Nonsense. They shouldn't release anyone's private credentials. Whether it's 3,000 or 10,000,000, the damage for any one individual is the same.
If they are able to crack PSN and there is work Sony should do to fix things, then they have other options. - Tell Sony, see if they fix it - Failing that, tell an independent person - a trusted reporter or other third party. Then that third party can confirm the leak and Sony will have to answer for their problems.
As someone with more than a few accounts online (including PSN - sue me, I want to buy DLC now and again), I really take exception to the idea of being a pawn in this game. My private data is my data - Sony has a duty to keep it private; and if a hacktivist steals it, they have a duty to keep it private, as well.
What does keeping a straight face have to do with art? Nothing, unless the goal of the artist wasn't comedy.
I apologize if it appeared I was trying to lecture you. My only goal was to converse. I don't claim any magic powers to determine what is objectively the best; I only propose that not everything that is called art is art, and that adopting such a position devalues the term.
I think you do a good job of enunciating the current definition of art: creation with intent to capture feeling. And the distinction between simple art and 'good art' is one I'd be happy with. Defining what's good and isn't is still a challenge, but in the end there has to be a value judgement placing, say, Monet's works above a single-coloured canvas.
By this definition, all works of art are intrinsically defensible in that the individuals have a right to creativity ('speech'). But, all works of art are not intrinsically worthwhile or deserving of respect.
Some art is very bad: merda d'artista, or the dadist urinal, for example. Blank canvases of a sort do exist. They are a trope because they exemplify negative aspects of conceptual art.
It is one thing if you think 'art' should be defined broadly, as "act of creativity" or something similar: but you must accept, with that broad definition, a dilution of esteem, and jokes at your expense. Cans of shit? We are expected to keep a straight face? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the works like medra wer made to challenge the definition of art: didn't the creator therefore leave open the possibility that merda and its ilk are _not_ art?
If engineers took that approach, and defined engineering as "the application of science" with no conditions regarding safety, practicality, economics, or usefulness, you would end up with half-built bridges and crumbling roadways, with a satisfied-looking fellow at the end saying "I am an engineer. Admire my work or do not, but at least accord me some respect". It is the restrictions that the discipline puts on itself that helps it create such wonderful works. The same can be true about art: define it narrowly, or at least give it some bounds, and you will get better quality.
If what you and I - and everyone else - thinks constitutes 'art' is irrelevant, then 'art' has no meaning.
Going by your examples, 'art' is something that (a) is called art, and (b) sells.
My feeling is that Pollock, Warhol, and the merda d'artista will all fairly soon lose all pretense of being art. If you dropped any of them in front of someone from 1,000 years ago or 1,000 years from now - someone who didn't know the context - they would think it was a random mess, a simple reproduction, or disgusting. Compare that with a work of one of the masters: although they were done hundreds of years ago, they are still beautiful, and moreover there is an intrinsic beauty that is understandable without knowing the context.
I linked to the cartoon because it gave a comically exaggerated vision of the non-artist artist. I agree with your reading of it, and indeed agree with the cartoon - art should be funded, it doesn't cost much, and not all non-traditional artists are 'sickos' that use odd materials to create their works.
Honestly, I'm confused about the subject as well - it's impossible to draw a clear line between what is and isn't 'art'. It really is true that some things take time to be accepted and understood by the general population; some of the out-there stuff of today will be loved tomorrow. But I still think there is a disconnect between pomo/conceptual art and beauty, and I think that is a problem. If you want to make a statement, take out a pad of paper and write. If you want to make art, make art. A can of artists' feces or a ripped canvas aren't beautiful, and may be useful as a prop in the ongoing debate about what art is, but are not themselves art.
That's find for this guy, but what about the vast swath of conceptual artists that produce technically dead-simple works - hanging sheets in odd ways, scrap metal randomly arranged, etc.
Why not take an empty canvas and put it on the wall? Or drive around for half a day collecting random crap, then toss it all in a public square - call it a sculpture and a 'statement'.
In all seriousness, there really should be a different word for these pomo conceptual people. Art has to have _some_ beauty in it, doesn't it? It _has_ to require talent beyond the everyday, doesn't it?
We should be able to expand art beyond renaissance-era landscapes and portraits using oil-on-canvas without debasing the term 'art' to cover everything. It make the term useless, just like some people are doing to hacking: ever since everything requiring the smallest modicum of... time? became hacking, every douchebag with time on his hands has felt welcome at HOPE, but at the same time a unique group has been diluted to nothing: something has been lost.
How much of the feminist blog-o-sphere do you read? The top ten, or just the articles about nerds and geeks you see posted on slashdot?
I've read very little of the feminist blog-o-sphere, but I highly doubt (a) nerds are enemy number 1 throughout, or (b) mysogynistic rap music and fratboys aren't regularly derided, called out, and campaigned against.
The GP is just practicing defensive driving. Any sensible human can learn that. If the googlecar can't be made to do that, then I won't be driving in it.
The progress so far is encouraging, but the problem is very difficult and it's hard to know whether self-driving cars will become a new fusion: always 5 or 10 years away.
Indeed. Star Trek was optimistic about the future. I always find it a little sad when people dismiss it for that reason. Surely, for all the distopian and pessimistic fiction our culture produces, we should have a few optimistic stories? If stories like The Terminator can be treated as faintly plausible, then why not Roddenberry's vision in Star Trek?
Is the solution then for the central bureaucracy to take responsibility for creating the inventories?
Not only would a centralized effort circumvent much of the local office politics, the wingtips on the ground would have a better idea of where any given piece of equipment fits into the greater USG IT infrastructure.
The UI has improved quite at lot since it debuted. Not long ago, I visited it for the first time in months and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.
It is much better than Facebook as a place to communicate people who share the same interests - photogrpahy is a common example.
I don't think it's as good as Facebook for the personal network of friends stuff.
In the long run I think it will stay around. And honestly, as much as I distrust Facebook, it is still useful to have the major parts of the web divvied up amongst more than one company. The current situation - Facebook has the social network, Google has (nearly) everything else - is better than Google having everything.
I wouldn't say the PC is declining; it has just plateaued.
It's been said many other places and times, but what seems to be happening is that more and more niches are being filled with their own computer form factors - mainframes, workstations, PCs, netbooks, mobiles, and now pure-hobbyist computers.
(Also, though PC development has slowed, it's still progressing at a respectable rate: my 3 year old computer is outclassed by new ones, both in graphics card (mine has 1/2 to 1/4 the VRAM of comparable new laptops), CPU (1/2 the cores, though eqiv. clock speed), and especially hard disk (mine's a spinny thing, not solid state)).
Like you said, a new computer isn't necessary - a 3-year-old one can do all day-to-day stuff - but development continues, and performance still improves noticeably. Boot times, in particular, are still dropping.
They would have been correct. In this particular case, the nutter had body armour, too, so circumstances would have to be pretty ideal for any rambo citizen to save the day.
And really, if everyone in a theater of 300 people was armed, the odds that one of those 300 people would go crazy themselves in 1, 5, or 10 years is probably pretty good.
Giving every Tom, Dick and Harry the right to have guns is really unwise. Leave them to the cops, and do your damndest to disarm everyone else (except hunters).
Colorado has concealed carry and open carry, and there were a lot of people in the theater.
I'm curious to know if there was anybody else there who had a gun and was either shot too quickly or just ran away.
Either way, I don't see this changing the debate at all in the states. I'm in my early 30s now and have heard about more massacres in the states that I can remember, and every time the arguments are the same. Gun control generates as much rational debate down south as abortion does.
Kyoto etc. might have worked if there was a crash research program into viable clean sources of power (eg fusion) and battery tech back in the 90s. As it is, there wasn't, we have no reasonable way of both (1) keeping our lifestyle and (2) meeting Kyoto targets.
_Something_ has to be done; if the idea in TFA is based on sound science, why not give it a go. Start slow, maybe, but at least try.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. They shouldn't release anyone's private credentials. Whether it's 3,000 or 10,000,000, the damage for any one individual is the same.
If they are able to crack PSN and there is work Sony should do to fix things, then they have other options.
- Tell Sony, see if they fix it
- Failing that, tell an independent person - a trusted reporter or other third party. Then that third party can confirm the leak and Sony will have to answer for their problems.
As someone with more than a few accounts online (including PSN - sue me, I want to buy DLC now and again), I really take exception to the idea of being a pawn in this game. My private data is my data - Sony has a duty to keep it private; and if a hacktivist steals it, they have a duty to keep it private, as well.
What does keeping a straight face have to do with art? Nothing, unless the goal of the artist wasn't comedy.
I apologize if it appeared I was trying to lecture you. My only goal was to converse. I don't claim any magic powers to determine what is objectively the best; I only propose that not everything that is called art is art, and that adopting such a position devalues the term.
I think you do a good job of enunciating the current definition of art: creation with intent to capture feeling. And the distinction between simple art and 'good art' is one I'd be happy with. Defining what's good and isn't is still a challenge, but in the end there has to be a value judgement placing, say, Monet's works above a single-coloured canvas.
By this definition, all works of art are intrinsically defensible in that the individuals have a right to creativity ('speech'). But, all works of art are not intrinsically worthwhile or deserving of respect.
Some art is very bad: merda d'artista, or the dadist urinal, for example. Blank canvases of a sort do exist. They are a trope because they exemplify negative aspects of conceptual art.
It is one thing if you think 'art' should be defined broadly, as "act of creativity" or something similar: but you must accept, with that broad definition, a dilution of esteem, and jokes at your expense. Cans of shit? We are expected to keep a straight face? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the works like medra wer made to challenge the definition of art: didn't the creator therefore leave open the possibility that merda and its ilk are _not_ art?
If engineers took that approach, and defined engineering as "the application of science" with no conditions regarding safety, practicality, economics, or usefulness, you would end up with half-built bridges and crumbling roadways, with a satisfied-looking fellow at the end saying "I am an engineer. Admire my work or do not, but at least accord me some respect". It is the restrictions that the discipline puts on itself that helps it create such wonderful works. The same can be true about art: define it narrowly, or at least give it some bounds, and you will get better quality.
If what you and I - and everyone else - thinks constitutes 'art' is irrelevant, then 'art' has no meaning.
Going by your examples, 'art' is something that (a) is called art, and (b) sells.
My feeling is that Pollock, Warhol, and the merda d'artista will all fairly soon lose all pretense of being art. If you dropped any of them in front of someone from 1,000 years ago or 1,000 years from now - someone who didn't know the context - they would think it was a random mess, a simple reproduction, or disgusting. Compare that with a work of one of the masters: although they were done hundreds of years ago, they are still beautiful, and moreover there is an intrinsic beauty that is understandable without knowing the context.
I linked to the cartoon because it gave a comically exaggerated vision of the non-artist artist. I agree with your reading of it, and indeed agree with the cartoon - art should be funded, it doesn't cost much, and not all non-traditional artists are 'sickos' that use odd materials to create their works.
Honestly, I'm confused about the subject as well - it's impossible to draw a clear line between what is and isn't 'art'. It really is true that some things take time to be accepted and understood by the general population; some of the out-there stuff of today will be loved tomorrow. But I still think there is a disconnect between pomo/conceptual art and beauty, and I think that is a problem. If you want to make a statement, take out a pad of paper and write. If you want to make art, make art. A can of artists' feces or a ripped canvas aren't beautiful, and may be useful as a prop in the ongoing debate about what art is, but are not themselves art.
The satire is in the link labeled 'Funny'. And in the (hopefully clearly) ridiculous suggestion just above it.
The serious part comes after the words "In all seriousness".
HTH.
That's find for this guy, but what about the vast swath of conceptual artists that produce technically dead-simple works - hanging sheets in odd ways, scrap metal randomly arranged, etc.
Why not take an empty canvas and put it on the wall? Or drive around for half a day collecting random crap, then toss it all in a public square - call it a sculpture and a 'statement'.
Funny
In all seriousness, there really should be a different word for these pomo conceptual people. Art has to have _some_ beauty in it, doesn't it? It _has_ to require talent beyond the everyday, doesn't it?
We should be able to expand art beyond renaissance-era landscapes and portraits using oil-on-canvas without debasing the term 'art' to cover everything. It make the term useless, just like some people are doing to hacking: ever since everything requiring the smallest modicum of... time? became hacking, every douchebag with time on his hands has felt welcome at HOPE, but at the same time a unique group has been diluted to nothing: something has been lost.
Someone else is worse? That's your defense?
How much of the feminist blog-o-sphere do you read? The top ten, or just the articles about nerds and geeks you see posted on slashdot?
I've read very little of the feminist blog-o-sphere, but I highly doubt (a) nerds are enemy number 1 throughout, or (b) mysogynistic rap music and fratboys aren't regularly derided, called out, and campaigned against.
The GP is just practicing defensive driving. Any sensible human can learn that. If the googlecar can't be made to do that, then I won't be driving in it.
The progress so far is encouraging, but the problem is very difficult and it's hard to know whether self-driving cars will become a new fusion: always 5 or 10 years away.
PS - It's algorithm, not algorythm.
How does he compare with Iain Banks?
Indeed. Star Trek was optimistic about the future. I always find it a little sad when people dismiss it for that reason. Surely, for all the distopian and pessimistic fiction our culture produces, we should have a few optimistic stories? If stories like The Terminator can be treated as faintly plausible, then why not Roddenberry's vision in Star Trek?
The problem is that 40% of the people are breaking the law as it is written.
There are two basic ways of solving this:
- Punish 40% of New Zealanders, or
- Change the laws
Methinks the second option deserves more consideration
Is the solution then for the central bureaucracy to take responsibility for creating the inventories?
Not only would a centralized effort circumvent much of the local office politics, the wingtips on the ground would have a better idea of where any given piece of equipment fits into the greater USG IT infrastructure.
IMHO they should have used C; after all, it is the language of God and Root.
The UI has improved quite at lot since it debuted. Not long ago, I visited it for the first time in months and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.
It is much better than Facebook as a place to communicate people who share the same interests - photogrpahy is a common example.
I don't think it's as good as Facebook for the personal network of friends stuff.
In the long run I think it will stay around. And honestly, as much as I distrust Facebook, it is still useful to have the major parts of the web divvied up amongst more than one company. The current situation - Facebook has the social network, Google has (nearly) everything else - is better than Google having everything.
I wouldn't say the PC is declining; it has just plateaued.
It's been said many other places and times, but what seems to be happening is that more and more niches are being filled with their own computer form factors - mainframes, workstations, PCs, netbooks, mobiles, and now pure-hobbyist computers.
(Also, though PC development has slowed, it's still progressing at a respectable rate: my 3 year old computer is outclassed by new ones, both in graphics card (mine has 1/2 to 1/4 the VRAM of comparable new laptops), CPU (1/2 the cores, though eqiv. clock speed), and especially hard disk (mine's a spinny thing, not solid state)).
Like you said, a new computer isn't necessary - a 3-year-old one can do all day-to-day stuff - but development continues, and performance still improves noticeably. Boot times, in particular, are still dropping.
According to TFA there was some supply but they're sold out.
Wait, what?
Blow up the city with a fusion reactor?
(Morbo's voice): FISSION REACTORS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY
That's the same knumbskull mistake Aliens made.
Just call it a fission reactor and, while it isn't going to blow up in a giant fireball, it's still a credible threat. Yeesh.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
(don't worry, it's an HTML page with the option do download an excel file)
For all states, in 2010:
Murder by:
All Firearms:8,775
All Other:4,221
Total: 12,996
% Firearm:67.5
% Other: 32.47
The data is broken down by state; I'll let you do the math on carry/non carry states.
So would you accept that, in this situation at least, better gun control would have saved lives?
They would have been correct. In this particular case, the nutter had body armour, too, so circumstances would have to be pretty ideal for any rambo citizen to save the day.
And really, if everyone in a theater of 300 people was armed, the odds that one of those 300 people would go crazy themselves in 1, 5, or 10 years is probably pretty good.
Giving every Tom, Dick and Harry the right to have guns is really unwise. Leave them to the cops, and do your damndest to disarm everyone else (except hunters).
Colorado has concealed carry and open carry, and there were a lot of people in the theater.
I'm curious to know if there was anybody else there who had a gun and was either shot too quickly or just ran away.
Either way, I don't see this changing the debate at all in the states. I'm in my early 30s now and have heard about more massacres in the states that I can remember, and every time the arguments are the same. Gun control generates as much rational debate down south as abortion does.
Sad but true.
Kyoto etc. might have worked if there was a crash research program into viable clean sources of power (eg fusion) and battery tech back in the 90s. As it is, there wasn't, we have no reasonable way of both (1) keeping our lifestyle and (2) meeting Kyoto targets.
_Something_ has to be done; if the idea in TFA is based on sound science, why not give it a go. Start slow, maybe, but at least try.