalists are typically liberals, and newspaper owners are typically right-wing big corporation types (sans Ted Turner)."
Exactly. There's no clear case to make that the media as a whole displays a liberal bias, but Limbaugh will have plenty of material given to him to make a compelling argument irrespective of the truth of the matter.
Yes, everyone is biased, and not just in the media. But if you accept the opinion of someone who chooses an extreme bias, to the extent that his career, power and finances depends on it, you're a fool.