Yeah, because everybody who's into technology is a fat ugly smelly loserly git. That's easily explained by the fact that you have to sell your coolness to the devil to know how to use vi.
Indeed. Countless geniuses of sciences and arts died in misery, under debts, in oblivion. Fortunately, history has the fairness to celebrate the true bright and accomplished personalities while forgetting the rich and famous but now irrelevant people of their time.
Nuff said, now apply this to what you wonder what's art or not and you'll see. I think misunderstanding this is dangerous. Reminds me of a movie about a concentration camp. Some prisoner made a painting on the holocaust and conditions in the camp, and when a German officer asked him about it, he asked the prisoner what was art. The prisoner made the mistake to define art as something aesthetically "nice" and happiness inducing, so the officer asked him his dark, gloomy and grim painting fitted that definition, which made him conclude what he did was not art and therefore unworthy to be treated as such.
My point being, it's essential to correctly identify all forms of art as such, and to do so everybody must get the definition of art right.
The Moby Dick example is weak, it's just a case of a work of art that wouldn't translate well into another art form. Big whoop, you can find tons of examples like this between any two art forms. Besides works of art are best when made for the art form they were intended for, and not "ported" between art forms. If all you want in a game is tell a story just like in a movie or novel maybe you're on the wrong art form.
Games as an art form has, just like any other art form, unique advantages, mainly the huge advantage of being more "alive" than any other art form in that it changes depending on your actions and reactions, i.e. it's interactive. Of course you can try to tell a scripted linear story in a game, but in order to use the full capabilities of the art form you'd rather make a story that depends entirely on the actions and decisions of the player. Linear scripted story games are somewhat like a movie in which you'd play a part, you have a certain degree of freedom in what you do but ultimately the story remains the same. Of course it can make up for great games, but it's an under utilisation of the possibilities.
Multiple outcome stories are a step in the right direction, but still an under utilisation of the possibilities, considered games allow you to experience a story that wouldn't occur twice, the "full possibilities" I'm talking about would be a game which would last more than 10 hours in which the whole story would depend on what you do (kind of like real life if you will) and not be a bit scripted. At the end of it you would have experienced a unique story that only your memory would allow you to remember. Of course that's theoretical, it wouldn't be easy to make a game which would allow you to experience very memorable stories, but all the art of it would lie in the algorithm(s) that make up the story, and just like classical story writing it takes a talented writer. Because that's what art is all about, talent.
Very good observation, I hadn't even considered the link between people mistaking material gain as a personal achievement substitute and people living above their means to buy more stuff. Interesting how somehow it relates to the current economic crisis.
Ha well it's true that her statement doesn't necessarily reveal her positions on consumerism (although I didn't imply that), however I wouldn't agree on her consumerism-centric definition of freedom. No idea what you're trying to say though.
I think you missed my point entirely by a long shot. By all means, buy all the Wiis you want or whatever you like, even the most ridiculous stuff. Consumerism in itself isn't a problem. The problem is a lack of anything besides that.
What I'm trying to say is, there's more to life than becoming rich and buying lots of stuff. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do that, do it all you like, but don't forget to live a worthwhile life, become someone interest and achieve things. The problem with money isn't that people are after it, it's that it's all they're after, they have no other goals in life. Of course this is a gross exaggeration, but what I'm trying to highlight is the trend over the last few decades of people seeking more and more money, not like they need it to survive, but like it's their only goal in life.
That's a big problem, and you know you have that problem if you chose your career on how much money it would make. I don't have that problem, I know what I want to do, I know what sort of things I want to achieve, I'll probably get rich in the process and have more Wiis than I need, but that's accessory, and that's what people need to remember. Money should be a secondary goal in life, once you've secured enough money to live a decent life that is. The primary goal should be personal achievement.
And that's the interesting thing about being passionate vs. only being after money, there's only so much money that can be made by the greediest bastard in town, yet being very passionate about something precise and being good at it can make you as rich as one can be. I think it mainly has to do with the fact that people who are after money all do the same type of thing, and that's not something they're necessarily a "natural" at.
If monetary gain was a 10,000 miles race, the greedy people would all start running, while the passionate people would do whatever they like to do, and some would eventually create a fast vehicle to beat all the runners.
I think that kind of statement is the flip side of consumerism. That sort of anti-consumerism is just a reaction to consumerism, and focuses on the very same aspects as consumerism does, only in a negative way.
Where I'm from there was no such thing as consumerism. As a result (or lack of result), we didn't care about what we owned or didn't own, people only cared about living a worthwhile life. Anti-consumerism as you know it won't solve the problems caused by consumerism. The problem with consumerism is being mislead by a false goal in life. Anti-consumerism comes down to running the other way, which is, instead of achieving monetary gain, not achieving anything.
Yay, congratulations, you have "nothing left to lose", what a great achievement, your grand children are going to be so fascinated by your tales of how you got rid of the little you had to begin with and how you didn't go anywhere from that point on with your life.
I completely disagree with that kind of anti-consumerism. What this says basically is "be a hobo (and live and die alone in misery)". I find this stupid.
My original point was, people mistake monetary gain and material ownership for achievement. What Fight Club says is, get rid of that. That's stupid, that won't solve your achievement problem, that's as if you ate nothing but chocolate in the place of proper food, then movies like Fight Club would tell you "stop eating chocolate, stop eating anything". Fight Club doesn't encourage you to become someone, to achieve something, be it an intellectual or artistic achievement or anything else for that matter. It just tells you to become a sort of rat.
Exactly what I'm talking about. To most people, including you, a $500K MBA-type arsehole who makes money in insurance bullcrap is more successful than a researcher who works on very exciting stuff but doesn't get an extraordinary pay. And that kind of "success" eclipses and supersedes achievements. See, at the end of the day, the $500K guy is just some douche who made a lot of money and nothing else. But he won't have anything to tell his grandchildren that won't bore them to tears, because he would have devoted his whole life to just making money, which is dull, even if it is *the* criteria for success.
I don't mean to sound like a hippie, but I'd blame it as a side effect of consumerism. What I mean by that is that as an effect of consumerism, people's goal in life is to become rich, rather than have a great career or reach any other sort of goal. Personal achievements are replaced by monetary and material gain, and what you have supersedes what you do or who you are. You are only as successful a person as how much money you make. People would do the dumbest job in the world if it paid well.
I think it has to do with the fact that people genuinely believe that their goal in life is to become rich, have fun, good sex, then a wife, kids, all of which are supposed to make you a happy and accomplished man, or so they think. The Los Angeles mentality prevails, satisfy your basest instincts, make money, use it as a leverage to satisfy your basest instincts more, produce offsprings, die.
In this context, genuinely caring about anything else makes you a "nerd" or "geek", which, seen under that angle, is actually a great thing to be. It's just a shame that our culture raises people to produce as much wealth as possible and nothing else. Actually I'm pretty sure you can interpret the movie Matrix as a critique of consumerism, in which people, being in the movie used as batteries, are in our real life money-making "batteries".
If you would take the pain to look it up on Wikipedia. You don't either implode or explode, your blood doesn't boil off, however saliva in your mouth evaporates. It apparently is safe for a few seconds, and doesn't cause any sort of lesions or anything, provided you don't try to forcibly retain air in your longs. If you stay there longer you just die of asphyxia. The way it was depicted in 2001 A Space Odyssey seemed pretty accurate, that is when HAL refused to open the bay doors..
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because everybody who's into technology is a fat ugly smelly loserly git. That's easily explained by the fact that you have to sell your coolness to the devil to know how to use vi.
It has a 4000 mAh (at this point shouldn't we just say 4 Ah?) battery that's supposed to give a 10 hours battery life.
You realise that it pretty much beats the Nokia N800 and such at what they do, right? I mean, it runs Ubuntu and has a 43-key keyboard!
Oh shit, it made it on Slashdot. The 3,000 units are sooo gone.
If two years count as an insane short amount of time..
As long as they don't release a new version of the Wii equipped for WiMax...
...WiiMax. Sorry, I know, that was awful, I'll mod myself down by withdrawing my karma bonus.
Check your comments, you got FPed back, fool!!
Indeed. Countless geniuses of sciences and arts died in misery, under debts, in oblivion. Fortunately, history has the fairness to celebrate the true bright and accomplished personalities while forgetting the rich and famous but now irrelevant people of their time.
Ha! The subtlety of your sarcasm nearly evaded the grasp of my comprehension. Well done sir!
Ha! So you had assholes! Back in my day, we had to sharpen wooden rods against rocks first and then sit on them!
What is art?
The expression of creativity and imagination.
Nuff said, now apply this to what you wonder what's art or not and you'll see. I think misunderstanding this is dangerous. Reminds me of a movie about a concentration camp. Some prisoner made a painting on the holocaust and conditions in the camp, and when a German officer asked him about it, he asked the prisoner what was art. The prisoner made the mistake to define art as something aesthetically "nice" and happiness inducing, so the officer asked him his dark, gloomy and grim painting fitted that definition, which made him conclude what he did was not art and therefore unworthy to be treated as such.
My point being, it's essential to correctly identify all forms of art as such, and to do so everybody must get the definition of art right.
The Moby Dick example is weak, it's just a case of a work of art that wouldn't translate well into another art form. Big whoop, you can find tons of examples like this between any two art forms. Besides works of art are best when made for the art form they were intended for, and not "ported" between art forms. If all you want in a game is tell a story just like in a movie or novel maybe you're on the wrong art form.
Games as an art form has, just like any other art form, unique advantages, mainly the huge advantage of being more "alive" than any other art form in that it changes depending on your actions and reactions, i.e. it's interactive. Of course you can try to tell a scripted linear story in a game, but in order to use the full capabilities of the art form you'd rather make a story that depends entirely on the actions and decisions of the player. Linear scripted story games are somewhat like a movie in which you'd play a part, you have a certain degree of freedom in what you do but ultimately the story remains the same. Of course it can make up for great games, but it's an under utilisation of the possibilities.
Multiple outcome stories are a step in the right direction, but still an under utilisation of the possibilities, considered games allow you to experience a story that wouldn't occur twice, the "full possibilities" I'm talking about would be a game which would last more than 10 hours in which the whole story would depend on what you do (kind of like real life if you will) and not be a bit scripted. At the end of it you would have experienced a unique story that only your memory would allow you to remember. Of course that's theoretical, it wouldn't be easy to make a game which would allow you to experience very memorable stories, but all the art of it would lie in the algorithm(s) that make up the story, and just like classical story writing it takes a talented writer. Because that's what art is all about, talent.
Oh I get it, it means having stuff but not caring too much if you lose them. Yeah, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
Maybe it's because they had to huge use zooms since you know, the action took place quite a few tens (probably more than a hundred) kilometres away?
Indeed, I don't get the difference.
Very good observation, I hadn't even considered the link between people mistaking material gain as a personal achievement substitute and people living above their means to buy more stuff. Interesting how somehow it relates to the current economic crisis.
Ha well it's true that her statement doesn't necessarily reveal her positions on consumerism (although I didn't imply that), however I wouldn't agree on her consumerism-centric definition of freedom. No idea what you're trying to say though.
I think you missed my point entirely by a long shot. By all means, buy all the Wiis you want or whatever you like, even the most ridiculous stuff. Consumerism in itself isn't a problem. The problem is a lack of anything besides that.
What I'm trying to say is, there's more to life than becoming rich and buying lots of stuff. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do that, do it all you like, but don't forget to live a worthwhile life, become someone interest and achieve things. The problem with money isn't that people are after it, it's that it's all they're after, they have no other goals in life. Of course this is a gross exaggeration, but what I'm trying to highlight is the trend over the last few decades of people seeking more and more money, not like they need it to survive, but like it's their only goal in life.
That's a big problem, and you know you have that problem if you chose your career on how much money it would make. I don't have that problem, I know what I want to do, I know what sort of things I want to achieve, I'll probably get rich in the process and have more Wiis than I need, but that's accessory, and that's what people need to remember. Money should be a secondary goal in life, once you've secured enough money to live a decent life that is. The primary goal should be personal achievement.
And that's the interesting thing about being passionate vs. only being after money, there's only so much money that can be made by the greediest bastard in town, yet being very passionate about something precise and being good at it can make you as rich as one can be. I think it mainly has to do with the fact that people who are after money all do the same type of thing, and that's not something they're necessarily a "natural" at.
If monetary gain was a 10,000 miles race, the greedy people would all start running, while the passionate people would do whatever they like to do, and some would eventually create a fast vehicle to beat all the runners.
I think that kind of statement is the flip side of consumerism. That sort of anti-consumerism is just a reaction to consumerism, and focuses on the very same aspects as consumerism does, only in a negative way.
Where I'm from there was no such thing as consumerism. As a result (or lack of result), we didn't care about what we owned or didn't own, people only cared about living a worthwhile life. Anti-consumerism as you know it won't solve the problems caused by consumerism. The problem with consumerism is being mislead by a false goal in life. Anti-consumerism comes down to running the other way, which is, instead of achieving monetary gain, not achieving anything.
Yay, congratulations, you have "nothing left to lose", what a great achievement, your grand children are going to be so fascinated by your tales of how you got rid of the little you had to begin with and how you didn't go anywhere from that point on with your life.
I completely disagree with that kind of anti-consumerism. What this says basically is "be a hobo (and live and die alone in misery)". I find this stupid.
My original point was, people mistake monetary gain and material ownership for achievement. What Fight Club says is, get rid of that. That's stupid, that won't solve your achievement problem, that's as if you ate nothing but chocolate in the place of proper food, then movies like Fight Club would tell you "stop eating chocolate, stop eating anything". Fight Club doesn't encourage you to become someone, to achieve something, be it an intellectual or artistic achievement or anything else for that matter. It just tells you to become a sort of rat.
Exactly what I'm talking about. To most people, including you, a $500K MBA-type arsehole who makes money in insurance bullcrap is more successful than a researcher who works on very exciting stuff but doesn't get an extraordinary pay. And that kind of "success" eclipses and supersedes achievements. See, at the end of the day, the $500K guy is just some douche who made a lot of money and nothing else. But he won't have anything to tell his grandchildren that won't bore them to tears, because he would have devoted his whole life to just making money, which is dull, even if it is *the* criteria for success.
I don't mean to sound like a hippie, but I'd blame it as a side effect of consumerism. What I mean by that is that as an effect of consumerism, people's goal in life is to become rich, rather than have a great career or reach any other sort of goal. Personal achievements are replaced by monetary and material gain, and what you have supersedes what you do or who you are. You are only as successful a person as how much money you make. People would do the dumbest job in the world if it paid well.
I think it has to do with the fact that people genuinely believe that their goal in life is to become rich, have fun, good sex, then a wife, kids, all of which are supposed to make you a happy and accomplished man, or so they think. The Los Angeles mentality prevails, satisfy your basest instincts, make money, use it as a leverage to satisfy your basest instincts more, produce offsprings, die.
In this context, genuinely caring about anything else makes you a "nerd" or "geek", which, seen under that angle, is actually a great thing to be. It's just a shame that our culture raises people to produce as much wealth as possible and nothing else. Actually I'm pretty sure you can interpret the movie Matrix as a critique of consumerism, in which people, being in the movie used as batteries, are in our real life money-making "batteries".
If you would take the pain to look it up on Wikipedia. You don't either implode or explode, your blood doesn't boil off, however saliva in your mouth evaporates. It apparently is safe for a few seconds, and doesn't cause any sort of lesions or anything, provided you don't try to forcibly retain air in your longs. If you stay there longer you just die of asphyxia. The way it was depicted in 2001 A Space Odyssey seemed pretty accurate, that is when HAL refused to open the bay doors..
The last Moonwalk wasn't done in 1972. Ask Michael Jackson.