You're defective because you can't see the light spectrum outside the spectrum you see? Then we're all defective. Congratulations, you have a point without a point.
It's not hypothetical. It frames the moral foundation of the question in terms that are more contemporary. The moral question is, at its core, whether "normal" is "healthy", "what is normal or healthy?", and whether the two, conflated, are a social responsibility.
Except it would probably be the parents' choice in most cases, as the condition can be detected before a child can be able to make such a choice. And it's quite likely that it would eventually be a social choice, regarded (as seen above) the same way as childhood deafness.
I hope you get modded up. The fact that "just like everybody else" is necessary to frame the question is the heart of the moral question itself. There is no ailment, and thus no cure, except for the presence of different traits in a majority of others.
Software developers don't have infinite resources. Over time, hardware offerings improve dramatically without any investment of resources by developers. Software improvements, in terms of user experience, require a massive developer investment in time and effort. The choice to focus on user experience over efficiency is a product of a pretty obvious cost-benefit analysis.
There's no question that user experience has improved dramatically in software in recent years. Performance has remained on par or improved, by virtue of hardware keeping up with, or exceeding, increased demand from increasingly inefficient software. There's a net benefit. But the reality is that in a way, it's a cost externalization: instead of reaping energy benefits from increasingly efficient hardware, we're reaping convenience benefits from increasingly abstracted software development.
I guess I just find it confounding that you've said basically everything except, "okay, maybe it's not that there aren't artists making great albums, but that other conditions completely out of the control of those artists have led me away from discovering them."
It makes no sense to blame artists today for the fact that corporate radio is a sham, or for the fact that you feel disinclined to go out to see those artists perform, or to find other outlets for discovering good new music.
I don't particularly care that you're not interested in doing that. It just bothers me that you're using that as the crux of a claim that artistic integrity in music is somehow dead, when it couldn't be further from the truth. It upsets me as an artist, because it's a prevailing attitude that makes getting an audience needlessly more difficult.
Don't you think it's kind of unfair to say that there's no new artists with albums worth listening to, if you're not willing to invest a little time and effort into discovering those artists?
This program was on until at least 97 or 98, if I remember correctly. For all I know it may still be on, but I've moved and I stopped listening to the radio around 97 or 98.
So, you don't have a computer at home? Go to a library or something. Or, you know, take the other suggestions and get out of the house and go watch artists in their natural habitat.
To be honest, I hit a plateau like that already, relatively young in fact. I was pretty discouraged with the latest fads, and decided instead to pay more attention to music that came before. In retrospect, this was partly because there were fewer outlets then for finding interesting and less prominent artists. But it was also partly because I got stuck in a rut and just didn't put much effort into finding more. Since that time, I've discovered that I missed a lot in that time, and that if anything the growth of great music is increasing.
Where do you start? Well, several people (myself included) provided a few answers. As far as on the Internet? Google (Google Video, YouTube) is a great place to start. Lala is another (anecdotally, I recently found what has become one of my favorite newer artists, St Vincent, as a recommendation on Lala from one of my other favorite artists, Kaki King; "other artists you might like" is hardly a new concept). Last.fm isn't so bad except it's dodgy actually finding enough music to actually get a feel for an artist.
People recommend stuff like Pandora and other "smart radio" applications, but I tend to steer clear of those because they encourage exactly the same short attention span that radio does. I've passed up artists on Pandora and the like—which I now absolutely love—only to rediscover them later in a context where they're not here and gone in a flash.
But honestly... music is, for most artists, a performance art. The best place to discover music is at clubs and bars and house shows where the artists can set their own tone and share the music of other artists they'd like to surround themselves with.
And if you're in the audience, chances are you'll meet other people who appreciate good music and chances are they won't all be "a bit unstable". I can't imagine how anyone can expect to find anything particularly valuable in life if they isolate themselves from other people who appreciate the same things.
On the other hand, come to think of it, another station where I grew up (a commercial, corporate station that played only heavy rotation most of the day) used to play at least two full concerts each Sunday night as well.
No, the point they were making was "too bad we don't have newer bands around today, that can make a whole albums worth of music worth listening to". My answer is that we do have them, in fact a wealth of them. In a later comment I added that most artists don't write filler but that one can expect, given the subjective nature of art, to only like a subset of what's out there, even from talented artists.
I think my broader point was that my experience has been that the perception of artists not producing whole albums worth listening to comes from hearing only heavy rotation music and not really sitting down to take in the breadth of an artist's repertoire. It might sound snobby, but appreciating art is an interactive process and rarely will someone really find much joy in art if they're not willing to invest attention in it.
Again, this is totally foreign to me. Maybe you're not seeking out music that appeals to you more. I honestly don't believe most artists write filler around hits. It's not really a formula for success in the biz. But it's important to keep in mind that, music being art, you're necessarily not going to like all of it and really fantastic music isn't something simple that can be created on a whim. It takes a lot of work and focus and dedication and investment, and there's only so much talent out there. So if your expectation is to find quantity, you're probably going to sacrifice quality.
I don't understand. You're sitting at a computer right now. There's plenty of ways to find stuff, free and legal, you just need to look around.
But I will echo a couple of the answers you've already gotten: small act live shows and college radio. I can't emphasize small acts enough. You're not likely to find anything but the heavy rotation artists at the big stadium and theatre shows.
When it comes down to it, it's mostly a question of how interested you are in finding good music.
I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio.
Where I grew up, one of the local stations used to play The Wall (and I think Dark Side of the Moon, sometimes) regularly on Sunday nights. But it's not surprising you haven't heard the full albums on the radio: the radio is not a medium suited to celebrating long-running conceptual music.
I think people who say stuff like this are revealing more about their own taste in music than they realize. At 27, I can honestly say that there's been a wealth of great music released throughout my life, even if it isn't on heavy rotation on radio and cable music networks. And I can think of very few one hit wonders I'd include in that.
Only if you presuppose that the other browsers are bug-free. Or that the page in question doesn't hack around bugs in those respective browsers, sending something hacky to Opera in the process.
Somalia is an example of a failed formal government, but it's not an example of a stateless society. Warlord rule is essentially a set of proto-state authorities, each wielding a portion of the would-be state's monopoly on force. Anyone with a bit of sense who advocates a stateless society would not advocate a system just like it.
In fact, such a person would probably point to Somalia (as well as North Korea) as one possible logical extreme of the philosophy of the state, and would probably add that a "reasonably rational government" has only a very limited inertia to prevent either of these extremes from gaining strength.
The US, one of the more "reasonably rational" states on paper, has seen the rise of elements of both extremes (in recent years, the resurgence of militias and the continued bolstering of the surveillance and security state; but there are many examples through its history as well).
with IE in the least desirable position about 50% of the time.
It is in the second-most (or most, depending on circumstances) desirable position, because users pay a disproportionate amount of attention to visible ends of a list, particularly a horizontal list. The least desirable position is any middle position on the second screen. This is a consequence of the simplicity of a horizontal list, and user attention shifts accordingly as content grows in height (reading across, down, across, down).
Microsoft actually punished themselves extra by using this function, thereby making another lawsuit on this particular matter impossible to win against them.
Doubtful. The mere fact that the order places certain items in certain positions a disproportionate amount of the time would raise considerable doubt that Microsoft acted in good faith. This would be sufficient reason to introduce user test data which would demonstrate that the last position is not the least desirable.
And lest I be biased, I'll offer my browser preferences for full disclosure.
I use Safari as my primary browser, but only as I wait for Chrome to meet my needs (note the first position is biased toward Chrome). I prefer WebKit as a renderer; Chrome is a better browser than Safari overall, but doesn't (yet?) support certain aspects of my workflow.
No, Safari is in the worst spot most of the time. The end of a list is either the best or second-best (depending on circumstances and presentation) position if the entire list is present, visible and accessible. All middle positions are at a distinct disadvantage, and the second to last position at the greatest disadvantage.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that all humans see a limited range of the light spectrum, and determining which range is healthful is a fool's errand.
You're defective because you can't see the light spectrum outside the spectrum you see? Then we're all defective. Congratulations, you have a point without a point.
It's not hypothetical. It frames the moral foundation of the question in terms that are more contemporary. The moral question is, at its core, whether "normal" is "healthy", "what is normal or healthy?", and whether the two, conflated, are a social responsibility.
Except it would probably be the parents' choice in most cases, as the condition can be detected before a child can be able to make such a choice. And it's quite likely that it would eventually be a social choice, regarded (as seen above) the same way as childhood deafness.
I hope you get modded up. The fact that "just like everybody else" is necessary to frame the question is the heart of the moral question itself. There is no ailment, and thus no cure, except for the presence of different traits in a majority of others.
I wrote a rather lengthy reply, but I think the following sums it up sufficiently, if you consider the implications.
Suppose (because I don't know) you have foreskin. Would you like to be cured?
Software developers don't have infinite resources. Over time, hardware offerings improve dramatically without any investment of resources by developers. Software improvements, in terms of user experience, require a massive developer investment in time and effort. The choice to focus on user experience over efficiency is a product of a pretty obvious cost-benefit analysis.
There's no question that user experience has improved dramatically in software in recent years. Performance has remained on par or improved, by virtue of hardware keeping up with, or exceeding, increased demand from increasingly inefficient software. There's a net benefit. But the reality is that in a way, it's a cost externalization: instead of reaping energy benefits from increasingly efficient hardware, we're reaping convenience benefits from increasingly abstracted software development.
That's actually pretty good typing with your fists. Do you have a comically large keyboard?
It's also not the artists' fault you know young philistines.
What kind of music do you like? Maybe I can get you started. ;)
I guess I just find it confounding that you've said basically everything except, "okay, maybe it's not that there aren't artists making great albums, but that other conditions completely out of the control of those artists have led me away from discovering them."
It makes no sense to blame artists today for the fact that corporate radio is a sham, or for the fact that you feel disinclined to go out to see those artists perform, or to find other outlets for discovering good new music.
I don't particularly care that you're not interested in doing that. It just bothers me that you're using that as the crux of a claim that artistic integrity in music is somehow dead, when it couldn't be further from the truth. It upsets me as an artist, because it's a prevailing attitude that makes getting an audience needlessly more difficult.
Don't you think it's kind of unfair to say that there's no new artists with albums worth listening to, if you're not willing to invest a little time and effort into discovering those artists?
This program was on until at least 97 or 98, if I remember correctly. For all I know it may still be on, but I've moved and I stopped listening to the radio around 97 or 98.
So, you don't have a computer at home? Go to a library or something. Or, you know, take the other suggestions and get out of the house and go watch artists in their natural habitat.
To be honest, I hit a plateau like that already, relatively young in fact. I was pretty discouraged with the latest fads, and decided instead to pay more attention to music that came before. In retrospect, this was partly because there were fewer outlets then for finding interesting and less prominent artists. But it was also partly because I got stuck in a rut and just didn't put much effort into finding more. Since that time, I've discovered that I missed a lot in that time, and that if anything the growth of great music is increasing.
Where do you start? Well, several people (myself included) provided a few answers. As far as on the Internet? Google (Google Video, YouTube) is a great place to start. Lala is another (anecdotally, I recently found what has become one of my favorite newer artists, St Vincent, as a recommendation on Lala from one of my other favorite artists, Kaki King; "other artists you might like" is hardly a new concept). Last.fm isn't so bad except it's dodgy actually finding enough music to actually get a feel for an artist.
People recommend stuff like Pandora and other "smart radio" applications, but I tend to steer clear of those because they encourage exactly the same short attention span that radio does. I've passed up artists on Pandora and the like—which I now absolutely love—only to rediscover them later in a context where they're not here and gone in a flash.
But honestly... music is, for most artists, a performance art. The best place to discover music is at clubs and bars and house shows where the artists can set their own tone and share the music of other artists they'd like to surround themselves with.
And if you're in the audience, chances are you'll meet other people who appreciate good music and chances are they won't all be "a bit unstable". I can't imagine how anyone can expect to find anything particularly valuable in life if they isolate themselves from other people who appreciate the same things.
On the other hand, come to think of it, another station where I grew up (a commercial, corporate station that played only heavy rotation most of the day) used to play at least two full concerts each Sunday night as well.
No, the point they were making was "too bad we don't have newer bands around today, that can make a whole albums worth of music worth listening to". My answer is that we do have them, in fact a wealth of them. In a later comment I added that most artists don't write filler but that one can expect, given the subjective nature of art, to only like a subset of what's out there, even from talented artists.
I think my broader point was that my experience has been that the perception of artists not producing whole albums worth listening to comes from hearing only heavy rotation music and not really sitting down to take in the breadth of an artist's repertoire. It might sound snobby, but appreciating art is an interactive process and rarely will someone really find much joy in art if they're not willing to invest attention in it.
Again, this is totally foreign to me. Maybe you're not seeking out music that appeals to you more. I honestly don't believe most artists write filler around hits. It's not really a formula for success in the biz. But it's important to keep in mind that, music being art, you're necessarily not going to like all of it and really fantastic music isn't something simple that can be created on a whim. It takes a lot of work and focus and dedication and investment, and there's only so much talent out there. So if your expectation is to find quantity, you're probably going to sacrifice quality.
I don't understand. You're sitting at a computer right now. There's plenty of ways to find stuff, free and legal, you just need to look around.
But I will echo a couple of the answers you've already gotten: small act live shows and college radio. I can't emphasize small acts enough. You're not likely to find anything but the heavy rotation artists at the big stadium and theatre shows.
When it comes down to it, it's mostly a question of how interested you are in finding good music.
Where I grew up, one of the local stations used to play The Wall (and I think Dark Side of the Moon, sometimes) regularly on Sunday nights. But it's not surprising you haven't heard the full albums on the radio: the radio is not a medium suited to celebrating long-running conceptual music.
I think people who say stuff like this are revealing more about their own taste in music than they realize. At 27, I can honestly say that there's been a wealth of great music released throughout my life, even if it isn't on heavy rotation on radio and cable music networks. And I can think of very few one hit wonders I'd include in that.
Only if you presuppose that the other browsers are bug-free. Or that the page in question doesn't hack around bugs in those respective browsers, sending something hacky to Opera in the process.
Somalia is an example of a failed formal government, but it's not an example of a stateless society. Warlord rule is essentially a set of proto-state authorities, each wielding a portion of the would-be state's monopoly on force. Anyone with a bit of sense who advocates a stateless society would not advocate a system just like it.
In fact, such a person would probably point to Somalia (as well as North Korea) as one possible logical extreme of the philosophy of the state, and would probably add that a "reasonably rational government" has only a very limited inertia to prevent either of these extremes from gaining strength.
The US, one of the more "reasonably rational" states on paper, has seen the rise of elements of both extremes (in recent years, the resurgence of militias and the continued bolstering of the surveillance and security state; but there are many examples through its history as well).
It is in the second-most (or most, depending on circumstances) desirable position, because users pay a disproportionate amount of attention to visible ends of a list, particularly a horizontal list. The least desirable position is any middle position on the second screen. This is a consequence of the simplicity of a horizontal list, and user attention shifts accordingly as content grows in height (reading across, down, across, down).
Doubtful. The mere fact that the order places certain items in certain positions a disproportionate amount of the time would raise considerable doubt that Microsoft acted in good faith. This would be sufficient reason to introduce user test data which would demonstrate that the last position is not the least desirable.
And lest I be biased, I'll offer my browser preferences for full disclosure.
I use Safari as my primary browser, but only as I wait for Chrome to meet my needs (note the first position is biased toward Chrome). I prefer WebKit as a renderer; Chrome is a better browser than Safari overall, but doesn't (yet?) support certain aspects of my workflow.
No, Safari is in the worst spot most of the time. The end of a list is either the best or second-best (depending on circumstances and presentation) position if the entire list is present, visible and accessible. All middle positions are at a distinct disadvantage, and the second to last position at the greatest disadvantage.