wrongc0ntinent

There is one thing missing from this text so far, the answer to "or what?"

Thanks.

Anyone with definite proof it's real?

Here's a good one: http://pic199.zizaike.com/824/862824.jpg

Yup, https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/write_down_yo...

Afghanistan's poppy production amounted to $4 billion in exports in 2007[0].

[0]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanist...

Your argument only addresses money/economy. Your conclusion is not warranted.

Scale is where the comparison between those two will break down. The first is power-assertive on an small scale (usually individual). The second has no scale, because the driving motivation would be the questioning of any power structure (not necessarily destruction, as it's usually stereotyped). But I'm describing the textbook version here, not everyday interpretations.

(Edit: i was trying to keep this out of quick searches, but to be clear, lib-----ian vs a-----ism ;)

Some degree of socialism has always been a part of the system here, despite it being a dirty word. If you are from an ex-communist country, you might have had the opposite experience, where (before 89) Marx's solutions were gospel, and even if implemented to the letter, you still had the problems of corruption and major outside political influence from the U.S.S.R.. "Socialism" and "communism" are inextricably linked in those parts of Europe, and now toxic ideas because of their painful history.

The speech is partly about degrees and dropping the hypocrisy, not advocating Marxist solutions.

It's not hideous, it's vintage! Not as vintage as trackers though :)

Well aware of midi gear. My point was that implicitly comparing those or drum machines to a "real kit" is apples and oranges, because of the interface.

You're missing a couple of points, the first one being interface. What the machine makes you do to get a rhythm out of it is directly related to the result, just like any other physical instrument. The second, price, is only important because software, especially free, was not a choice. Adjusted for inflation, $250 in 1980 was probably $600-$700, if not more. There are plenty of drum machines you can get for under $300 nowadays.

Calculated for inflation, the price today would be $600-$700.

I don't think it's about "quiet" - if you meant it literally - the right kind of distraction can be a sort of mental noise cancellation mechanism. Though this tends to work better in solitude, for obvious control reasons.

Most of the comments so far, this one included, evade one aspect of creativity in the sense of unconventional ideas. The risk associated with testing out a truely original hypothesis is often greater than we can actually comprehend even far into the experiment; but failure doesn't mean the hypothesis was incorrect. We often speak of an idea "before its time", etc., - sadly, in retrospect. These are the ideas we drown by not sharing the risk as a group, ideas that could spare us great amounts of everything from discomfort to pain.

I don't think the "negative utility" aspect you bring up is warranted. If "creativity" is a term of differentiation, it only implies unconventionality. There is plenty of room between utilitarian and detrimental.

This was news back in 2011.

This should be translated in a few languages I can think of.

(Or take the world hostage.)

What in this makes it get past spam filters?

No, it's not always hardware, things are shifting over to software switching over the past few years. One way to bypass this completely is to short your microphone input, or make a feedback loop between mic/headphone jack (this hurts just thinking about it, but should work.)

Something else to consider for this post and parent. Using photographic techniques to make a painting does not guarantee a photographic "look." If you look at Warhol's traced drawings, the only clue is an even, utilitarian line, he was clearly not interested in copying visual reality (or he gave up on it when he realized it wasn't that easy to do from a projection). As counterpoint to that, you can look at Ingres' drawings, which are a world apart (it's likely he used a camera lucida, judging from the small size of the drawings and type of line). There is ample opportunity for the artist to bridge the "technological" gap with their own effort and ability, and it's likely this would happen to different degrees.

If using unconventional tools is part of your assigning value to artwork/artists or not, is another question.

egypturnash isn't endorsing what you're opposing here.

It's not that easy, for a few of reasons. One is the establishment (no better word for the mixture of subjectivity, entitlement, money, and fashion in the art world). Rewriting art history is frowned upon unless it makes the genius artist look like a greater genius artist. Applying a scientific method doesn't work there.

Another reason proving this is hard is that some artists do have a great ability to reproduce reality (this was really the most common way to measure an artist's ability before photography came along), but the economy of an artist's technique may reproduce some aspects of reality exactly, while other aspects are just suggested or completely ignored, so you'd need complete consistency.

One more reason is that simply seeing a camera obscura image or a similar 2d image may change an artist's technique, they may become aware of things they hadn't considered before (this was the case with linear perspective, look up Brunelleschi's experiment - though nothing as elaborate as a camera obscura). For a camera obscura projection, lighting conditions are very specific, that alone might shift an artist's (mental) focus from being 100% descriptive to being very vague about contours. Basically, you can't "unsee it".

Dutch artists from Vermeer's era are perfect candidates to have used lenses, because they had the technology. If you can find undeniable proof anywhere, it's probably there. Really the more proof adds up, the more ridiculous the naysayers appear. Some natural selection would do this field some good.

"Modern" in the art context has a time period attached to it (20th century), you're looking for "contemporary" most likely.

Hockney's book is great, but for a quick and entertaining look at the theory, there was a (BBC I think) documentary with the same title. Probably on iPlayer and YouTube by now, covers more than just Vermeer (no links since I'm not sure about the copyright status.)

Indeed, the communist party in India is about as militant as they come. You're probably referring to the naxalites[0], they're not shy about targeted violence[1], especially since they're active in a lot of poor, "backward" [2] areas that go ignored by the central government until there is an industrial resource to exploit.

[0] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite%E2%80%93Maoist_insur...

[2] http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-27/news...

Edited to include a reference to "backward" - a term used in official language.

Wolfram is a master at this game. You can't deny the brilliant stuff he's done; throw in new terminology for unoriginal concepts, and it becomes very hard to call a bluff (or a delusion). Edit: or confirm.

Books got me a few jobs.

CEO wants business to survive. They didn't get it right, ran out of time. The potential is still there, it just won't be this model.