Sure wish someone'd port Pronews to the Mac.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:12:30 UTC, Jeff Sumner <jdos2@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Sure wish someone'd port Pronews to the Mac.
I don't think the current maintainer would be interested in tackling
that, but the source might be available though I don't think it would
be an easy port. Isn't there a comparable newsreader to Pronews/2 on
the Mac?
Mark
That was OS/2's "killer app" as far as I'm concerned.
Maple? Eh.
Comm Manager? Neat stuff, for geeks.
Pronews? FREAKIN' AWESOME. Especially with an 8 processor machine and LOTS to catch up on- fun to watch.
Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
On 2006-04-06, Leonard Blaisdell <leo@greatbasin.com> wrote:
The MS-OS is entrenched. I'd love to see it topple, but eighty or ninety >> > percent of the total market desperately hangs on to it. Vista is just
over the rise. Its name fits its definition.
Apparently many Microsoft developers don't think it is "just
over the rise" and are betting on how many more times it will
slip.
All developers do that with all products - the larger the more likely
for them to bet it will slip.
Release is a management decision - the developers would never finish.
Turn the nation? As you say yourself, the nation already is a cultural wasteland. People would much prefer to sit indoors watching big brother
than going to any of those things.
In article <1hddzzp.yz4ziu598x6jN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk>, usenet@alienrat.co.uk says...
Turn the nation? As you say yourself, the nation already is a cultural wasteland. People would much prefer to sit indoors watching big brother than going to any of those things.
So your theory is that if a country fails the bulk of its citizens by
failing to educate them properly -- allowing them to grow up to be uncultured self centered idiots who primarily want to watch TV.
Then the country should compound its failure by then disregarding the
segment of the population who managed to reach some level of cultural enlightenment, artistic appreciation, and what not -- to cater to the tv watching slobs?
Ultimately dismantling any opportunity for art or culture to flourish in
the future ensuring future generations will have "watch cruddy American sitcoms" as the their sole exposure to anything even resembling art?
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits
that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage
them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an
giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
In article <2006040616464429560-jerome@odonohoecom>,
Jerome O'Donohoe <jerome@odonohoe.com> wrote:
Well, lets see. The iPod took over the MP3 market, and Final Cut Pro >>>>> took over the video post production market, and Safari resulted in
Microsoft's dropping IE for the Mac.
Ha. Not yet it hasn't. It's making inroads, but it's by no means done that yet.
What hasn't done which yet?
oops sorry. FCP hasn't taken over video post. :-)
Seen any new Adobe post production software for the Mac lately?
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits
that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage
them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an
giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid
an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
On 7/4/06 08:08, in article 1hdezi6.wlyw33y6ezlgN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk, "Woody" <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits
that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage
them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an
giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid
an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
Its not more valid, but it is more diverse. Government funding promotes diversity. Which is good.
I'm afraid premiere was never a serious contender in proper video post.
I work in post production and i've never seen anyone use it to make a
film or tv show.
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <1hddzzp.yz4ziu598x6jN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk>, usenet@alienrat.co.uk says...
Turn the nation? As you say yourself, the nation already is a cultural wasteland. People would much prefer to sit indoors watching big brother than going to any of those things.
So your theory is that if a country fails the bulk of its citizens by failing to educate them properly -- allowing them to grow up to be uncultured self centered idiots who primarily want to watch TV.
Then the country should compound its failure by then disregarding the segment of the population who managed to reach some level of cultural enlightenment, artistic appreciation, and what not -- to cater to the tv watching slobs?
No, My argument is purely:
Is it fair to make a nation of TV watching slobs pay for something that
is no use to them at all to cater to a minority?
or ultimately 'If something has a value to people, why can't it manage
to be self supporting'?
Ultimately dismantling any opportunity for art or culture to flourish in the future ensuring future generations will have "watch cruddy American sitcoms" as the their sole exposure to anything even resembling art?
Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums
and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that
we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or
opera - they should self support if they are to be of any value to
anyone.
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage
them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid
an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
Jerome O'Donohoe <jerome@odonohoe.com> wrote:
I'm afraid premiere was never a serious contender in proper video post.
I work in post production and i've never seen anyone use it to make a
film or tv show.
So what is the state of play? Is it still Avid, or mostly FCP now, or something else?
There is certainly a difference between attending a live event and just watching it on TV. One that people are willing to pay an awful lot of money to experience.
In message <1hdezi6.wlyw33y6ezlgN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk>
usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <1hddzzp.yz4ziu598x6jN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk>, usenet@alienrat.co.uk says...
Turn the nation? As you say yourself, the nation already is a cultural wasteland. People would much prefer to sit indoors watching big brother than going to any of those things.
So your theory is that if a country fails the bulk of its citizens by failing to educate them properly -- allowing them to grow up to be uncultured self centered idiots who primarily want to watch TV.
Then the country should compound its failure by then disregarding the segment of the population who managed to reach some level of cultural enlightenment, artistic appreciation, and what not -- to cater to the tv watching slobs?
No, My argument is purely:
Is it fair to make a nation of TV watching slobs pay for something that
is no use to them at all to cater to a minority?
Would you like to hazard a guess at the demographics of who watches TV coverage of: 1) Opera, 2) Big Brother?
or ultimately 'If something has a value to people, why can't it manage
to be self supporting'?
Education
The National Health Service,
Anbulance Service
Police
Fire Brigade
Citizens Advice Bureau
Relate
Commuter Rail Services
Formula 1 Racing
Ultimately dismantling any opportunity for art or culture to flourish in the future ensuring future generations will have "watch cruddy American sitcoms" as the their sole exposure to anything even resembling art?
Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums
and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that
we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or
Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums
and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that
we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or opera - they should self support if they are to be of any value to
anyone.
So Theatre and Opera are of no educational value?
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage
them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid
an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
There is certainly a difference between attending a live event and just watching it on TV. One that people are willing to pay an awful lot of
money to experience.
On 2006-04-07 10:59:20 +0100, Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk>
said:
There is certainly a difference between attending a live event and just watching it on TV. One that people are willing to pay an awful lot of money to experience.
*looks sadly at Madonna tickets just purchased*
In message <2006040711413023810-jerome@odonohoecom>
Jerome O'Donohoe <jerome@odonohoe.com> wrote:
On 2006-04-07 10:59:20 +0100, Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> said:
There is certainly a difference between attending a live event and just watching it on TV. One that people are willing to pay an awful lot of money to experience.
*looks sadly at Madonna tickets just purchased*
God you are sad!
In message <2006040711413023810-jerome@odonohoecom>
Jerome O'Donohoe <jerome@odonohoe.com> wrote:
On 2006-04-07 10:59:20 +0100, Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk>
said:
There is certainly a difference between attending a live event and just
watching it on TV. One that people are willing to pay an awful lot of
money to experience.
*looks sadly at Madonna tickets just purchased*
God you are sad!
I'm afraid premiere was never a serious contender in proper video post.
I work in post production and i've never seen anyone use it to make a
film or tv show.
In article <C05BE697.1B7C6%bingbong@spamcop.net>, bingbong@spamcop.net says...
On 7/4/06 08:08, in article 1hdezi6.wlyw33y6ezlgN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk, "Woody" <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits >> that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage
them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an >> giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
Its not more valid, but it is more diverse. Government funding promotes diversity. Which is good.
No it doesn't (although diversity is good).
Take opera for instance - 'most people' [1] don't want opera to be
funded on public money. By and large, most opera is viewed by people who
are more than able to pay for it. The fact that it can't survive without public funding indicates that people don't want it.
Why if I wanted to go to some rock concert do I have to pay? why isn't
that publicly funded? More people want to go to something like that
rather than opera [2], yet noone pays for me to see that, and I have to
pay for a group of people who in the large part have more money than I
will ever have.
Is my life improved because I have kept some rich people off the street?
Maybe if culture was so important to people, they could spend the money
they throw at unpopular arty plays and opera that noone wants, and put
it into getting groups of bored teenagers who hang around on street
corners into the arts, performing etc. I know you can't get them all interested but if you manage to get 1 in 10 you have directly improved culture more than you will ever do with a funded opera.
Seen any new Adobe post production software for the Mac lately?
In article <MPG.1ea045e44a749bc39899ea@192.168.254.11>,
Woody <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
In article <C05BE697.1B7C6%bingbong@spamcop.net>, bingbong@spamcop.net says...
On 7/4/06 08:08, in article 1hdezi6.wlyw33y6ezlgN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk, >>> "Woody" <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits >>>>> that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage >>>>> them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an >>>>> giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid >>>> an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
Its not more valid, but it is more diverse. Government funding promotes
diversity. Which is good.
No it doesn't (although diversity is good).
Take opera for instance - 'most people' [1] don't want opera to be
funded on public money. By and large, most opera is viewed by people
who are more than able to pay for it. The fact that it can't survive
without public funding indicates that people don't want it.
Why if I wanted to go to some rock concert do I have to pay? why isn't
that publicly funded? More people want to go to something like that
rather than opera [2], yet noone pays for me to see that, and I have to
pay for a group of people who in the large part have more money than I
will ever have.
Is my life improved because I have kept some rich people off the street?
Maybe if culture was so important to people, they could spend the money
they throw at unpopular arty plays and opera that noone wants, and put
it into getting groups of bored teenagers who hang around on street
corners into the arts, performing etc. I know you can't get them all
interested but if you manage to get 1 in 10 you have directly improved
culture more than you will ever do with a funded opera.
Are you implying that opera is only of interest to a few rich toffs?
Funny, whenever I've been to an opera it's usually sold out -
performances at provincial venues costing £20 or so - a damn sight
cheaper than a Man U season ticket. Funny also how when I went to
Madame Butterfly at the Royal Albert hall that was sold out too - as
were the other 10 performances. That's 45,000 people or so
In article <MPG.1ea045e44a749bc39899ea@192.168.254.11>,No - I am implying that if some entertainment medium is worth having, it should be able to be self supporting.
Woody <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
Why if I wanted to go to some rock concert do I have to pay? why isn't that publicly funded? More people want to go to something like that
rather than opera [2], yet noone pays for me to see that, and I have to pay for a group of people who in the large part have more money than I will ever have.
Is my life improved because I have kept some rich people off the street?
Maybe if culture was so important to people, they could spend the money they throw at unpopular arty plays and opera that noone wants, and put
it into getting groups of bored teenagers who hang around on street corners into the arts, performing etc. I know you can't get them all interested but if you manage to get 1 in 10 you have directly improved culture more than you will ever do with a funded opera.
Are you implying that opera is only of interest to a few rich toffs?
Funny, whenever I've been to an opera it's usually sold out -Indeed. That is exactly my point. If 45,000 people want to pay to see something then it shouldn't;t need any form of funding other than ticket sales.
performances at provincial venues costing £20 or so - a damn sight
cheaper than a Man U season ticket. Funny also how when I went to Madame Butterfly at the Royal Albert hall that was sold out too - as were the
other 10 performances. That's 45,000 people or so.
Mind you, I also don't see why it should be subsidised.That is my only problem, not who it is seen by or whether it exists.
In article <C059E97D.1B3F8%bingbong@spamcop.net>,
Bonge Boo! <bingbong@spamcop.net> wrote:
On 5/4/06 19:08, in article 1hdc4zx.12494vv2nwqs4N%jim@magrathea.plus.com, "Jim" <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
The dual-booting method is going to be great for gamers, as Windows will run at 100% of its speed. I'd guess that even VPC or Virtualisation will have _some_ impact on performance, making it less attractive to gamers. Dual booting solves this at the expense of not being able to run stuff simulaneously.
Bummer for the Mac-porters though.
I predict Mac game development is about to stop. About yesterday.
Nah. Sure, some people are willing to reboot their mac to play a game,
and put up with a few gigs of lost disk space, but I submit that most
are not. That space (and $300 windows cost) is more likely to be paid
by the pro crowd with one or two killer apps that they cannot leave
behind.
Scott
Tim Gowen <tim@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Perhaps I should clarify and sound like less of a troll. Why would
Apple want to legitimise this?
Partly because Apple are a _hardware_ company first and foremost.
Anything that sells more Macs is good for them.
Besides - if I were a software developer then there's now only one
machine I'd need to buy.
The dual-booting method is going to be great for gamers, as Windows will
run at 100% of its speed. I'd guess that even VPC or Virtualisation will
have _some_ impact on performance, making it less attractive to gamers.
Dual booting solves this at the expense of not being able to run stuff simulaneously.
Jim
Would you like to hazard a guess at the demographics of who watches TV coverage of: 1) Opera, 2) Big Brother?
I would, although it would just be a guess. I don't see the relevance though?
or ultimately 'If something has a value to people, why can't it manage
to be self supporting'?
Education
The National Health Service,
Anbulance Service
Police
Fire Brigade
Citizens Advice Bureau
Relate
Commuter Rail Services
I was talking about culture, entertainment or arts, not services.
or ultimately 'If something has a value to people, why can't it manage to be self supporting'?
Formula 1 Racing
Is that not self supporting??
Ultimately dismantling any opportunity for art or culture to flourish in the future ensuring future generations will have "watch cruddy American sitcoms" as the their sole exposure to anything even resembling art?
Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or opera - they should self support if they are to be of any value to anyone.
So Theatre and Opera are of no educational value?
Like most things, they may have some educational value, but they are not education. They are arts.
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid
an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
There is certainly a difference between attending a live event and just watching it on TV. One that people are willing to pay an awful lot of money to experience.
Clearly not, or we wouldn't have to subsidise it.
In article <afe0cc134e%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
In message <2006040711413023810-jerome@odonohoecom>
Jerome O'Donohoe <jerome@odonohoe.com> wrote:
On 2006-04-07 10:59:20 +0100, Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> said:
There is certainly a difference between attending a live event and just watching it on TV. One that people are willing to pay an awful lot of money to experience.
*looks sadly at Madonna tickets just purchased*
God you are sad!
At least he isn't expecting anyone else to pay for his entertainment!
In article <C05BE697.1B7C6%bingbong@spamcop.net>, bingbong@spamcop.net says...
On 7/4/06 08:08, in article 1hdezi6.wlyw33y6ezlgN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk,
"Woody" <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits >>>> that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage
them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an >>>> giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid
an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
Its not more valid, but it is more diverse. Government funding promotes
diversity. Which is good.
No it doesn't (although diversity is good).
Take opera for instance - 'most people' [1] don't want opera to be
funded on public money. By and large, most opera is viewed by people who
are more than able to pay for it. The fact that it can't survive without public funding indicates that people don't want it.
Why if I wanted to go to some rock concert do I have to pay? why isn't
that publicly funded? More people want to go to something like that
rather than opera [2], yet noone pays for me to see that, and I have to
pay for a group of people who in the large part have more money than I
will ever have.
Is my life improved because I have kept some rich people off the street?
Maybe if culture was so important to people, they could spend the money
they throw at unpopular arty plays and opera that noone wants, and put
it into getting groups of bored teenagers who hang around on street
corners into the arts, performing etc. I know you can't get them all interested but if you manage to get 1 in 10 you have directly improved culture more than you will ever do with a funded opera.
However - this is all rather irrelevant when the real point is that the
BBC licence fee is an outdated concept that I wish would be stopped.
In message <MPG.1ea0567da8edd1349899f0@192.168.254.11>
Woody <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
Would you like to hazard a guess at the demographics of who watches TV coverage of: 1) Opera, 2) Big Brother?
I would, although it would just be a guess. I don't see the relevance though?
Just wondering which minorities you think is attracted to which programme.
<snip/>or ultimately 'If something has a value to people, why can't it manage to be self supporting'?
Education
Commuter Rail Services
I was talking about culture, entertainment or arts, not services.
or ultimately 'If something has a value to people, why can't it manage to be self supporting'?
All the above have value to people but are definitely not self-supporting.
Formula 1 Racing
Is that not self supporting??
On the basis of bums on seats, not by a million miles.
Ultimately dismantling any opportunity for art or culture to flourish in the future ensuring future generations will have "watch cruddy American sitcoms" as the their sole exposure to anything even resembling art?
Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or opera - they should self support if they are to be of any value to anyone.
So Theatre and Opera are of no educational value?
Like most things, they may have some educational value, but they are not education. They are arts.
Physics, biology and chemistry have some educational value,
but they are not education. They are science.
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid
an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
There is certainly a difference between attending a live event and just watching it on TV. One that people are willing to pay an awful lot of money to experience.
Clearly not, or we wouldn't have to subsidise it.
Clearly there is not a difference or clearly people aren't willing
to pay a lot of money?
In message <MPG.1ea05e1ce0fa9b8e9899f3@192.168.254.11>
Woody <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
In article <afe0cc134e%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
In message <2006040711413023810-jerome@odonohoecom>
Jerome O'Donohoe <jerome@odonohoe.com> wrote:
On 2006-04-07 10:59:20 +0100, Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> >>>> said:
There is certainly a difference between attending a live event and just >>>>> watching it on TV. One that people are willing to pay an awful lot of >>>>> money to experience.
*looks sadly at Madonna tickets just purchased*
God you are sad!
At least he isn't expecting anyone else to pay for his entertainment!
Where is the concert taking place? A council subsidised venue perhaps?
And once again I am talking about culture, entertainment or arts, not services.
In article <1558d6134e%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk says...[snip]
Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural
events like plays or Now personally, I believe that we should pay
for libraries and museums and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or opera - they should
self support if they are to be of any value to anyone.
So Theatre and Opera are of no educational value?
Like most things, they may have some educational value, but they are
not education. They are arts.
Physics, biology and chemistry have some educational value, but they are not education. They are science.
Ok, well, if you are going to go out of your way to avoid what is quite
a clear meaning then yes, they are.
However, they hardly fall into the entertainment category either so I
don't quite get what you are getting at.
consdering the size of moden games the size loss of windows etc on the
drive is unlikely to be a issue. and drives are big and cheap today.
2ndly the gaming market, is unlikely to be unduely concered with having
to get a legit version of windows *just* to play games.
roger
In message <MPG.1ea075e57342b749899f7@192.168.254.11>Ahh - ok then, it looked like a pissing competition with semantics to
Woody <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
In article <1558d6134e%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk says...[snip]
Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums and other things that I would put under education. I don't believe that we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or opera - they should self support if they are to be of any value to anyone.
So Theatre and Opera are of no educational value?
Like most things, they may have some educational value, but they are not education. They are arts.
Physics, biology and chemistry have some educational value, but they are not education. They are science.
Ok, well, if you are going to go out of your way to avoid what is quite
a clear meaning then yes, they are.
Yes I am going quite a long way to point up what I regard as a misconception.
Indeed, I find science quite entertaining, but that is not its principleHowever, they hardly fall into the entertainment category either so I don't quite get what you are getting at.
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in education as science, unless you are one of these people who believes that the only purpose of education is to turn out machine fodder for big business. And science can be quite entertaining, never watched the BBC's Christmas lectures?
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in education as science,
I'm afraid premiere was never a serious contender in proper video
post. I work in post production and i've never seen anyone use it
to make a film or tv show.
So what is the state of play? Is it still Avid, or mostly FCP now, or something else?
In article <1hdf7dn.itjarh45bjo2N%pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid>,
pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid (PeterD) wrote:
I'm afraid premiere was never a serious contender in proper video post. >>> I work in post production and i've never seen anyone use it to make a
film or tv show.
So what is the state of play? Is it still Avid, or mostly FCP now, or
something else?
I've seen quite a number of TV shows that have FCP listed in the
credits. (The L Word comes to mind, offhand.)
In article <4bd2e0134e%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
In message <MPG.1ea075e57342b749899f7@192.168.254.11>
Woody <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
However, they hardly fall into the entertainment category either so I don't quite get what you are getting at.
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in education
as science, unless you are one of these people who believes that the only purpose of education is to turn out machine fodder for big business. And science can be quite entertaining, never watched the BBC's Christmas lectures?
Indeed, I find science quite entertaining, but that is not its principle role. Performing arts principle role is entertainment. If people don't
want that entertainment, it doesn't matter how educational it is as
people are not seeing it.
Graeme Wall wrote:
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in education
as science,
Bollocks.
HTH.
I realise that people for whom the pinnacle of achievement is splotting
some paint around or scribbling meandering drivel like to think that
"The Arts" are important. Indeed most of them like to think that "The
Arts" are superior to science. However elevating pastimes to the status
of intellectual achievement is the bizarre habit of the chattering classes.
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are simply drones.
Graeme Wall wrote:
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in education as science,
Bollocks.
HTH.
I realise that people for whom the pinnacle of achievement is splotting
some paint around or scribbling meandering drivel like to think that
"The Arts" are important. Indeed most of them like to think that "The
Arts" are superior to science. However elevating pastimes to the status
of intellectual achievement is the bizarre habit of the chattering classes.
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are simply drones.
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are simply drones.
I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
In article <e161ri$kgp$3@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in education as >>> science,Bollocks.
HTH.
I realise that people for whom the pinnacle of achievement is splotting
some paint around or scribbling meandering drivel like to think that
"The Arts" are important. Indeed most of them like to think that "The
Arts" are superior to science. However elevating pastimes to the status
of intellectual achievement is the bizarre habit of the chattering classes. >>
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are
simply drones.
Are you for real??? :))
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are simply drones.
I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
On 2006-04-07 15:39:55 +0300, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) said:
consdering the size of moden games the size loss of windows etc on the drive is unlikely to be a issue. and drives are big and cheap today.
2ndly the gaming market, is unlikely to be unduely concered with having
to get a legit version of windows *just* to play games.
roger
Coding for OS X is more expensive than coding for windows.
In article <49ndlvFp7fvgU5@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:
On 2006-04-07 15:39:55 +0300, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) said: >>
consdering the size of moden games the size loss of windows etc on the
drive is unlikely to be a issue. and drives are big and cheap today.
2ndly the gaming market, is unlikely to be unduely concered with having
to get a legit version of windows *just* to play games.
roger
Coding for OS X is more expensive than coding for windows.
???
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are simply drones.
I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
On those grounds I take it distilling whisky is more an art than a science :-)
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are
simply drones.
I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
On those grounds I take it distilling whisky is more an art than a
science :-)
To quite a large degree, yes. A lot of things are taken on faith, even
though the principles are well understood.
Besides - as Kato has just pointed out, Da Vinci was an artist first,
and through that a scientist. Science is nothing without imagination.
Graeme Wall wrote:
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in education as science,
Bollocks.
HTH.
I realise that people for whom the pinnacle of achievement is splotting
some paint around or scribbling meandering drivel like to think that
"The Arts" are important. Indeed most of them like to think that "The
Arts" are superior to science. However elevating pastimes to the status
of intellectual achievement is the bizarre habit of the chattering classes.
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are simply drones.
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they areI think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
simply drones.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Jim wrote:
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science
teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world
onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing animals.
Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world onto
the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
On 2006-04-07 22:51:46 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> said:
Jim wrote:
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science
teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing
animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world
onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
My one and only contribution to this thread: <http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>
Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay.
Ian McCall wrote:
On 2006-04-07 22:51:46 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> said:
Jim wrote:
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing
animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world
onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
My one and only contribution to this thread: <http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>
Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay.
There's an easy way to settle it, trial by combat. The artists can bring their sketch pads, paintboxes and notepads, they can even have a week to
get ready. The scientists will bring along everything they have
developed. Should all be over in a few seconds.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that
science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we
_should_ do.
Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world
onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
There's an easy way to settle it, trial by combat. The artists can
bring their sketch pads, paintboxes and notepads, they can even have
a week to get ready. The scientists will bring along everything they
have developed. Should all be over in a few seconds.
On 2006-04-07 22:51:46 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> said:
If the arts students had their way we'd still be in caves making stick
drawings of passing animals.
There's an easy way to settle it, trial by combat.
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in education as >>> science,
Bollocks.
HTH.
I realise that people for whom the pinnacle of achievement is splotting
some paint around or scribbling meandering drivel like to think that
"The Arts" are important. Indeed most of them like to think that "The
Arts" are superior to science. However elevating pastimes to the status
of intellectual achievement is the bizarre habit of the chattering classes. >>
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are
simply drones.
Are you for real??? :))
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are
simply drones.
I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
To quite a large degree, yes. A lot of things are taken on faith, even though the principles are well understood.
When I visited the Glenfiddich distillery I was told how they tried to build a new still exactly the same as an old one they wanted to retire, even down to reproducing the same dents. It didn't work, at least that's what they tell the tourists.
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are >>> simply drones.
I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Hah.
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
Ian McCall wrote:
On 2006-04-07 22:51:46 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> said:
Jim wrote:
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing
animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world
onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
My one and only contribution to this thread: <http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>
Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay.
There's an easy way to settle it, trial by combat. The artists can bring their sketch pads, paintboxes and notepads,
they can even have a week to get ready. The scientists will bring along everything they have developed. Should all be over in a few seconds.
Don't forget "MS Visual Studio" factor which every programmer says it
is ages ahead of others.
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
To quite a large degree, yes. A lot of things are taken on faith, even though the principles are well understood.
When I visited the Glenfiddich distillery I was told how they tried to build a new still exactly the same as an old one they wanted to retire, even down to reproducing the same dents. It didn't work, at least that's what they tell the tourists.
The overall _shape_ of the still is very important as it governs how
much spirit/copper contact there is, reflux etc. But yes, the old "we
make a perfect copy, right down to the dents" line is touristy bollocks.
On 7/4/06 20:15, in article greg-CD298D.15154007042006@news.east.cox.net, "Greg" <greg@nothere.net> wrote:
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in
education as science,
Bollocks.
HTH.
I realise that people for whom the pinnacle of achievement is splotting
some paint around or scribbling meandering drivel like to think that
"The Arts" are important. Indeed most of them like to think that "The
Arts" are superior to science. However elevating pastimes to the status
of intellectual achievement is the bizarre habit of the chattering classes.
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are
simply drones.
Are you for real??? :))
There is a worrying assumption amongst people that somehow "art" and "culture" is superior to science. Some people even seem proud of the fact they don't understand the sciences.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
In message <e16sd9$o1t$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Ian McCall wrote:
On 2006-04-07 22:51:46 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> said:There's an easy way to settle it, trial by combat. The artists can bring
Jim wrote:
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students >>>> had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing >>>> animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>>>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
My one and only contribution to this thread:
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>
Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay.
their sketch pads, paintboxes and notepads,
Oh dear, someone who thinks all artists are painters, sigh.
they can even have a week to get ready. The scientists will bring along
everything they have developed. Should all be over in a few seconds.
The artists will win of course.
Bonge Boo! <bingbong@spamcop.net> wrote:
Hah.He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that scienceI assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are >>>>> simply drones.I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
Nice one.
Hah.He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are >>>>> simply drones.I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
Nice one.
Is that "nice one" in the sense of "utter bollocks"? The arts cannot
show us other worlds, all they can show us is a reflection of the
knowledge of the artist.
There is a worrying assumption amongst people that somehow "art" and "culture" is superior to science. Some people even seem proud of the fact they don't understand the sciences.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
Many many people however cannot intellectually cope with the sciences. I've met a lot of "artistic" scientists but very very few "scientific" artists.
I hit my intellectual wall at post A level mathematics. Just could get my head round the concepts. I've yet to find any "art" that I couldn't intellectually comprehend.
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message <e16sd9$o1t$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Ian McCall wrote:
On 2006-04-07 22:51:46 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> said: >>>There's an easy way to settle it, trial by combat. The artists can bring >> their sketch pads, paintboxes and notepads,
Jim wrote:
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students >>>> had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing >>>> animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world >>>> onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>>>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
My one and only contribution to this thread:
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>
Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay.
Oh dear, someone who thinks all artists are painters, sigh.
they can even have a week to get ready. The scientists will bring along >> everything they have developed. Should all be over in a few seconds.
The artists will win of course.
Oh certainly if you're talking about moral victories. However a moral victory tends to be synonymous with a pyrrhic victory.
Bonge Boo! <bingbong@spamcop.net> wrote:
On 7/4/06 20:15, in article greg-CD298D.15154007042006@news.east.cox.net, "Greg" <greg@nothere.net> wrote:
What I am getting at is that the arts are just as important in
education as science,
Bollocks.
HTH.
I realise that people for whom the pinnacle of achievement is splotting >> some paint around or scribbling meandering drivel like to think that
"The Arts" are important. Indeed most of them like to think that "The
Arts" are superior to science. However elevating pastimes to the status >> of intellectual achievement is the bizarre habit of the chattering
classes.
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are >> simply drones.
Are you for real??? :))
There is a worrying assumption amongst people that somehow "art" and "culture" is superior to science. Some people even seem proud of the fact they don't understand the sciences.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
However, although I can understand how to draw, I still can't do it very well.
I have friends that can draw amazingly and come up with very good
artistic concepts which I can't do. Creation can be learnt - I don't
think creativity can.
Back at work, we recently, we had a design brief for a symposium event.
One or two of the scientists decided they wanted an high science theme
so came up with one and then tried to shoehorn the programme and the
visuals in around the idea. It took one of the more right-brained ones
to say, "Hold on, what's the concept? Right, then you want to say *this*
... and here are some visuals that will multiply that message."
In article <C05D248F.1B996%bingbong@spamcop.net>, Bonge Boo! <bingbong@spamcop.net> wrote:
There is a worrying assumption amongst people that somehow "art" and "culture" is superior to science. Some people even seem proud of the fact they don't understand the sciences.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
Many many people however cannot intellectually cope with the sciences. I've met a lot of "artistic" scientists but very very few "scientific" artists.
I hit my intellectual wall at post A level mathematics. Just could get my head round the concepts. I've yet to find any "art" that I couldn't intellectually comprehend.
It is easy to have a lot of sympathy with your view. C P Snow did. I
bet you could have done a lot better at maths than A levels if the
motivation were still there. I *hate* those "I was no good at
chemistry" blitherers. I translate that as "I'm stupid *and* arrogant",
In article <C05D248F.1B996%bingbong@spamcop.net>, Bonge Boo! <bingbong@spamcop.net> wrote:
There is a worrying assumption amongst people that somehow "art" and "culture" is superior to science. Some people even seem proud of the fact they don't understand the sciences.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
Many many people however cannot intellectually cope with the sciences. I've met a lot of "artistic" scientists but very very few "scientific" artists.
I hit my intellectual wall at post A level mathematics. Just could get my head round the concepts. I've yet to find any "art" that I couldn't intellectually comprehend.
It is easy to have a lot of sympathy with your view. C P Snow did. I
bet you could have done a lot better at maths than A levels if the
motivation were still there. I *hate* those "I was no good at
chemistry" blitherers. I translate that as "I'm stupid *and* arrogant",
Speaking of the Six Part Ricercar, If anyone gets bored with the
twittering classes debate over C P Snow's "Two Cultures", I'd recommend Hofstadter's "Gödel Escher Bach" as a better attack on the art v
science dribbling. No really!
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Hah.I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact thatI think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night. >>> He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
they are simply drones.
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
Nice one.
Is that "nice one" in the sense of "utter bollocks"? The arts cannot
show us other worlds, all they can show us is a reflection of the knowledge of the artist.
I'm not at all surprised that you believe that.
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Is that "nice one" in the sense of "utter bollocks"? The arts cannotNice one.Hah.I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are >>>>>>> simply drones.I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night. >>>>> He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>>>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
show us other worlds, all they can show us is a reflection of the
knowledge of the artist.
I'm not at all surprised that you believe that.
Is that "nice one" in the sense of "utter bollocks"? The arts cannotNice one.Hah.I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that >>>>>>> they are simply drones.I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night. >>>>> He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>>>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
show us other worlds, all they can show us is a reflection of the
knowledge of the artist.
I'm not at all surprised that you believe that.
Prove how it could be anything else, use both sides of the paper.
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Prove how it could be anything else, use both sides of the paper.I'm not at all surprised that you believe that.Is that "nice one" in the sense of "utter bollocks"? The arts cannotNice one.Hah.I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that >>>>>>>>> they are simply drones.I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night. >>>>>>> He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>>>>>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
show us other worlds, all they can show us is a reflection of the
knowledge of the artist.
<shrug> I can't. You, in turn, can't prove otherwise. Art (and its
effects) are not quantifiable, don't obey any particular rules, and
can't be measured on any instrument that I know of.
<shrug> I can't. You, in turn, can't prove otherwise. Art (and its
effects) are not quantifiable, don't obey any particular rules, and
can't be measured on any instrument that I know of.
Otherwise all they can do is to take their knowledge and represent it in
a different form.
All else is mumbo jumbo and if you want to claim that an artist can communicate something which is outside of their own experience then it's
up to you to prove it.
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Otherwise all they can do is to take their knowledge and represent it in
a different form.
Some might say that was (in part, at least) the point.
All else is mumbo jumbo and if you want to claim that an artist can
communicate something which is outside of their own experience then it's
up to you to prove it.
This presupposes that people can only create what they already know.
Were that the case we would never have advanced.
Otherwise all they can do is to take their knowledge and represent it in >> a different form.
Some might say that was (in part, at least) the point.
All else is mumbo jumbo and if you want to claim that an artist can
communicate something which is outside of their own experience then it's >> up to you to prove it.
This presupposes that people can only create what they already know.
Were that the case we would never have advanced.
Yes we advanced, but enough about scientists.
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 18:38:18 +0100, Jim wrote
(in article <1hdhnme.r7clqh5je922N%jim@magrathea.plus.com>):
<shrug> I can't. You, in turn, can't prove otherwise. Art (and its
effects) are not quantifiable, don't obey any particular rules, and
can't be measured on any instrument that I know of.
I'd qualify the original statement about worlds to say that arts can
give a different way of looking at things in this world, rather that
showing other worlds.
Ian
I realise that people for whom the pinnacle of achievement is splotting >>>> some paint around or scribbling meandering drivel like to think that
"The Arts" are important. Indeed most of them like to think that "The
Arts" are superior to science. However elevating pastimes to the status >>>> of intellectual achievement is the bizarre habit of the chattering classes.
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are >>>> simply drones.
Are you for real??? :))
There is a worrying assumption amongst people that somehow "art" and
"culture" is superior to science. Some people even seem proud of the fact
they don't understand the sciences.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance,
whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
However, although I can understand how to draw, I still can't do it very well.
I have friends that can draw amazingly and come up with very good
artistic concepts which I can't do. Creation can be learnt - I don't
think creativity can.
There is a worrying assumption amongst people that somehow "art" and
"culture" is superior to science. Some people even seem proud of the fact
they don't understand the sciences.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance,
whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
Many many people however cannot intellectually cope with the sciences. I've >> met a lot of "artistic" scientists but very very few "scientific" artists. >>
I hit my intellectual wall at post A level mathematics. Just could get my
head round the concepts. I've yet to find any "art" that I couldn't
intellectually comprehend.
It is easy to have a lot of sympathy with your view. C P Snow did. I
bet you could have done a lot better at maths than A levels if the
motivation were still there.
<shrug> I can't. You, in turn, can't prove otherwise. Art (and its
effects) are not quantifiable, don't obey any particular rules, and
can't be measured on any instrument that I know of.
I'd qualify the original statement about worlds to say that arts can
give a different way of looking at things in this world, rather that
showing other worlds.
Otherwise all they can do is to take their knowledge and represent it in >>> a different form.
Some might say that was (in part, at least) the point.
All else is mumbo jumbo and if you want to claim that an artist can
communicate something which is outside of their own experience then it's >>> up to you to prove it.
This presupposes that people can only create what they already know.
Were that the case we would never have advanced.
Yes we advanced, but enough about scientists.
Played Myst?
ever seen any sci-fi/fantasy then?
Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
It is easy to have a lot of sympathy with your view. C P Snow did. I
bet you could have done a lot better at maths than A levels if the >>motivation were still there. I *hate* those "I was no good at
chemistry" blitherers. I translate that as "I'm stupid *and* arrogant",
Yes, and then there was/is the whole 'Northern Chemists' thing I
remember from O*ford. Arts was posher than science or something. Pure snobbery.
But to agree with what Woody said in his follow-up, the
science teachers at school mostly did not help, in my experience. They
may have known their stuff, perhaps, but some of them were total freaks,
and the abiding memories from their classes were of large amounts of dandruff, and bizarre thrusting motions against the corner of the lab
bench, than Boyle's Law or cathode ray oscilloscopes.
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <1hddzzp.yz4ziu598x6jN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk>, usenet@alienrat.co.uk says...
Turn the nation? As you say yourself, the nation already is a cultural wasteland. People would much prefer to sit indoors watching big brother than going to any of those things.
So your theory is that if a country fails the bulk of its citizens by failing to educate them properly -- allowing them to grow up to be uncultured self centered idiots who primarily want to watch TV.
Then the country should compound its failure by then disregarding the segment of the population who managed to reach some level of cultural enlightenment, artistic appreciation, and what not -- to cater to the tv watching slobs?
No, My argument is purely:
Is it fair to make a nation of TV watching slobs pay for something that
is no use to them at all to cater to a minority?
or ultimately 'If something has a value to people, why can't it manage
to be self supporting'?
Ultimately dismantling any opportunity for art or culture to flourish in the future ensuring future generations will have "watch cruddy American sitcoms" as the their sole exposure to anything even resembling art?
Now personally, I believe that we should pay for libraries and museums
and other things that I would put under education.
I don't believe that
we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or
opera - they should self support if they are to be of any value to
anyone.
I would rather see more money convincing this bulk of tv watching twits that there are better things to do with their lives, trying to engage
them in what culture is being produced instead of just rolling over an giving in to their desire to veg out in front of the TV.
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid
an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
In article <1hdezi6.wlyw33y6ezlgN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk>, usenet@alienrat.co.uk says...
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <1hddzzp.yz4ziu598x6jN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk>, usenet@alienrat.co.uk says...
Turn the nation? As you say yourself, the nation already is a cultural wasteland. People would much prefer to sit indoors watching big brother than going to any of those things.
So your theory is that if a country fails the bulk of its citizens by failing to educate them properly -- allowing them to grow up to be uncultured self centered idiots who primarily want to watch TV.
Then the country should compound its failure by then disregarding the segment of the population who managed to reach some level of cultural enlightenment, artistic appreciation, and what not -- to cater to the tv watching slobs?
No, My argument is purely:
Is it fair to make a nation of TV watching slobs pay for something that
is no use to them at all to cater to a minority?
The majority of TV watching slobs probably won't ever use the road that
leads to your house. Its no use to them at all. Should the they have to
help pay for its maintenance?
or ultimately 'If something has a value to people, why can't it manage
to be self supporting'?
Lots of reasons. Read an economics textbook... there are countless
examples of market failures. From securing the nation to police to
education to highway maintenance.
I think in the case of art, it could be self supporting if it managed to
get off the ground.
If more children were taught the value and
appreciation of art they'd probably see a lot more opera's and plays as adults, and consume a lot less spoon-fed television tripe.
I also think a lot of people watch tv because its all they can afford.
Plays and opera's, even publicly funded ones can be expensive to go to.
Art would likely flourish if the population was more prosperous...
I don't believe that
we should pay for specific entertainment/cultural events like plays or opera - they should self support if they are to be of any value to
anyone.
So reading a play by shakespeare is "educational"; its part of the
school curriculum, the printed book is considered a work of literature,
and is available in every library... but somehow actually seeing the
play has no educational value?
This all assumes that going to a play or an opera is somehow more valid
an activity than watching it on telly doesn't it?
/sarcasm
We should just cancel school and have children watch it on TV. Plays and Operas too. And why not just watch the Antiques roadshow instead of
going to a museum. Libaries? Who needs em, just wait for the movie version...
/end sarcasm
There is nothing wrong with TV, but if that is all you do then something
is seriously wrong. Plays aren't more "valid", but they are different,
and "different" is a good thing.
On 8/4/06 18:55, in article 0001HW.C05DB7A60019D6AFF0407530@news.gradwell.net, "Ian Robinson" <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:
<shrug> I can't. You, in turn, can't prove otherwise. Art (and itsI'd qualify the original statement about worlds to say that arts can
effects) are not quantifiable, don't obey any particular rules, and
can't be measured on any instrument that I know of.
give a different way of looking at things in this world, rather that
showing other worlds.
Never seen any sci-fi/fantasy then?
To quite a large degree, yes. A lot of things are taken on faith, even though the principles are well understood.
When I visited the Glenfiddich distillery I was told how they tried to build a new still exactly the same as an old one they wanted to retire, even down to reproducing the same dents. It didn't work, at least that's what they tell the tourists.
On 7/4/06 20:26, in article 1hdfxxo.1avl14m4toz60N%jim@magrathea.plus.com, "Jim" <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are >>> simply drones.
I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Hah.
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
they can even have a week to get ready. The scientists will bring
along everything they have developed. Should all be over in a few seconds.
The artists will win of course.
This presupposes that people can only create what they already
know. Were that the case we would never have advanced.
Yes we advanced, but enough about scientists.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
I hit my intellectual wall at post A level mathematics. Just could
get my head round the concepts. I've yet to find any "art" that I
couldn't intellectually comprehend.
In article <e191hl$17r$3@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
This presupposes that people can only create what they alreadyYes we advanced, but enough about scientists.
know. Were that the case we would never have advanced.
If it weren't for artists like Asimov,
Heinlein,
Clarke,
Smith,
etc.,
inspiring kids to become scientists and engineers when they grew up, we probably would never have reached the moon.
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
The majority of TV watching slobs probably won't ever use the road that leads to your house. Its no use to them at all. Should the they have to help pay for its maintenance?
Well, it is a thing about balance - it is easier to pay for a percentage
of the roads rather than the roads near you, but fine - if you think it
is better that way, I will pay for my roads and they can pay for theirs.
I bet theirs cost more.
or ultimately 'If something has a value to people, why can't it manage
to be self supporting'?
Lots of reasons. Read an economics textbook... there are countless examples of market failures. From securing the nation to police to education to highway maintenance.
But that has nothing to do with entertainment. As I have said many many
times on this thread, this is about entertainment, not services or the
NHS or whatever.
There is nothing wrong with TV, but if that is all you do then something
is seriously wrong. Plays aren't more "valid", but they are different,
and "different" is a good thing.
So if all you did was went to plays, would that be different?
Bonge Boo! wrote:
On 8/4/06 18:55, in article 0001HW.C05DB7A60019D6AFF0407530@news.gradwell.net, "Ian Robinson" <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:
<shrug> I can't. You, in turn, can't prove otherwise. Art (and itsI'd qualify the original statement about worlds to say that arts can
effects) are not quantifiable, don't obey any particular rules, and
can't be measured on any instrument that I know of.
give a different way of looking at things in this world, rather that
showing other worlds.
Never seen any sci-fi/fantasy then?
Yes, if you think that anything depicted in science fiction is about
other worlds, then you need your bumps feeling. All of the science
fiction on the TV is either Robin Hood or the Lone Ranger in different coloured tights. It doesn't matter where the scene is set, put the
people in plain clothes, remove the pasties from their foreheads, strip
out a McGuffin or two and you have exactly the same mindless fodder as
the 1930s Republic serial westerns.
If you are referring to works of fiction then read again, almost every
one is a Utopia/Dystopia and could be set anywhere on Earth.
The aliens
are simply humans and frequently they are simply simplified humans.
No new worlds, just the one we know seen through the veil of someone
else's prejudices and desires.
In article <1hdhy4d.1dsrxaq1dxouucN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk>, usenet@alienrat.co.uk says...
But that has nothing to do with entertainment. As I have said many many times on this thread, this is about entertainment, not services or the
NHS or whatever.
I'd wager if you could somehow cut half the outright waste you could
double the budget for arts *and* refund the fee you are annoyed about
too, without raising taxes.
So if all you did was went to plays, would that be different?
It would be a definite improvement. (I personally beleive the average
play is 10 orders of magnitude more intelligent and stimulating of
thought than the average television production.)
No new worlds, just the one we know seen through the veil of someone
else's prejudices and desires.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance,
whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
Er, no.
On 9/4/06 02:28, in article
michelle-C14771.18280008042006@news.west.cox.net, "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance,
whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
Er, no.
Justification?
f the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world onto
the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
But looking the other way, there is hardly a facet of the arts that has
not been inspired, informed and even created by science. From pigments
and dyes through chemistry to physics and mathematics, with almost the
entire body of 20th Century Art being inspired by psychology and relativity.
you apparently
don't realise that all good science is actually art, being an
interaction between the aesthetic senses and the physical environment.
The curiousity and intellectual enquiry of the scientist is just another manifestation of the artist's desire to experience and interpret the
world.
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:09:08 +0100, PeterD wrote
(in article <1hdj2rt.1li6dntb3lna5N%pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid>):
you apparently
don't realise that all good science is actually art, being an
interaction between the aesthetic senses and the physical environment.
The curiousity and intellectual enquiry of the scientist is just another manifestation of the artist's desire to experience and interpret the
world.
That may be true for the process of reaching a scientific conclusion
but at the end the science has to agree with the real world. You can't
just make stuff up and leave it at that point.
Science tends to deal more with the objective world, in that I should be
able to produce the same results you do if we do the same science.
Art is more to do with the subjective world, which means we could both
read the same book and have entirely different reactions to it, but your reaction and mine are still part of the real world. So which real world
is the art agreeing or not agreeing with? Does a statue agree or not
agree with the real world?
I don't accept that art creates "other worlds", which was what was
stated previously in this thread.
I suspect people on different sides of this debate see the word "world"
as having different meanings. We can all be part of the "world"
conjured up when we are reading a book, watching a film, listening to
music etc., but it's just an artefact of our consciousness and
imagination.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write,
dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can
be learnt.
Er, no.
Justification?
So is the "scientific" world. It's really only consensus that makes the difference between any artefacts of our consciousness. Most of what I
think I know, I take on authority and that it doesn't directly
contradict my own experience.
If it weren't for artists like Asimov,
You mean the biochemist?
Heinlein,
Physicist.
Clarke,
Mathematician and physicist.
Smith,
Chemical Engineer.
etc.,
inspiring kids to become scientists and engineers when they grew
up, we probably would never have reached the moon.
Yeh right.
If you want examples of artists whose contribution inspired
scientists, I would suggest H G Wells, Ray Bradbury, Salvador Dali, J
S Bach, Robert Silverberg as a start.
But looking the other way, there is hardly a facet of the arts that
has not been inspired, informed and even created by science. From
pigments and dyes through chemistry to physics and mathematics, with
almost the entire body of 20th Century Art being inspired by
psychology and relativity.
I suspect people on different sides of this debate see the word
"world" as having different meanings. We can all be part of the
"world" conjured up when we are reading a book, watching a film,
listening to music etc., but it's just an artefact of our
consciousness and imagination. It's not an "other world".
So there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
There is a synergy between art and science, and arguing about which is better, more useful, or more needed is like arguing about which is more important for us to live: air or water. We need both (and, of course,
other things as well).
So there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
Not in a physical sense, no. I expect we're now in to the realm of semantics, or world of semantics if you like, around the definition of
the word "world".
So there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
Not in a physical sense, no. I expect we're now in to the realm of semantics, or world of semantics if you like, around the definition
of the word "world".
So there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
Not in a physical sense, no. I expect we're now in to the realm of semantics, or world of semantics if you like, around the definition
of the word "world".
What sort of scientist would misuse a word like "semantic" so badly?
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write,
dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can
be learnt.
Er, no.
Justification?
Because it is a talent. Talents can be cultivated and can be developed,
but can't be created where it doesn't exist.
You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is up to you
to justify the claim.
What sort of scientist would misuse a word like "semantic" so badly?
What sort of scientist would misuse a word like "semantic" so badly?
On 7/4/06 20:26, in article 1hdfxxo.1avl14m4toz60N%jim@magrathea.plus.com, "Jim" <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that they are >>> simply drones.
I think you have just made my case for me, thank you and good night.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
Hah.
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
for me, thank you and good night. > He's a very good example of >>someone who doesn't understand that science > teaches us what we >>_can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do. Hah.I assume it makes them feel warm and comfy about the fact that >>>>> they are simply drones. >> I think you have just made my case
Science explains the world to us. The arts show us other worlds.
Nice one.
Is that "nice one" in the sense of "utter bollocks"? The arts cannot
show us other worlds, all they can show us is a reflection of the knowledge of the artist.
I'm not at all surprised that you believe that.
As an aside, during one of the infamous committee meetings I go to, the Annoying Person started droning on about how artists were the most
victimised people in society. A couple of us countered vigorously with
the example of sweatshop workers, but he wasn't having it.
Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
In article <C05D248F.1B996%bingbong@spamcop.net>, Bonge Boo! <bingbong@spamcop.net> wrote:
There is a worrying assumption amongst people that somehow "art" and "culture" is superior to science. Some people even seem proud of the
fact they don't understand the sciences.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
Many many people however cannot intellectually cope with the sciences. I've met a lot of "artistic" scientists but very very few "scientific" artists.
I hit my intellectual wall at post A level mathematics. Just could get
my head round the concepts. I've yet to find any "art" that I couldn't intellectually comprehend.
It is easy to have a lot of sympathy with your view. C P Snow did. I
bet you could have done a lot better at maths than A levels if the motivation were still there. I *hate* those "I was no good at
chemistry" blitherers. I translate that as "I'm stupid *and* arrogant",
I translate that as 'I had a crap teacher'.
On 9/4/06 14:57, in article
michelle-4B7304.06571709042006@news.west.cox.net, "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write,
dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can
be learnt.
Er, no.
Justification?
Because it is a talent. Talents can be cultivated and can be developed, but can't be created where it doesn't exist.
You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is up to you
to justify the claim.
Why do people practice? Because they get better at things. If creativity wasn't something that can be learned, why does anyone go to Art classes?
The idea that somehow "artist talent" is unique amongst all the facets of
the human intellect is just lazy. If that was true, artists would spring up fully formed at birth. They don't. They start of as crap painters, or boring writers, and the more they do the better they get.
Read any good book on the creative professions and it will be full of stuff about how you should be immersing yourself in as much "art" as possibly. Fashion, cinema, writing, TV, dance,etc. Why? To open your mind to new creative possibilities. If creativity can't be learnt, then I suggest we should down all depts as they are obviously peddling snake oil.
The artistic communities really do seem to think that their skills are inherent and sacrosanct. Which is a load of crap in my opinion.
Creativity is a mindset.
What sort of scientist would misuse a word like "semantic" so badly?
You don't know as much as you think you do.
Ian Robinson <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:
So there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
Not in a physical sense, no. I expect we're now in to the realm of semantics, or world of semantics if you like, around the definition of
the word "world".
What sort of scientist would misuse a word like "semantic" so badly?
On the other hand, if you were to say that I'm not as funny as I think I
am that might be a different matter.
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
Ian Robinson <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:
So there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
Not in a physical sense, no. I expect we're now in to the realm of semantics, or world of semantics if you like, around the definition of the word "world".
What sort of scientist would misuse a word like "semantic" so badly?
In this context, what does "semantic" mean if it doesn't mean the
definition of a word? As opposed to syntax, or ontology?
Are you suggesting that Ian's use of 'semantics' is wrong because he's actually talking about worlds, rather than the meaning of the word
"world"?
Unless you insist upon excluding second order beliefs (beliefs about
beliefs) - which would be a fairly arbitrary exlcusion - then it seems
to me that your claim is hard to sustain.
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
f the arts students
had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing
animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world onto
the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
<http://www.californiadanceinstitute.org/>
"an in-school arts education program founded in the belief that the arts
have a unique ability to transform children's lives."
But who the hell cares about transforming lives?
Touchy feely wankers, the lot of them.
In article <0001HW.C05ECC3F000F9069F0386530@news.gradwell.net>,
Ian Robinson <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:
I suspect people on different sides of this debate see the word
"world" as having different meanings. We can all be part of the
"world" conjured up when we are reading a book, watching a film,
listening to music etc., but it's just an artefact of our
consciousness and imagination. It's not an "other world".
So there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
Now, tk = tb - (fb + ub + gb ob)
If you want examples of artists whose contribution inspired
scientists, I would suggest H G Wells, Ray Bradbury, Salvador Dali, J
S Bach, Robert Silverberg as a start.
Some of them too; my list was not all inclusive.
In article <C05E947D.1BA78%bingbong@spamcop.net>,
Bonge Boo! <bingbong@spamcop.net> wrote:
Justification?Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write,Er, no.
dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can
be learnt.
Because it is a talent. Talents can be cultivated and can be developed,
but can't be created where it doesn't exist.
You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is up to you
to justify the claim.
What sort of scientist would misuse a word like "semantic" so badly?
In this context, what does "semantic" mean if it doesn't mean the
definition of a word? As opposed to syntax, or ontology?
Are you suggesting that Ian's use of 'semantics' is wrong because he's actually talking about worlds, rather than the meaning of the word
"world"?
Oh a dance school has an almost unparalleled ability to transform lives. They can turn children in vacuous clothes horses with poor employment prospects in a low wage industry, assist them in getting a drug habit
and progress them into a career in low budget exploitation movies or a career in the "adult entertainment" industry.
Sprinkle liberally with an element of self deceit, and you have people turned from reasonable individuals into vacuous wastes of good oxygen.
Let ob = the total number of all the other beliefs I have which do not^+
count as knowledge.
Now, tk = tb - (fb + ub + gb ob)
On 9/4/06 14:57, in article
michelle-4B7304.06571709042006@news.west.cox.net, "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write,
dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can
be learnt.
Er, no.
Justification?
Because it is a talent. Talents can be cultivated and can be developed, but can't be created where it doesn't exist.
You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is up to you
to justify the claim.
Why do people practice? Because they get better at things. If creativity wasn't something that can be learned, why does anyone go to Art classes?
The idea that somehow "artist talent" is unique amongst all the facets of
the human intellect is just lazy. If that was true, artists would spring up fully formed at birth. They don't. They start of as crap painters, or boring writers, and the more they do the better they get.
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
Oh a dance school has an almost unparalleled ability to transform lives.
They can turn children in vacuous clothes horses with poor employment prospects in a low wage industry, assist them in getting a drug habit
and progress them into a career in low budget exploitation movies or a
career in the "adult entertainment" industry.
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
That's all very well, but is it art?
Michelle Steiner wrote:
In article <e191hl$17r$3@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
This presupposes that people can only create what they alreadyYes we advanced, but enough about scientists.
know. Were that the case we would never have advanced.
If it weren't for artists like Asimov,
You mean the biochemist?
Heinlein,
Physicist.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113Clarke,
Mathematician and physicist.
Smith,
Chemical Engineer.
etc.,
inspiring kids to become scientists and engineers when they grew up, we probably would never have reached the moon.
Yeh right.
If you want examples of artists whose contribution inspired scientists,
I would suggest H G Wells, Ray Bradbury, Salvador Dali, J S Bach, Robert Silverberg as a start.
But looking the other way, there is hardly a facet of the arts that has
not been inspired, informed and even created by science. From pigments
and dyes through chemistry to physics and mathematics, with almost the entire body of 20th Century Art being inspired by psychology and relativity.
Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
That shows there is such a thing as creativity!
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Oh a dance school has an almost unparalleled ability to transform lives.
They can turn children in vacuous clothes horses with poor employment
prospects in a low wage industry, assist them in getting a drug habit
and progress them into a career in low budget exploitation movies or a
career in the "adult entertainment" industry.
And your problem with that is?
In article <e19qru$4ia$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Michelle Steiner wrote:
In article <e191hl$17r$3@genet.malloc.co.uk>,You mean the biochemist?
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
If it weren't for artists like Asimov,This presupposes that people can only create what they alreadyYes we advanced, but enough about scientists.
know. Were that the case we would never have advanced.
Heinlein,Physicist.
Wasn't RAH an engineer?
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 19:05:00 +0100, PeterD wrote
(in article <1hdjjny.167wi5ucmun0eN%pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid>):
That's all very well, but is it art?
Depends on how it looks when it has dried.
Woody <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
That shows there is such a thing as creativity!
I just made a rather nice, fragrant curry. Was that a scientific
endeavour or an artistic one?
Wasn't RAH an engineer?
He graduated in mathematics and physics.
You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is up to
you to justify the claim.
Good news, so since creativity cannot be taught we can close down all
these useless art schools that are wasting my tax payments.
If you want examples of artists whose contribution inspired
scientists, I would suggest H G Wells, Ray Bradbury, Salvador
Dali, J S Bach, Robert Silverberg as a start.
Some of them too; my list was not all inclusive.
Or even correct.
I suspect people on different sides of this debate see the word
"world" as having different meanings. We can all be part of the
"world" conjured up when we are reading a book, watching a film,
listening to music etc., but it's just an artefact of our
consciousness and imagination. It's not an "other world".
So there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
Correct.
Oh a dance school has an almost unparalleled ability to transform
lives. They can turn children in vacuous clothes horses with poor
employment prospects in a low wage industry, assist them in getting a
drug habit and progress them into a career in low budget exploitation
movies or a career in the "adult entertainment" industry.
Sprinkle liberally with an element of self deceit, and you have
people turned from reasonable individuals into vacuous wastes of good oxygen.
I'd like to see lives transformed for the better, not ruined.
You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is up to
you to justify the claim.
Why do people practice? Because they get better at things. If
creativity wasn't something that can be learned, why does anyone go
to Art classes?
I just made a rather nice, fragrant curry. Was that a scientific
endeavour or an artistic one?
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
That's all very well, but is it art?
In article <e1bgak$bbp$5@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is up toGood news, so since creativity cannot be taught we can close down all
you to justify the claim.
these useless art schools that are wasting my tax payments.
Those schools do not teach creativity; they teach techniques. They do
not give people talent, but help them develop their innate talent.
In article <e1bpap$cid$2@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
I'd like to see lives transformed for the better, not ruined.
Being an unfeeling automon does not give one a better life.
In article <e1bg05$bbp$2@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Correct.I suspect people on different sides of this debate see the wordSo there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
"world" as having different meanings. We can all be part of the
"world" conjured up when we are reading a book, watching a film,
listening to music etc., but it's just an artefact of our
consciousness and imagination. It's not an "other world".
Wrong.
In article <e1bg4t$bbp$4@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Or even correct.If you want examples of artists whose contribution inspiredSome of them too; my list was not all inclusive.
scientists, I would suggest H G Wells, Ray Bradbury, Salvador
Dali, J S Bach, Robert Silverberg as a start.
Oh, it was correct.
Michelle Steiner wrote:
In article <e1bpap$cid$2@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
I'd like to see lives transformed for the better, not ruined.
Being an unfeeling automon does not give one a better life.
Automon?
I just made a rather nice, fragrant curry. Was that a scientific
endeavour or an artistic one?
Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
That's all very well, but is it art?
Or even correct.If you want examples of artists whose contribution inspiredSome of them too; my list was not all inclusive.
scientists, I would suggest H G Wells, Ray Bradbury, Salvador
Dali, J S Bach, Robert Silverberg as a start.
Oh, it was correct.
Not at all, none of the people you listed was an artist,
As an attempt by you it was possibly the poorest answer that could
have been given, since not one name represented someone trained in
the arts.
Would you like to hazard a guess on whether any of the people you
listed considered themself to be a scientist or an artist?
Correct.I suspect people on different sides of this debate see the wordSo there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
"world" as having different meanings. We can all be part of the
"world" conjured up when we are reading a book, watching a film,
listening to music etc., but it's just an artefact of our
consciousness and imagination. It's not an "other world".
Wrong.
Indeed you were.
You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is upGood news, so since creativity cannot be taught we can close down
to you to justify the claim.
all these useless art schools that are wasting my tax payments.
Those schools do not teach creativity; they teach techniques. They
do not give people talent, but help them develop their innate
talent.
Well they're obviously unnecessary since all these people are
obviously talented to start with and need no training.
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
That's all very well, but is it art?
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
That's all very well, but is it art?
If he vomits in a gallery, yes.
Bella Jones <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
Woody <usenet@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
That shows there is such a thing as creativity!
I just made a rather nice, fragrant curry. Was that a scientific
endeavour or an artistic one?
You won't know until you taste it!
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Michelle Steiner wrote:
In article <e1bpap$cid$2@genet.malloc.co.uk>,Automon?
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
I'd like to see lives transformed for the better, not ruined.Being an unfeeling automon does not give one a better life.
Jamaican robot.
In article <e1bsdh$cui$4@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Indeed you were.Wrong.Correct.I suspect people on different sides of this debate see the wordSo there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
"world" as having different meanings. We can all be part of the
"world" conjured up when we are reading a book, watching a film,
listening to music etc., but it's just an artefact of our
consciousness and imagination. It's not an "other world".
Allow me to clarify; it is you who were wrong in saying that there's no
such thing as the world of imagination.
Just as the color green exists even though a color-blind person can't
see it, the world of imagination exists even though the unimaginative
can't imagine.
In article <e1bshd$cui$5@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Not at all, none of the people you listed was an artist,Oh, it was correct.Or even correct.If you want examples of artists whose contribution inspiredSome of them too; my list was not all inclusive.
scientists, I would suggest H G Wells, Ray Bradbury, Salvador
Dali, J S Bach, Robert Silverberg as a start.
They all were artists; just because they were other things as well
doesn't mean that they weren't artists. Writing is an art.
As an attempt by you it was possibly the poorest answer that could
have been given, since not one name represented someone trained in
the arts.
One doesn't have to be trained in the arts to be an artist. Besides,
some of them were trained, even if not formally trained. Campbell's
notes in his rejection letters to Asimov, for instance, was a form of training.
Would you like to hazard a guess on whether any of the people you
listed considered themself to be a scientist or an artist?
No, because considering how many of them are dead, we couldn't verify anything. Besides which, what they considered themselves to be isn't relevant.
In article <e1bsbo$cui$2@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Well they're obviously unnecessary since all these people areThose schools do not teach creativity; they teach techniques. TheyYou're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is upGood news, so since creativity cannot be taught we can close down
to you to justify the claim.
all these useless art schools that are wasting my tax payments.
do not give people talent, but help them develop their innate
talent.
obviously talented to start with and need no training.
It may be obvious to you, but not to normal people who are able to read
for comprehension.
On 2006-04-07 23:10:18 +0300, Hugh Gibbons <party@myhouse.com> said:
In article <49ndlvFp7fvgU5@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:
On 2006-04-07 15:39:55 +0300, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman)
said:
consdering the size of moden games the size loss of windows etc on the >>> drive is unlikely to be a issue. and drives are big and cheap today.
2ndly the gaming market, is unlikely to be unduely concered with having >>> to get a legit version of windows *just* to play games.
roger
Coding for OS X is more expensive than coding for windows.
???
An average MS C++ coder gets paid less than Cocoa (NeXT) OpenGL/OpenAL
based coder. I think "numbers" is the case, there are lots of them, everywhere.
They all were artists; just because they were other things as well
doesn't mean that they weren't artists. Writing is an art.
So, I'm an artist.
One doesn't have to be trained in the arts to be an artist.
Besides, some of them were trained, even if not formally trained. Campbell's notes in his rejection letters to Asimov, for instance,
was a form of training.
And his PhD in biochemistry, was that training?
Would you like to hazard a guess on whether any of the people you
listed considered themself to be a scientist or an artist?
No, because considering how many of them are dead, we couldn't
verify anything. Besides which, what they considered themselves to
be isn't relevant.
It would be of primary relevance.
Well they're obviously unnecessary since all these people areThose schools do not teach creativity; they teach techniques.You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it isGood news, so since creativity cannot be taught we can close
up to you to justify the claim.
down all these useless art schools that are wasting my tax
payments.
They do not give people talent, but help them develop their
innate talent.
obviously talented to start with and need no training.
It may be obvious to you, but not to normal people who are able to
read for comprehension.
Ah good, descent to insult, you lose.
Just as the color green exists even though a color-blind person
can't see it, the world of imagination exists even though the unimaginative can't imagine.
Umm hmm, can you give me the location of this supposed world? Which
star does it orbit?
In article <e1c16b$dgs$3@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
They all were artists; just because they were other things as wellSo, I'm an artist.
doesn't mean that they weren't artists. Writing is an art.
In this context, "writing" does not mean the mechanical process of
putting words on paper or pixels. It means generating prose and/or
poetry such as that of Shakespeare, Asimov, or even Cartland.
One doesn't have to be trained in the arts to be an artist.And his PhD in biochemistry, was that training?
Besides, some of them were trained, even if not formally trained.
Campbell's notes in his rejection letters to Asimov, for instance,
was a form of training.
Actually, it was education; there is a big difference between the two.
It would be of primary relevance.Would you like to hazard a guess on whether any of the people youNo, because considering how many of them are dead, we couldn't
listed considered themself to be a scientist or an artist?
verify anything. Besides which, what they considered themselves to
be isn't relevant.
What would be of primary relevance? My guesses?
In article <e1c18s$dgs$4@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Ah good, descent to insult, you lose.It may be obvious to you, but not to normal people who are able toWell they're obviously unnecessary since all these people areThose schools do not teach creativity; they teach techniques.You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it isGood news, so since creativity cannot be taught we can close
up to you to justify the claim.
down all these useless art schools that are wasting my tax
payments.
They do not give people talent, but help them develop their
innate talent.
obviously talented to start with and need no training.
read for comprehension.
I merely pointed out that you were not reading for comprehension.
One doesn't have to be trained in the arts to be an artist.And his PhD in biochemistry, was that training?
Besides, some of them were trained, even if not formally trained.
Campbell's notes in his rejection letters to Asimov, for
instance, was a form of training.
Actually, it was education; there is a big difference between the
two.
So now you admit he was educated to be a scientist.
It would be of primary relevance.Would you like to hazard a guess on whether any of the peopleNo, because considering how many of them are dead, we couldn't
you listed considered themself to be a scientist or an artist?
verify anything. Besides which, what they considered themselves
to be isn't relevant.
What would be of primary relevance? My guesses?
Does the word "context" mean anything to you?
In article <e1c7gv$egp$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
So now you admit he was educated to be a scientist.Actually, it was education; there is a big difference between theOne doesn't have to be trained in the arts to be an artist.And his PhD in biochemistry, was that training?
Besides, some of them were trained, even if not formally trained.
Campbell's notes in his rejection letters to Asimov, for
instance, was a form of training.
two.
I never said that he wasn't. Why do you imply that I said he wasn't?
Does the word "context" mean anything to you?What would be of primary relevance? My guesses?It would be of primary relevance.Would you like to hazard a guess on whether any of the peopleNo, because considering how many of them are dead, we couldn't
you listed considered themself to be a scientist or an artist?
verify anything. Besides which, what they considered themselves
to be isn't relevant.
Yes, but you apparently don't understand the meaning of "relevance."
Nice evasion of my question, though.
Scientists haven't developed much of anything. Engineers did the >development. So let the scientists bring their microscopes (whoops, >engineers designed and built them) and natural ores.
But that begs the question; intelligent people, whether they be artists, >scientists, or engineers, would not propose something as idiotic as
trial by combat in the first place.
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write, dance, >whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can be learnt.
Many many people however cannot intellectually cope with the sciences. I've >met a lot of "artistic" scientists but very very few "scientific" artists.
I hit my intellectual wall at post A level mathematics. Just could get my >head round the concepts. I've yet to find any "art" that I couldn't >intellectually comprehend.
Don't forget "MS Visual Studio" factor which every programmer says it
is ages ahead of others.
Not every programmer says that. A lot of them say that because they've
never used anything else. It -is- a fine IDE and a damned good product,
but it's not unassailable.
The majority of TV watching slobs probably won't ever use the road that >leads to your house. Its no use to them at all. Should the they have to
help pay for its maintenance?
I think in the case of art, it could be self supporting if it managed to
get off the ground. If more children were taught the value and
appreciation of art they'd probably see a lot more opera's and plays as >adults, and consume a lot less spoon-fed television tripe.
In article <e191hl$17r$3@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
This presupposes that people can only create what they already
know. Were that the case we would never have advanced.
Yes we advanced, but enough about scientists.
If it weren't for artists like Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Smith, etc., >inspiring kids to become scientists and engineers when they grew up, we >probably would never have reached the moon.
In article <e19qru$4ia$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
If it weren't for artists like Asimov,
You mean the biochemist?
Heinlein,
Physicist.
Clarke,
Mathematician and physicist.
Smith,
Chemical Engineer.
They were also artists, and in that capacity they stimulated the
imagination of, and inspired, their readers.
None of them contributed a thing, scientifically; their contributions
were all literary.
Ian Robinson <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:
So there's no such thing as the "world of imagination"?
Not in a physical sense, no. I expect we're now in to the realm of
semantics, or world of semantics if you like, around the definition of
the word "world".
What sort of scientist would misuse a word like "semantic" so badly?
On 9/4/06 14:57, in article
michelle-4B7304.06571709042006@news.west.cox.net, "Michelle Steiner" ><michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
Everyone with sufficient motivation can learn to paint, write,
dance, whatever. There is no intellectual barrier. Creativity can
be learnt.
Er, no.
Justification?
Because it is a talent. Talents can be cultivated and can be developed,
but can't be created where it doesn't exist.
You're the one claiming that creativity can be learned, it is up to you
to justify the claim.
Why do people practice? Because they get better at things. If creativity >wasn't something that can be learned, why does anyone go to Art classes?
The idea that somehow "artist talent" is unique amongst all the facets of
the human intellect is just lazy. If that was true, artists would spring up >fully formed at birth. They don't. They start of as crap painters, or boring >writers, and the more they do the better they get.
PeterD <pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:
What sort of scientist would misuse a word like "semantic" so badly?
In this context, what does "semantic" mean if it doesn't mean the
definition of a word? As opposed to syntax, or ontology?
Are you suggesting that Ian's use of 'semantics' is wrong because he's
actually talking about worlds, rather than the meaning of the word
"world"?
Semantics is about meaning, but it is nothing to do with pointless
quibbles about definitions, or even pointful ones. Confusing the two is
like getting confused about the questions "what is time?" and "what is
the time?"
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Oh a dance school has an almost unparalleled ability to transform lives.
They can turn children in vacuous clothes horses with poor employment
prospects in a low wage industry, assist them in getting a drug habit
and progress them into a career in low budget exploitation movies or a
career in the "adult entertainment" industry.
And your problem with that is?
Nope. Some -- probably most -- writers start out bad and remain so,
and thankfully never get published. And some do seem to spring up fully-formed at a young age. Isaac Asimov, mentioned upthread, is
one example.
None of them contributed a thing, scientifically; their
contributions were all literary.
Hmm. Heinlein is often credited with inventing the water bed; Clarke
is usually credited with inventing the communication satellite.
Dancing, as a technical skill, requires a certain minimum amount of co-ordination and rhythm; don't have that, you can't dance.
On 9/4/06 19:05, in article
1hdjjny.167wi5ucmun0eN%pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid, "PeterD" ><pd.news@dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:
To hell with this thread. I'm off to drink beer until I vomit.
That's all very well, but is it art?
If he vomits in a gallery, yes.
But that begs the question; intelligent people, whether they be
artists, scientists, or engineers, would not propose something as
idiotic as trial by combat in the first place.
You must not know too many engineers. They'd propose it just for an
excuse to build combat machinery :-)
So now you admit he was educated to be a scientist.Actually, it was education; there is a big difference between theOne doesn't have to be trained in the arts to be an artist.And his PhD in biochemistry, was that training?
Besides, some of them were trained, even if not formally
trained.
Campbell's notes in his rejection letters to Asimov, for
instance, was a form of training.
two.
I never said that he wasn't. Why do you imply that I said he
wasn't?
I didn't imply any such thing,
but you have tried to ignore the fact that Asimov was by training, inclination, and education a scientist.
If one asked Asimove what he was, he replied that he was a scientist.
Your attempts at revisionism are pointless.
Does the word "context" mean anything to you?What would be of primary relevance? My guesses?It would be of primary relevance.Would you like to hazard a guess on whether any of the peopleNo, because considering how many of them are dead, we couldn't
you listed considered themself to be a scientist or an artist?
verify anything. Besides which, what they considered
themselves to be isn't relevant.
Yes, but you apparently don't understand the meaning of
"relevance." Nice evasion of my question, though.
<sigh>
I didn't evade your question, the answer to which would have been
obvious if you had bothered to consider context.
In article <MPG.1ea1c370efa81336989f6b@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Or not. Perhaps the subsidized operas and plays are so much crap, appreciated by the majority of those who claim to only because it's the high-class thing to do.
Teaching children that they _should_ like
something seems pretty futile.
In article <w96dnQO9lK1MJaTZnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net says...
In article <MPG.1ea1c370efa81336989f6b@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Or not. Perhaps the subsidized operas and plays are so much crap,
appreciated by the majority of those who claim to only because it's the
high-class thing to do.
No. I disagree.
In article <michelle-CAAD50.18262008042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <e191hl$17r$3@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
This presupposes that people can only create what they already
know. Were that the case we would never have advanced.
Yes we advanced, but enough about scientists.
If it weren't for artists like Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Smith, etc., >inspiring kids to become scientists and engineers when they grew up, we >probably would never have reached the moon.
Sure, but art and literary intellectuals have even less use for
Asimov, Bester, and Clarke than they do for Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow.
In article <MPG.1ea36cc04bc75bb1989f73@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <w96dnQO9lK1MJaTZnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net says...
In article <MPG.1ea1c370efa81336989f6b@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net>,
42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Or not. Perhaps the subsidized operas and plays are so much crap,
appreciated by the majority of those who claim to only because it's the
high-class thing to do.
No. I disagree.
I doubt you can satisfactorily explain to me what's to appreciate in an art form where the story is expected to be known to all beforehand, the
language is literally incomprehensible to most, and the music is literally painful to listen to. And I don't mean rap...
Sci-fi/Fantasy may contain its share of great literature, but it
contains more than its share of complete and utter banal tripe.
In article <wsWdnbybXcBII6TZnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net says...
In article <michelle-CAAD50.18262008042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
In article <e191hl$17r$3@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
This presupposes that people can only create what they already
know. Were that the case we would never have advanced.
Yes we advanced, but enough about scientists.
If it weren't for artists like Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Smith, etc.,
inspiring kids to become scientists and engineers when they grew up, we
probably would never have reached the moon.
Sure, but art and literary intellectuals have even less use for
Asimov, Bester, and Clarke than they do for Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow.
Its true there are some literary snobs who practice disdain for all sci-
fi (pretending all of it is fluff like "Star Wars"), but there are many
more who respect good scifi as the literature they are.
The literary snobs disdained SF before Star Wars was a gleam in
Kuros..err, Lucas's eye. It's not fluff they object to. For some
reason there are a few exceptions, mostly dystopian novels, mostly not marketed as SF, but there's lots of SF (including Asimov, Heinlein,
and Clarke) that gets the disdainful treatment regardless of its
quality. The major non-dystopian exceptions seem to be Ray Bradbury
and Kurt Vonnegut (who is both SF-hating literary snob and SF writer).
On 2006-04-10, Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
The literary snobs disdained SF before Star Wars was a gleam in
Kuros..err, Lucas's eye. It's not fluff they object to. For some
reason there are a few exceptions, mostly dystopian novels, mostly not
marketed as SF, but there's lots of SF (including Asimov, Heinlein,
and Clarke) that gets the disdainful treatment regardless of its
quality. The major non-dystopian exceptions seem to be Ray Bradbury
and Kurt Vonnegut (who is both SF-hating literary snob and SF writer).
What about Philip K. Dick and the recently deceased Stanislaw Lem?
Just curious about where you would place them in the scheme of things.
What about Philip K. Dick and the recently deceased Stanislaw Lem?
Just curious about where you would place them in the scheme of things.
It's where the literati place the work that is important, or rather an important insight into their mental processes or lack thereof.
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
What about Philip K. Dick and the recently deceased Stanislaw Lem?It's where the literati place the work that is important, or rather an
Just curious about where you would place them in the scheme of things.
important insight into their mental processes or lack thereof.
No; the point about both of them is that they are (mostly) huge fun to
read.
Neither has much to do with science itself, and neither has most science fiction, although sometimes it's useful doodling space.
For instance, books like 'Neuromancer' have a techology base, and the 'historical' examples in it are taken straight from the then current
work of Air Force Systems Command but it was purely William Gibson
playing with the ways in which people interacted with technology- he was thinking at that stage mainly of television, not computers- and of
course he was trying to write a good thriller that would sell well. He succeeded brilliantly. But not much, really, to do with science or technology.
It doesn't matter, except in marketing terms, what people call it.
Peter Ceresole wrote:
It doesn't matter, except in marketing terms, what people call it.
I think you're wrong or rather missing something important with your
last comment. For decades those of us who enjoy science fiction have had
to tolerate the sneering of those in the literary establishment who
looked down on the entire genre. Indeed they looked down on any work of fiction that they considered to be written within a genre. The authors
in particular were treated badly by critics and publishers, with Dick
being a case in point. It's clear that his writing stands as a good
example of literature by any standards. In particular "A Scanner Darkly" which outclasses rubbish like "Midnight's Children".
Now that some of the literary establishment have recognised the quality
of his work, they cannot be seen to lose face by liking science fiction,
so the revisionists reclassify it.
In article <K8idnbVc2ddyXaTZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
None of them contributed a thing, scientifically; their
contributions were all literary.
Hmm. Heinlein is often credited with inventing the water bed; Clarke
is usually credited with inventing the communication satellite.
They posited the theories and ideas, but never created them.
[subject line not changed to reflect new topic due to ackowledged
futility]
Rolleston (Nemo@nullsome.net) wrote:
: Scientists are frequently in the habit of positing theories about things they do not create.
: I can't quite see how not creating Jupiter would disqualify someone who posits theories and
: ideas about it from being a scientist.
Oh dear. Does this mean that God must be a scientist!!!??? ;-)
In article <K8idnbVc2ddyXaTZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
None of them contributed a thing, scientifically; theirHmm. Heinlein is often credited with inventing the water bed; Clarke
contributions were all literary.
is usually credited with inventing the communication satellite.
They posited the theories and ideas, but never created them.
In message <e1870f$thq$3@genet.malloc.co.uk>
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message <e16sd9$o1t$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>Oh certainly if you're talking about moral victories. However a moral
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Ian McCall wrote:Oh dear, someone who thinks all artists are painters, sigh.
On 2006-04-07 22:51:46 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> said: >>>>>
Jim wrote:My one and only contribution to this thread:
Graeme Wall <Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:Oh dear, excuse me while I laugh, long and loud. If the arts students >>>>>> had their way we'd still be in caves making stick drawings of passing >>>>>> animals. Put the entire contents of every arts faculty in the world >>>>>> onto the B Ark and no one would notice. Or care.
He's a very good example of someone who doesn't understand that science >>>>>>> teaches us what we _can_ do, art teaches us what we _should_ do.
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?J65152DEC>
Both sides, arts and science, should read this. It is a superb essay. >>>> There's an easy way to settle it, trial by combat. The artists can bring >>>> their sketch pads, paintboxes and notepads,
they can even have a week to get ready. The scientists will bring along >>>> everything they have developed. Should all be over in a few seconds.The artists will win of course.
victory tends to be synonymous with a pyrrhic victory.
I refer you to Archimedes, Leonardo da Vinci et al.
None of them contributed a thing, scientifically; theirHmm. Heinlein is often credited with inventing the water bed;
contributions were all literary.
Clarke is usually credited with inventing the communication
satellite.
They posited the theories and ideas, but never created them.
Ah well, proof if proof were needed that you don't have a clue about science. Are you trying to tell everyone that Hawking, Dawkins,
Einstein, Newton, Gauss, Feynman, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger are
not scientists because their work has been theoretical?
I think you're wrong or rather missing something important with your
last comment. For decades those of us who enjoy science fiction have
had to tolerate the sneering of those in the literary establishment
who looked down on the entire genre.
In article <e1edq8$npc$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Ah well, proof if proof were needed that you don't have a clue aboutThey posited the theories and ideas, but never created them.None of them contributed a thing, scientifically; theirHmm. Heinlein is often credited with inventing the water bed;
contributions were all literary.
Clarke is usually credited with inventing the communication
satellite.
science. Are you trying to tell everyone that Hawking, Dawkins,
Einstein, Newton, Gauss, Feynman, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger are
not scientists because their work has been theoretical?
Are you trying to pretend that I said that Heinlein was not an engineer
and Clarke was not a scientist?
Do you know the difference between a theoretical scientist and an experimental scientist?
Do you know what you're talking about, or do you just like to be argumentative?
Are you trying to pretend that I said that Heinlein was not an
engineer and Clarke was not a scientist?
I'm pointing out that you don't have a clue what a scientist is,
because you made a this lame comment:
"They posited the theories and ideas, but never created them." about Heinlein and Clarke.
Do you know the difference between a theoretical scientist and an experimental scientist?
<yawn> Yes.
Do you have a clue?
Do you know what you're talking about, or do you just like to be argumentative?
Trust me,
I'm a scientist.
In article <e1f4hi$qkb$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Are you trying to pretend that I said that Heinlein was not anI'm pointing out that you don't have a clue what a scientist is,
engineer and Clarke was not a scientist?
because you made a this lame comment:
"They posited the theories and ideas, but never created them." about
Heinlein and Clarke.
Yup; that was to show that they never contributed anything
scientifically; that doesn't mean that they weren't scientists.
Do you know the difference between a theoretical scientist and an<yawn> Yes.
experimental scientist?
You have yet to demonstrate that.
Do you have a clue?
Yup.
Do you know what you're talking about, or do you just like to beTrust me,
argumentative?
No way.
I'm a scientist.
You have yet to demonstrate that. In fact, you have demonstrated just
the opposite; scientists have to have imagination, and you have shown a decided lack of imagination.
Michelle Steiner wrote:
In article <e1f4hi$qkb$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
I'm a scientist.
You have yet to demonstrate that. In fact, you have demonstrated just
the opposite; scientists have to have imagination, and you have shown a decided lack of imagination.
I see, so you're the only person who can say what a scientist is, eh?
and one knob.
I'm a scientist, and looking around I can reliably inform you that I
have two eyes, two ears and one knob. Does that help?
I'm a scientist, and looking around I can reliably inform you that I
have two eyes, two ears and one knob. Does that help?
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:16:30 +0100, Nigel Eastmond wrote
(in article <eastmond.news1-513F57.19195211042006@news.ntli.net>):
and one knob.
Does it go up to 11? Or is it not a volume knob?
Ian
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:16:30 +0100, Nigel Eastmond wrote
(in article <eastmond.news1-513F57.19195211042006@news.ntli.net>):
and one knob.
Does it go up to 11? Or is it not a volume knob?
Ian
Ian. Mine bloody goes up to eleven.
Nigel Eastmond <eastmond.news1@kidneys.mac.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:16:30 +0100, Nigel Eastmond wrote
(in article <eastmond.news1-513F57.19195211042006@news.ntli.net>):
and one knob.
Does it go up to 11? Or is it not a volume knob?
Ian
Ian. Mine bloody goes up to eleven.
Do you have a Henge, or is it just the way your trousers are hanging?
Jim
In article <e1cad3$es9$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
So now you admit he was educated to be a scientist.Actually, it was education; there is a big difference between theOne doesn't have to be trained in the arts to be an artist.And his PhD in biochemistry, was that training?
Besides, some of them were trained, even if not formally
trained.
Campbell's notes in his rejection letters to Asimov, for
instance, was a form of training.
two.
I never said that he wasn't. Why do you imply that I said he
wasn't?
I didn't imply any such thing,
You most certainly did. "So now you admit that..." implies that I had previously asserted the opposite.
but you have tried to ignore the fact that Asimov was by training, inclination, and education a scientist.
And that is the reason he spent the majority of his life, and earning
big bucks by, writing.
If one asked Asimove what he was, he replied that he was a scientist.
Got a citation for that?
Yup; that was to show that they never contributed anything
scientifically; that doesn't mean that they weren't scientists.
So Hawking has, according to you never contributed anything
scientifically?
I agree with you. The literati fawn over certain authors, admiring
their spectacular robes, whilst you and I mutter quietly on the
sidelines that the emperor is in fact naked. But then what about
my favorite author, Italo Calvino? The literati love him too, despite
the fact that one of his books (Cosmicomics) seems suspiciously like
science fiction:-)
I don't know whether I'm a `literato' (I have a degree in English literature, if that helps), but the chief problem I have with science fiction is that,
to be blunt, it's often very poorly written. The characters are frequently one-dimensional and the writing is clunky and formulaic.
I've only read one novel by Calvino, _Se Una Notte..._, which I read in Italian, and I can't say I enjoyed it very much. The writing wasn't bad,
but the whole Kafka-esque oh-so-postmodern premise was just an irritation to me.
I don't know whether I'm a `literato' (I have a degree in English literature, if that helps), but the chief problem I have with science fiction is that,
to be blunt, it's often very poorly written. The characters are frequently one-dimensional and the writing is clunky and formulaic.
Ben Shimmin wrote:
I don't know whether I'm a `literato' (I have a degree in English literature,
if that helps), but the chief problem I have with science fiction is that, >> to be blunt, it's often very poorly written. The characters are frequently >> one-dimensional and the writing is clunky and formulaic.
Sorry were you talking about science fiction,
or Chaucer, Jane Austen, Dickens or Trollope (any of them).
On 2006-04-11, Ben Shimmin <bas@llamaselector.com> wrote:
I don't know whether I'm a `literato' (I have a degree in English literature,
if that helps), but the chief problem I have with science fiction is that, >> to be blunt, it's often very poorly written. The characters are frequently >> one-dimensional and the writing is clunky and formulaic.
But isn't that the chief problem with fiction in general? I
don't deny that the proportion of formulaic dross within the
science fiction genre may be higher than in some other genres,
but if you were to claim that "science fiction" and "great
literature" are mutually exclusive then I would suspect you
of being a literato - except you can't be because you don't
like Calvino:-)
In article <1hdnesw.26l6rz1t8zkzrN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:
Do you have a Henge, or is it just the way your trousers are hanging?
Jim
Jim, I am just trying to divert this philosophy thread into a thread
about beers, knobs, poo and boobs.
[nob]
Do you have a Henge, or is it just the way your trousers are hanging?
Jim
Jim, I am just trying to divert this philosophy thread into a thread
about beers, knobs, poo and boobs.
*Henge*??? That's superb! But hold on, don't you need more than one
knob for a true henge? Do we have Genetically Modified Blokes here?
Ian. Mine bloody goes up to eleven.
Do you have a Henge, or is it just the way your trousers are hanging?
Jim, I am just trying to divert this philosophy thread into a thread
about beers, knobs, poo and boobs.
In article <49o0gsFotggoU3@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:
On 2006-04-07 23:10:18 +0300, Hugh Gibbons <party@myhouse.com> said:
In article <49ndlvFp7fvgU5@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:
On 2006-04-07 15:39:55 +0300, NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) >> said:
consdering the size of moden games the size loss of windows etc on the >>> drive is unlikely to be a issue. and drives are big and cheap today. >>>
2ndly the gaming market, is unlikely to be unduely concered with having >>> to get a legit version of windows *just* to play games.
roger
Coding for OS X is more expensive than coding for windows.
???
An average MS C++ coder gets paid less than Cocoa (NeXT) OpenGL/OpenAL based coder. I think "numbers" is the case, there are lots of them, everywhere.
Because an average Cocoa coder will generate working applications 10
times faster than an average MS C++ coder (or all C++ coder for that matter). That's why they are paid more.
In article <e1edq8$npc$1@genet.malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Ah well, proof if proof were needed that you don't have a clue about science. Are you trying to tell everyone that Hawking, Dawkins,
Einstein, Newton, Gauss, Feynman, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger are
not scientists because their work has been theoretical?
Are you trying to pretend that I said that Heinlein was not an engineer
and Clarke was not a scientist?
In article <0001HW.C061B57C00077A77F0407530@news.gradwell.net>,
Ian Robinson <junk@canicula.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:16:30 +0100, Nigel Eastmond wrote
(in article <eastmond.news1-513F57.19195211042006@news.ntli.net>):
and one knob.
Does it go up to 11? Or is it not a volume knob?
Ian
Ian. Mine bloody goes up to eleven.
Nige.
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 790 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 41:10:28 |
| Calls: | 12,115 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 5,294 |
| D/L today: |
72 files (9,959K bytes) |
| Messages: | 564,934 |