Whats the deal with cdrom copy protection?
Deviancy
both wouldn't burn. The burns were successful but when you would try to run
them they'd get the autorun screen but that would be it. I looked around and
found a url that had patches that you have to run in the game before they
will burn properly. I had to move the entire contents of the sims cd to a
directory, then run the patch in that directory. The first few times it
didn't work
Finally it kicked in and the burn went through and it works great.
But heres the thing
We pay 50 dollars for these games, we shouldn't want them to get scratched
so we have to replace them. Some people have more then one computer in
their house. So isn't it our right to make copies for our other machines?
Or do the game companies really think it's fair for us to shell out 50
dollars for each computer we have?
I know it's to prevent software piracy but heres the thing. But it sucks
for the honest guy.
Anywho, the sims rawks. Now my girl and I can play it at the same time. I
know theres a patch file for vampires to but I'm out of cdr's now thanks to
activision and maxis.
Fucknuts
Cass
<mary...@cdsbitemenet.com> wrote:
> We pay 50 dollars for these games, we shouldn't want them to get scratched
> so we have to replace them.
Yeah, this is a legal use for CDR duplication, in most countries.
> Some people have more then one computer in
> their house. So isn't it our right to make copies for our other machines?
Nope.
> Or do the game companies really think it's fair for us to shell out 50
> dollars for each computer we have?
The copyright laws do. It's obnoxious, but there you go.
> I know it's to prevent software piracy but heres the thing. But it sucks
> for the honest guy.
True. One of the nice things about id is that their games all can be
fully installed to the HD without grasping enormous amounts of space,
which means less need for multiple CDs.
aran
>
> Anywho, the sims rawks. Now my girl and I can play it at the same time. I
> know theres a patch file for vampires to but I'm out of cdr's now thanks to
> activision and maxis.
I got burned out on the sims, mostly because I played it for 3 days
straight without sleeping. I had skins of meself dale cooper and
britney spears. We rocked. I had me and brit in a nice lesbian
relationship. We even had a kid, dale was the donor (I assume). My
goal in the sims was to make everyone fuck everyone else. It's too
easy.
--
Aran Grooms
i.D. Entertainment / http://www.idrecords.com
"One is always considered mad when one perfects something that others
cannot grasp."
- Edward D. Wood, Jr.
maggot
Deviancy wrote:
> But heres the thing
>
> We pay 50 dollars for these games, we shouldn't want them to get scratched
> so we have to replace them.
> Some people have more then one computer in
> their house. So isn't it our right to make copies for our other machines?
> Or do the game companies really think it's fair for us to shell out 50
> dollars for each computer we have?
>
> I know it's to prevent software piracy but heres the thing. But it sucks
> for the honest guy.
Not to mention the fact that it hurts the honest guy more than a pirate,
considering that you both have to go through all that effort to make the
copy, but where you stop at one or two, he can press hunnerds of the
guys for export and sale on the 'discount Taiwanese Import' counter at
the Marketpro Trade Show.
>
> Anywho, the sims rawks. Now my girl and I can play it at the same time. I
> know theres a patch file for vampires to but I'm out of cdr's now thanks to
> activision and maxis.
Oh, wait until UCITA passes in every state, and then your games will
have expiration dates built in. Imagine what it would be like if
everyone's copy of Civ II suddenly became "illegal" to play because the
"leases" have been revoked now that ToT is out. That's going to be fun
and exciting.
maggot
Aceldama
news:39A58A56...@monkeybrains.net...
>
> Oh, wait until UCITA passes in every state, and then your games will
> have expiration dates built in. Imagine what it would be like if
> everyone's copy of Civ II suddenly became "illegal" to play because the
> "leases" have been revoked now that ToT is out. That's going to be fun
> and exciting.
I just want to understand what commitment they will have ot make for the new
version to work. Civ II runs fine on my system, but ToT hangs like a dog
begs for bones. Every minute, every hour, and for any reason. So when they
revoke my lease and force me to upgrade, why doesn't UCITA require their
software function?
Aceldama
Satar
installing on different computer violates copyright laws.
If you want me to provide citation that backs my statements, e-mail me.
Regards,
Satar
In article <96713014...@nntpc-01.meganews.com>,
"Deviancy" <mary...@cdsbitemenet.com> wrote:
> After three coasters I found out that Vampire the Masquerade and the
Sims
> both wouldn't burn. The burns were successful but when you would try
to run
> them they'd get the autorun screen but that would be it. I looked
around and
> found a url that had patches that you have to run in the game before
they
> will burn properly. I had to move the entire contents of the sims cd
to a
> directory, then run the patch in that directory. The first few times
it
> didn't work
>
> Finally it kicked in and the burn went through and it works great.
>
> But heres the thing
>
> We pay 50 dollars for these games, we shouldn't want them to get
scratched
> so we have to replace them. Some people have more then one computer
in
> their house. So isn't it our right to make copies for our other
machines?
> Or do the game companies really think it's fair for us to shell out 50
> dollars for each computer we have?
>
> I know it's to prevent software piracy but heres the thing. But it
sucks
> for the honest guy.
>
> Anywho, the sims rawks. Now my girl and I can play it at the same
time. I
> know theres a patch file for vampires to but I'm out of cdr's now
thanks to
> activision and maxis.
>
> Fucknuts
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
maggot
Well it couldn't be because it was written by and for the software
companies. Why else would they include specific provisions to forbid
purchasers from suing the manufacturer for faulty software and binding
contracts that free them of all liability once the user has installed
the product on his system?
maggot
Deviancy
Satar <sata...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o4662$l6k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> You pay 50 dollars for the rights to use the CD. Making copies and
> installing on different computer violates copyright laws.
>
> If you want me to provide citation that backs my statements, e-mail me.
>
cd. My reciept from wal-mart claims it's mine :)
Deviancy
maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> wrote in message
news:39A58A56...@monkeybrains.net...
> Oh, wait until UCITA passes in every state, and then your games will
> have expiration dates built in. Imagine what it would be like if
> everyone's copy of Civ II suddenly became "illegal" to play because the
> "leases" have been revoked now that ToT is out. That's going to be fun
> and exciting.
>
You're telling me you pay 50 dollars for a game and then you can only play
it for so long and then it ceases to function? So you have to go out and buy
it again? So like if you buy the game and then go into a coma for 6 months
you wont get a chance to play?
*Sigh* that won't bloody work, some kids will just find a buttplug for that
to cease it's extinction
Sometimes I favor the bad guys
maggot
Deviancy wrote:
>
> maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> wrote in message
> news:39A58A56...@monkeybrains.net...
> > Oh, wait until UCITA passes in every state, and then your games will
> > have expiration dates built in. Imagine what it would be like if
> > everyone's copy of Civ II suddenly became "illegal" to play because the
> > "leases" have been revoked now that ToT is out. That's going to be fun
> > and exciting.
> >
> Wait a bloody second
>
> You're telling me you pay 50 dollars for a game and then you can only play
> it for so long and then it ceases to function?
Or more specifically your lease will expire and not be renewed once the
newer version of the game is out. It does have the tendency to backfire
on companies though, since you have to lease a program for cheaper than
the sale price, but you can force people to pay over a long period of
time. However, once a competitor has a great product then customers
will choose not to renew their leases which could wipe out your revenue
base in a very short period of time. Nonetheless it will make it
illegal to use an app that you aren't leasing and/or didn't buy straight
from an authorized dealer.
> So you have to go out and buy
> it again? So like if you buy the game and then go into a coma for 6 months
> you wont get a chance to play?
>
> *Sigh* that won't bloody work, some kids will just find a buttplug for that
> to cease it's extinction
Of course it won't work. The problem is that it will be yet another
device to extort money and invade the privacy of customers.
> Sometimes I favor the bad guys
The rebels are always bad guys until they win.
maggot
Deviancy
Daimon Ahnjeel <daimon...@crosswdins.net> wrote in message
news:39A5C38F...@crosswdins.net...
> Yes, THAT CD, NOT copies of it. It's sort of like with commercial
> installations of software - you have to pay again for each liscence of
> the software that you wish to use. Anytime you might have syncronous
> usage of software, you have to pay for the software liscence again. If
> you look closely in your documentation, chances are you'll find a
> software liscence which allows you to use that program, but ONLY on one
> computer at a time.
>
Well I get the pretty box too
Heres the thing
Most games do not say the agreement details on the outside, you must wait
till you purchase it to find out.
So therefore you aren't agreeing to anything since you didn't see it prior
to the sale
Therefore there is no crime being done since you never agreed to it
Yeah, absurd but it worked for me before
Usually you can't return games for something different if they're already
open
My complaint was this
The system requirements had extra footnotes on the paperwork inside
I argued that I didn't agree to these requirements because at the time of
purchase I didn't see them nor could I access them even if I wanted to see
them. Purchase had to be made first.
So therefore, I haven't signed that agreement, nor was I aware of it at the
time of purchase. Therefore how legit can it be?
I'm sure some games say something in little writing somewhere on the box,
but I haven't ever seen it
Anywho, why do they bother?
It's easy to find ways around most kinds of blocking. All it does is cause a
very tiny period of a slowdown.
Deviancy
saint benton of the one-winged dove <ben...@nethescurial.net> wrote in
message news:slrn8qbg9f...@abyss.nethescurial.net...
> May the One shine on us all, even if that was one of
> the most foolish things that we have had the misfortune
> to read.
>
Dude, cut the caffeine
It was a joke
Wal-Mart? Like I'd serioulsy shop there, sheesh. Everyone knows I shop at
Costco
As for the book thing, it would cost more to reproduce the book. If I was
to print out each page I'd have to use 600 pieces of paper on the average
300 page book, unless I was really anal and used both sides which would take
even longer. My printer prints out about 200 pages before it runs dry and a
new cartridge costs 30 dollars.
But heres the thing
Theres used book stores. I sell the book, someone else buys it. This means
the book publisher doesn't get a cut therefore they're losing just as much
money as if it was a copy of the book. The only difference is I'd still have
the original.
Same thing goes for games and music. The difference is the cost to copy
these things is cheaper, far, far cheaper. And the possiblity of mass
copies and piracy become an issue.
I'm not aruging with reality here, I know it's illegal. I'm just saying it
isn't right
Don't mistake my sarcastic words as a lack of reality.
I'm just looking for ways around it. Makes me sleep better at night, not
that I couldn't sleep nicely anyways.
This comes to another point, Don Henley. His argument over napster was that
it hurts his "job".
Now does that make anyone sick? When did making music become a job? does
that worry anyone? I mean if it's a job you rely on doesn't that mean you
are going to produce anything you can to make a buck and not put any
artistic quality in it?
I guess this is what the sex pistols meant by selling out.
saint benton of the one-winged dove
Guess what! It isn't "yours".
Does buying a book entitle you to make copies of the book
and handing them out to your friends and lovers?
There is this thing called a software licence. Perhaps you
should familiarize yourself with such things, rather than
just hitting "I Agree", before you utter such inane
statements as the one above.
Now, I don't give a fig for the legalities, becuase I'm
more than willing to break the law on this matter with
nary a thought, but I do know that it is against the
law.
May the One shine on us all, even if that was one of
the most foolish things that we have had the misfortune
to read.
--
saint benton of the one-winged dove -- ICQ: 32861590
The Blue Citadel: http://www.velvet.net/~benton/
alt.gothic.quotes: http://www.velvet.net/~benton/quotes.html
join the journal cult: http://benton.livejournal.com/
Daimon Ahnjeel
>
> Satar <sata...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8o4662$l6k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > You pay 50 dollars for the rights to use the CD. Making copies and
> > installing on different computer violates copyright laws.
> >
> > If you want me to provide citation that backs my statements, e-mail me.
> >
> No need, it's besides the point. It's just wrong, I paid 50 bucks for that
> cd. My reciept from wal-mart claims it's mine :)
Yes, THAT CD, NOT copies of it. It's sort of like with commercial
installations of software - you have to pay again for each liscence of
the software that you wish to use. Anytime you might have syncronous
usage of software, you have to pay for the software liscence again. If
you look closely in your documentation, chances are you'll find a
software liscence which allows you to use that program, but ONLY on one
computer at a time.
--
Christ "Daimon" Wagner
ICQ UIN: 2436745
Black Tuesday, A Dark New World
http://www.crosswinds.net/~daimonahnjeel/BlackTuesday/
The Ontario Metal Pages
http://www.crosswinds.net/~daimonahnjeel
Subscribe to the Ontario Metal List today!
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ONT-Metal
or
mailto:subscribe...@egroups.com
Cass
<mary...@cdsbitemenet.com> wrote:
> Satar <sata...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8o4662$l6k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > You pay 50 dollars for the rights to use the CD. Making copies and
> > installing on different computer violates copyright laws.
> >
> > If you want me to provide citation that backs my statements, e-mail me.
> >
> No need, it's besides the point. It's just wrong, I paid 50 bucks for that
> cd. My reciept from wal-mart claims it's mine :)
You own the CD. You are free to use it as a coaster or whatever.
It's actually using it that involves copyright law; you see, in order
to get any use out of it, you have to at least copy stuff from the CD
into the computer's RAM. Which is an infringement of copyright.
It's insane.
--
Cass
Cass
<mary...@cdsbitemenet.com> wrote:
> Theres used book stores. I sell the book, someone else buys it. This means
> the book publisher doesn't get a cut therefore they're losing just as much
> money as if it was a copy of the book. The only difference is I'd still have
> the original.
Yup. And resale of computer software without permission from the
copyright holder is specifically illegal in the US. So all those people
selling CDs on eBay are breaking the law.
And you thought the software industry didn't have lobbyists. :)
--
Cass
Cass
<mary...@cdsbitemenet.com> wrote:
> Daimon Ahnjeel <daimon...@crosswdins.net> wrote in message
> news:39A5C38F...@crosswdins.net...
> > Yes, THAT CD, NOT copies of it. It's sort of like with commercial
> > installations of software - you have to pay again for each liscence of
> > the software that you wish to use. Anytime you might have syncronous
> > usage of software, you have to pay for the software liscence again. If
> > you look closely in your documentation, chances are you'll find a
> > software liscence which allows you to use that program, but ONLY on one
> > computer at a time.
> >
> Well I get the pretty box too
>
> Heres the thing
>
> Most games do not say the agreement details on the outside, you must wait
> till you purchase it to find out.
>
> So therefore you aren't agreeing to anything since you didn't see it prior
> to the sale
True.
Except that, usually, in order to use the product, you have to go
through the license agreement.
> Therefore there is no crime being done since you never agreed to it
>
> Yeah, absurd but it worked for me before
>
> Usually you can't return games for something different if they're already
> open
This is the valid point. If you can't return it because you object to
the license agreement, you may be able to ignore the license agreement.
The law on this topic is complex, though, and varies by jurisdiction.
> So therefore, I haven't signed that agreement, nor was I aware of it at the
> time of purchase. Therefore how legit can it be?
Perfectly legit. You can buy a CD of whatever you like, admire its
cover art, and so on, without ever being bound by a license agreement.
It's when you stick the thing into a computer that you need a copyright
license.
The law in this area, however, is insane.
--
Cass
exile
}
}May the One shine on us all, even if that was one of
}the most foolish things that we have had the misfortune
}to read.
Still doing this, aren't you?
Ever heard "Could You Be The One?" by Husker Du?
{{Seeing as I can't seem to find a copy of the lyrics to this song anywhere
I decided I was going to just sort of past a song in here but... I ran across
this "http://www.punkbands.com/lyrics/main.htm" page so I figured you could
just go ahead and imagine it.}}
Nick/Yaruar
> > Satar <sata...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8o4662$l6k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > You pay 50 dollars for the rights to use the CD. Making copies and
> > > installing on different computer violates copyright laws.
> > >
> > > If you want me to provide citation that backs my statements, e-mail me.
> > >
> > No need, it's besides the point. It's just wrong, I paid 50 bucks for that
> > cd. My reciept from wal-mart claims it's mine :)
>
> You own the CD. You are free to use it as a coaster or whatever.
>
> It's actually using it that involves copyright law; you see, in order
> to get any use out of it, you have to at least copy stuff from the CD
> into the computer's RAM. Which is an infringement of copyright.
>
> It's insane.
No, because that's not how copyright law works. There is a concept of
'Fair Use' which means that you can actually do whatever you want to the
thing as long as you only use it once at a time...) That's where the
DVD-CSS case hinges around whetehr breaking the encryption was to do with
copying for piracy, or for the ability to play on a different system
(Linux)
Nick/Yaruar
Dag
Aceldama <acel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ypgp5.65076$rd1.11...@typhoon-news1.southeast.rr.com...
> revoke my lease and force me to upgrade, why doesn't UCITA require
their
> software function?
Because the UCITA and the people trying to pass it couldn't give two
flying fucks about the consumers. I mean what's more important, a big
company with lots of money or some stupid consumer.
Dag
Deviancy
Dag <d...@animagicnet.no> wrote in message
news:8o5hj...@news2.newsguy.com...
They can't really do a lease function anyways, wouldn't one need to sign a
lease agreement at the time of purchase or be warned prior to the lease
agreement on the software?
If so do you think anyone is stupid enough to agree with this? Consumers
can't be this ignorant and with high speed access to the net becoming
mainstream software piracy will only increase.
Deviancy
Cass <redv...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:240820002343287937%redv...@geocities.com...
> And you thought the software industry didn't have lobbyists. :)
>
We have an enemy in our ranks
In some states certain forms of sex are illegal, do you think people really
take it seriously? It's just getting absurd at what we as consumers can do
and not do. I mean a game almost costs me an entire day of work and I work
12 hour days. Mind you wages aren't that great in Oregon, but we don't have
sales tax :). So I do my slave labor for 12 hours and I go and buy a game
and then I play it for a few months, and maybe it falls and gets gouged or
whatnot. The warrant doesn't cover this. So there goes slave labor, right
down the tube.
So I get a burner, I figure I can burn myself a backup copy, a cdr is what
1.50 on average? I go to burn a copy and make three coasters because some
silly protection shit. I finally bypass that and make a copy but I'm told
this is illegal? Thats good and sweet but who's ass is really getting kicked
in? Mine or the software developer?
The nice thing for the developer to do is once the consumer buys the product
he can then purchase additional copies for maybe 5 dollars. But this will
never happen.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> This comes to another point, Don Henley. His argument over napster was that
> it hurts his "job".
> Now does that make anyone sick? When did making music become a job? does
> that worry anyone? I mean if it's a job you rely on doesn't that mean you
> are going to produce anything you can to make a buck and not put any
> artistic quality in it?
No, it doesn't.
Just because you happen to depend on something for a living, it does not
mean that you are going to say "Oh, screw putting effort into this, I'm
just going to puke out commercial stuff and not give a damn if it's crap."
For the next eight months, I'm going to be relying on a pretty small
savings account and anything I can scrape up for food, rent, laundry,
transportation, utilities, and (oh, beloved pipe dream!) going out. This
does not mean that I'm flipping through fashion magazines so that I can
make cheap copies of the jewelry therein and sell it.
Sidenote: if you're getting less cash, you're probably going to have a
harder time producing a good piece of work, for two reasons. One is Manslow's
heirarchy of needs; to wit, it's damn hard to concentrate on inspiration
when you're worried about where your next meal is coming from (possible,
but hard).
The other (and more problematic) is that producing good work costs money.
An independant, relatively low-quality album can run ten thousand. A
commercial-quality studio album can run a hundred thousand. That's
something that the artist has to pay for, and whatever takes away from an
artist's royalties takes away from the money that they have to pay for
making albums with.
Torrain
--
"It's interesting to note that in the music community, there's no real
stigma attached to producing your own album, but in the writing community,
paying to have your book published is considered a horrible shame."
- Charles de Lint
Dag
Deviancy <mary...@cdsbitemenet.com> wrote in message
news:96721639...@nntpc-01.meganews.com...
> > Because the UCITA and the people trying to pass it couldn't give two
> > flying fucks about the consumers. I mean what's more important, a
big
> > company with lots of money or some stupid consumer.
>
> They can't really do a lease function anyways, wouldn't one need to
sign a
> lease agreement at the time of purchase or be warned prior to the
lease
> agreement on the software?
>
> If so do you think anyone is stupid enough to agree with this?
Consumers
> can't be this ignorant and with high speed access to the net becoming
> mainstream software piracy will only increase.
Salesman to consumer; "Trust me, you don't want to spend $500 for MS
Office on CD. Then you have to install it yourself, which is really
dificult and requires you to manipulate lowlevel filesystems and
registry entries and *more techno-babble*. If you sign up for MS
Office.Net it get's installed on you computer by trained MS technitians
over the Internet. They will also take care of backing up your files
and updating the system for no extra cost! And best of all it's only a
few $ a month."
I don't know, it sounds like a pretty convincing arguement to me.
Dag
the Tenebrous Peter
It seems that it's much easier to burn CDs *after* you run Disk Defrag,
since that puts all of the files associated with the disk you're burning in
one place, enabling the disk drive to recite the info in one long unbroken
string instead of a-m from location 2, n-p from location 1, q-s from
location J, s.5-t from location beta, etc.
Never having done anything with CDR, I am of course passing along
hearsay, but from people whose technical abilities I see demonstrated daily.
the Tenebrous Peter
"Deviancy" <mary...@cdsbitemenet.com> wrote in message
news:96713014...@nntpc-01.meganews.com...
Deviancy
>
> Salesman to consumer; "Trust me, you don't want to spend $500 for MS
> Office on CD. Then you have to install it yourself, which is really
> dificult and requires you to manipulate lowlevel filesystems and
> registry entries and *more techno-babble*. If you sign up for MS
> Office.Net it get's installed on you computer by trained MS technitians
> over the Internet. They will also take care of backing up your files
> and updating the system for no extra cost! And best of all it's only a
> few $ a month."
>
> I don't know, it sounds like a pretty convincing arguement to me.
>
I meant games :P
As for things like Operating systems and whatnot I am for it kind of. I
think we should have the option to buy or lease but with games leasing would
be absurd.
I'm sick of dealing with customers who call in needed help and they're still
using 3.1. It's like "damn boy, no wonder you can't get online or whatnot"
But thats a selfish reason for wanting a lease
So I take it back
We shall free the software
Let it run kids, let it run
Ok, i'm smoking crack
Deviancy
Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8o66i2$5og$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> The other (and more problematic) is that producing good work costs money.
> An independant, relatively low-quality album can run ten thousand. A
> commercial-quality studio album can run a hundred thousand. That's
> something that the artist has to pay for, and whatever takes away from an
> artist's royalties takes away from the money that they have to pay for
> making albums with.
>
Do you truly think piracy hurts a singer like Don Henley enough to where he
even really feels it?
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> The other (and more problematic) is that producing good work costs money.
>> An independant, relatively low-quality album can run ten thousand. A
>> commercial-quality studio album can run a hundred thousand. That's
>> something that the artist has to pay for, and whatever takes away from an
>> artist's royalties takes away from the money that they have to pay for
>> making albums with.
> Do you truly think piracy hurts a singer like Don Henley enough to where he
> even really feels it?
*shrug* I would suspect not, but I don't know. A/y, my comments about
paying the artist for something that you like still stand...
...and last I heard piracy wasn't being restricted to singers who could
easily afford to record high-quality albums.
Torrain
Deviancy
the Tenebrous Peter <tene...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8o6n4k$r14$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Silly technical note that I heard last night:
> It seems that it's much easier to burn CDs *after* you run Disk Defrag,
> since that puts all of the files associated with the disk you're burning
in
> one place, enabling the disk drive to recite the info in one long unbroken
> string instead of a-m from location 2, n-p from location 1, q-s from
> location J, s.5-t from location beta, etc.
> Never having done anything with CDR, I am of course passing along
> hearsay, but from people whose technical abilities I see demonstrated
daily.
>
Except on my situation, it was a matter of protection. Blindread works
wonders and skips over it though. Or theres urls that have patches to fix
this.
As for the defrag, when i had my creative burner i kept getting cdb? errors
and buffer undrun errors, ran a defrag and actually got a cd made.
It was an evil burner that lasted a week before it was shipped back, grr
But defrag does do wonders, less of a chance of a underrun
Deviancy
> ...and last I heard piracy wasn't being restricted to singers who could
> easily afford to record high-quality albums.
>
True, but who has the money to fight piracy? Definatley not the little guys.
Metallica can hire oj's team of lawyers to help them
Christian Death can hire Jacoby and Meyers
Jacoby and Meyers vs. Napster
Would be faster then a Tyson fight
People are always going to buy albums, the moneys there. The industry is
just a greedy monster.
I'm not saying piracy is right, hell I would never buy a pirated game or cd,
I rather have the original even if its more then half the price. But I do
think I have the right to make a copy for my car and house and wherever else
I go. Maybe not a legal right but it's not an issue thats going to make me
lose sleep.
As for software
An example would be windows
Windows ME is due out in a few weeks. Upgrade is like 60 and the full
version is close to 200. Now the upgrade is useless if you're like and and
love fresh reformats every once in awhile. Installing 98 then me over it
each time I reformat would be a pain
Lets say I decided to get a copy, not saying I will. What would make my
concience light?
I look at it this way with software like Windows. Supposedly ME is out
because it's more stable then 98 and faster and smoother and all that. But
heres the thing
Is that saying 98 was a pile of crap and that Microsoft knows this so they
upgrade and then expect those who bought 98 to suffer with a weak product or
be driven to get the new one?
When we pay for something new, as in not used or leased out or whatnot,
aren't we supposed to get a product that actually is stable and works?
Eh, this rant is getting me dizzy
I'm just bringing up points that make me feel better. I'm actually going to
buy ME but thats only because I never bought 98 or 95, they were
pre-installed on my other boxes. So this will be the first MS product I
actually paid for, whee.
Daimon Ahnjeel
> But heres the thing
>
> Theres used book stores. I sell the book, someone else buys it. This means
> the book publisher doesn't get a cut therefore they're losing just as much
> money as if it was a copy of the book. The only difference is I'd still have
> the original.
And that is a HUGE difference - you can no longer use the book
once you've sold it. If you make an illegal copy of a game or
other software, you can still use the copy of the software that
you retain, although, you are not using it legally. And there are
ways to copy a book so that the copy price is reduced, it's called
photocopying.
> This comes to another point, Don Henley. His argument over napster was that
> it hurts his "job".
>
> Now does that make anyone sick? When did making music become a job? does
> that worry anyone? I mean if it's a job you rely on doesn't that mean you
> are going to produce anything you can to make a buck and not put any
> artistic quality in it?
>
> I guess this is what the sex pistols meant by selling out.
No, it does NOT make me sick. Since when should an artist produce
art simply to produce art? Why is the artist not allowed to make a
living from its work? I say work, because producing anything requires
effort to be put into it, this is work. Why should the artist not
receive restitution for this work? If this is that artists sole source
of income, it becomes a job. Many artists and entertainers produce their
work for money, and attempt to live off this money. Does this mean that
actors should receive such pittances for their work that they too are
forced to find other jobs so that they can afford to continue to be an
actor? Don Henley's job is to provide entertainment, in a musical form,
both in recorded audio and live stage show formats. That is what he
does. Deal with it.
Deviancy
> That's a problem with store policy and the packagers, NOT the
> programmers, who are the ones who you are ultimately stealing
> intellectual property from. As I said above, you can ask to view the
> documentation in advance. I'll be willing to bet that the store at which
> you bought the software has an open copy in the back somewhere...
>
Yeah, last I checked Target and Best Buy open the boxes and they have copies
in the back :P
Once the seal is broken on the box it's a no go and sometimes the jewel case
inside is wrapped but usually it is not. This isn't the store it's the
publisher. They put one sticker on the cardboard box and once that seal is
torn its over
Face facts, theres no justifying the consumer being raped by not being
allowed to make personal copies. If you side with the game companies and
the Recording industry thats fine.
Deviancy
Lucid H. Dreaming <dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message > If the
place you work doesn't suck donkey balls then they should still
> be able to use Trumpet Winsock fine :)
We do
But alot of people are switching over to wireless and windows millenium and
whatnot and it's really odd when a 3.1 caller rings. Our typical user can't
even get 98 to work and thats beyond simple. 3.1 is a wee bit more complex.
Daimon Ahnjeel
> > Yes, THAT CD, NOT copies of it. It's sort of like with commercial
> > installations of software - you have to pay again for each liscence of
> > the software that you wish to use. Anytime you might have syncronous
> > usage of software, you have to pay for the software liscence again. If
> > you look closely in your documentation, chances are you'll find a
> > software liscence which allows you to use that program, but ONLY on one
> > computer at a time.
> >
You pay $50 for a box? Man, you've gotta be one of the best gods
damned consumers in North America...
> Heres the thing
>
> Most games do not say the agreement details on the outside, you must wait
> till you purchase it to find out.
>
> So therefore you aren't agreeing to anything since you didn't see it prior
> to the sale
>
> Therefore there is no crime being done since you never agreed to it
>
> Yeah, absurd but it worked for me before
Really? You must have had an extremely gullible judge then. Within
the packaging lies the software agreement, this is true. However, as a
consumer, you can request from the store to examine the contents of
ANYTHING that you purchase. Chances are, in addition, that you had to
agree to the software liscence in one form or another before you
installed or initially ran the program. Plus, you can always RETURN the
bloody software with the packaging around the CD itself unbroken for a
refund to the store of purchase. If your store of purchase refuses to
have a policy like this, or the software does not come with a seal
around the disks, then it is your right as an informed and intelligent
purchaser to not purchase from them, and to complain your case to their
manager and the software company.
> Usually you can't return games for something different if they're already
> open
Then you have the right to ask them to open the box for you,
before you show any money, and ask to see the liscence agreement.
This is to protect both store and software company from people who buy
the software, make a pirate copy, and then return the originals later.
It is this policy of the US Government that caused the MOST awesome
chain of computer stores in Canada, The Software Library, to be shut
down once Free Trade became enacted...
> My complaint was this
>
> The system requirements had extra footnotes on the paperwork inside
>
> I argued that I didn't agree to these requirements because at the time of
> purchase I didn't see them nor could I access them even if I wanted to see
> them. Purchase had to be made first.
That's a problem with store policy and the packagers, NOT the
programmers, who are the ones who you are ultimately stealing
intellectual property from. As I said above, you can ask to view the
documentation in advance. I'll be willing to bet that the store at which
you bought the software has an open copy in the back somewhere...
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>I'm sick of dealing with customers who call in needed help and they're still
>using 3.1. It's like "damn boy, no wonder you can't get online or whatnot"
If the place you work doesn't suck donkey balls then they should still
be able to use Trumpet Winsock fine :)
?
--
Ultrix is like a old, rusty VW Beetle that has been rebuilt to get it into
the Dean's office one too many times by drunken college kids who forgot
some parts. - Inoshiro
http://www.kuro5hin.org <--- Better than /.
Dag
> As for things like Operating systems and whatnot I am for it kind of.
I
> think we should have the option to buy or lease but with games leasing
would
> be absurd.
>
> I'm sick of dealing with customers who call in needed help and they're
still
> using 3.1. It's like "damn boy, no wonder you can't get online or
whatnot"
>
> But thats a selfish reason for wanting a lease
Which, at the end of the day, makes you part of the problem.
Windows 3.1 (or at least 3.11) is a fully functional OS. For many
people there was no need to upgrade to 95/98. Most people need MS Word
and internet access. 3.11 does both of these things. So why did they
upgrade? Becuase everybody said they had to. Why did everybody say
they had to? Because Microsoft told them to.
Dag
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
> No, it does NOT make me sick. Since when should an artist produce
>art simply to produce art? Why is the artist not allowed to make a
>living from its work? I say work, because producing anything requires
>effort to be put into it, this is work. Why should the artist not
>receive restitution for this work? If this is that artists sole source
>of income, it becomes a job. Many artists and entertainers produce their
>work for money, and attempt to live off this money. Does this mean that
>actors should receive such pittances for their work that they too are
>forced to find other jobs so that they can afford to continue to be an
>actor? Don Henley's job is to provide entertainment, in a musical form,
>both in recorded audio and live stage show formats. That is what he
>does. Deal with it.
Because art made for money invariably sucks.
All good art is an attempt by the artist to scratch a personal itch.
They'd do it anyway whether they were getting paid or not so de-commodifying
art is a good way to raise the signal to noise ratio.
HTH HAND
>Christ "Daimon" Wagner
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> ...and last I heard piracy wasn't being restricted to singers who could
>> easily afford to record high-quality albums.
> True, but who has the money to fight piracy? Definatley not the little guys.
> Metallica can hire oj's team of lawyers to help them
> Christian Death can hire Jacoby and Meyers
> Jacoby and Meyers vs. Napster
> Would be faster then a Tyson fight
Agreed.
> People are always going to buy albums, the moneys there. The industry is
> just a greedy monster.
> I'm not saying piracy is right, hell I would never buy a pirated game or cd,
> I rather have the original even if its more then half the price. But I do
> think I have the right to make a copy for my car and house and wherever else
> I go. Maybe not a legal right but it's not an issue thats going to make me
> lose sleep.
Pure curious: why not just take the CD with you if you like it that much?
Torrain
--
"You must have had serious military training."
"Nope. Pet bunny."
-- Sluggy Freelance, April 30, 1998
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> In article <39A706A4...@crosswdins.net>, Daimon Ahnjeel wrote:
>> No, it does NOT make me sick. Since when should an artist produce
>>art simply to produce art? Why is the artist not allowed to make a
>>living from its work? I say work, because producing anything requires
>>effort to be put into it, this is work. Why should the artist not
>>receive restitution for this work? If this is that artists sole source
>>of income, it becomes a job. Many artists and entertainers produce their
>>work for money, and attempt to live off this money. Does this mean that
>>actors should receive such pittances for their work that they too are
>>forced to find other jobs so that they can afford to continue to be an
>>actor? Don Henley's job is to provide entertainment, in a musical form,
>>both in recorded audio and live stage show formats. That is what he
>>does. Deal with it.
> Because art made for money invariably sucks.
How can you tell? Do albums and jewelry and paintings come with little
stickers on them that say "This item was produced solely for commercial
purposes" on them? And if so, where can I get a nifty pair of secret
decoder glasses so that I can see if the artist produced it for money
before I buy it?
Heaven forbid I should actually judge the art on whether or not I like it,
after all.
> All good art is an attempt by the artist to scratch a personal itch.
So is a lot of bad art.
> They'd do it anyway whether they were getting paid or not so de-commodifying
> art is a good way to raise the signal to noise ratio.
Uhm... Except for the little problem that, unless the artist is
independently wealthy, they will not be able to afford to spend all their
time doing something that doesn't pay and will have to get a job to cover
living expenses, thus reducing or eliminating the time they can spend on
creating art.
Or were you planning on supporting everyone who claims that they have
artistic vision?
Torrain
--
"But Pablo, I was at your studio when you finished painting that! How
could it be a forgery?"
"I can fake a Picasso as well as anyone."
Lucid H. Dreaming
>Lucid H. Dreaming (dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au) writes:
>
>> Because art made for money invariably sucks.
>
>How can you tell? Do albums and jewelry and paintings come with little
>stickers on them that say "This item was produced solely for commercial
>purposes" on them? And if so, where can I get a nifty pair of secret
>decoder glasses so that I can see if the artist produced it for money
>before I buy it?
Brittany Spears, Puff Daddy, Nsync vs Mozart, Phillip Glass, John Zord
Coca Cola ads vs Eraser Head, Elephant Man
almost all jewelry vs Tutankamen Burial mask
The Book Of Kells vs Syndicated Penny Romances
Unix vs Windows
gcc vs Visual Basic
Macintosh G4 cube vs PC clone
The Great Pyramids vs an Office Block
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
it just means you have bad taste in art.
Just to drive this point home please share with us an example
of a truly *great* piece of art being produced where the *primary* motivation
was money.
>Heaven forbid I should actually judge the art on whether or not I like it,
>after all.
>
>> All good art is an attempt by the artist to scratch a personal itch.
>
>So is a lot of bad art.
There's too much art in the world for any individual person to appreciate it
all. A reduction in the amount of good art being produced is worth it
if the amount of bad art being produced to a larger extent.
>
>> They'd do it anyway whether they were getting paid or not so de-commodifying
>> art is a good way to raise the signal to noise ratio.
>
>Uhm... Except for the little problem that, unless the artist is
>independently wealthy, they will not be able to afford to spend all their
>time doing something that doesn't pay and will have to get a job to cover
>living expenses, thus reducing or eliminating the time they can spend on
>creating art.
And? Your point is?
>
>Or were you planning on supporting everyone who claims that they have
>artistic vision?
feh I think the point went flying a couple of miles over your head.
>
>Torrain
exile
}I'm just bringing up points that make me feel better. I'm actually going to
}buy ME but thats only because I never bought 98 or 95, they were
}pre-installed on my other boxes. So this will be the first MS product I
}actually paid for, whee.
Just think... you coulda' bought linux and no one would be snickering at you.
{Actually... it's free at www.debian.org, www.corel.com, etc...}
exile
}Deviancy wrote:
}> This comes to another point, Don Henley. His argument over napster was that
}> it hurts his "job".
}>
}> Now does that make anyone sick? When did making music become a job? does
}> that worry anyone? I mean if it's a job you rely on doesn't that mean you
}> are going to produce anything you can to make a buck and not put any
}> artistic quality in it?
}>
}> I guess this is what the sex pistols meant by selling out.
}
} No, it does NOT make me sick. Since when should an artist produce
}art simply to produce art? Why is the artist not allowed to make a
}living from its work? I say work, because producing anything requires
}effort to be put into it, this is work. Why should the artist not
}receive restitution for this work? If this is that artists sole source
}of income, it becomes a job. Many artists and entertainers produce their
}work for money, and attempt to live off this money. Does this mean that
}actors should receive such pittances for their work that they too are
}forced to find other jobs so that they can afford to continue to be an
}actor? Don Henley's job is to provide entertainment, in a musical form,
}both in recorded audio and live stage show formats. That is what he
}does. Deal with it.
I never could figure out why folk can't seem to tell the difference, here.
In order to be an artist one needs to make money at it. It's not possible to
do real quality work as a sideline or avocation... {tho' regardless... even if
it is a hobby the same rules apply... folk sell their painted sweatshirts and
so forth... You'd expect them to give them away?}
Selling out would mean to make art for money. This sucks, is about equivelant
to design, and is plain boring.
Making art for artistic reasons and then figuring out a way to sell it is
entirely valid though.
Money cannot = intent.
{exile}
exile
}Because art made for money invariably sucks.
}
}All good art is an attempt by the artist to scratch a personal itch.
}
}They'd do it anyway whether they were getting paid or not so de-commodifying
}art is a good way to raise the signal to noise ratio.
It's a good way to kill art altogether.
exile
http://www.be.com/products/freebeos/beosdatasheet.html
http://openoffice.org
http://www.debian.org
http://linux.corel.com/ {I think Photopaint's still free and coreldraw's been
ported.}
http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/native/ {Get it before micros~1 eats it with .net
{you still have a few choices left...}}
Lucid H. Dreaming
>In article <slrn8qb9hc....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au>, dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>
>}art is a good way to raise the signal to noise ratio.
>
Look around... it already is... May as well try and resurrect it.
exile
}In article <8o7r86$1g0...@news.21stcentury.net>, exile wrote:
}>In article <slrn8qb9hc....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au>,
} dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
}>
}>}art is a good way to raise the signal to noise ratio.
}>
}
}Look around... it already is... May as well try and resurrect it.
Art's dead?
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> In article <8o7ihb$9f4$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, Frances Kathleen Moffatt wrote:
>>Lucid H. Dreaming (dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au) writes:
>>> Because art made for money invariably sucks.
>>How can you tell? Do albums and jewelry and paintings come with little
>>stickers on them that say "This item was produced solely for commercial
>>purposes" on them? And if so, where can I get a nifty pair of secret
>>decoder glasses so that I can see if the artist produced it for money
>>before I buy it?
> Brittany Spears, Puff Daddy, Nsync vs Mozart, Phillip Glass, John Zord
> Coca Cola ads vs Eraser Head, Elephant Man
> almost all jewelry vs Tutankamen Burial mask
> The Book Of Kells vs Syndicated Penny Romances
> Unix vs Windows
> gcc vs Visual Basic
> Macintosh G4 cube vs PC clone
> The Great Pyramids vs an Office Block
I'm not sure I'd agree that the last four constitute 'art' in either case,
and I'd tend to agree with you on the music and the Kells/Penny Romances.
OTOH, I know people who are going to dimiss both Kells and Penny Romances
as cheap propaganda of the society in which they were created, and I found
Eraserhead to be a badly paced, clanky movie that relied on distorting
physiology for the shock scenes. YMMV, of course, though you don't
seem to realize that mine might as well...
> Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist
> it just means you have bad taste in art.
*raised eyebrow* Oh, this could be interesting. IMHO, art is something
designed to evoke a particular emotional (and possibly intellectual)
response. The measure of art's quality is the degree to which it evokes
that response - and it's worth keeping in mind that the symbols or
language that art uses to evoke it's effect is going to become outdated
sooner or later, and what was once considered 'great art' can be dismissed
as irrelevant because the viewer is not familiar with the symbol set. So
for me, neither Windows nor Unix constiture great art, and an office block
does not even properly fall into the category of art, be it good or bad.
Your definition of art?
> Just to drive this point home please share with us an example
> of a truly *great* piece of art being produced where the *primary* motivation
> was money.
Ishtar Rising, by R.A. Wilson.
>>Heaven forbid I should actually judge the art on whether or not I like it,
>>after all.
>>> All good art is an attempt by the artist to scratch a personal itch.
>>So is a lot of bad art.
> There's too much art in the world for any individual person to appreciate it
> all. A reduction in the amount of good art being produced is worth it
> if the amount of bad art being produced to a larger extent.
Why?
>>> They'd do it anyway whether they were getting paid or not so de-commodifying
>>> art is a good way to raise the signal to noise ratio.
>>Uhm... Except for the little problem that, unless the artist is
>>independently wealthy, they will not be able to afford to spend all their
>>time doing something that doesn't pay and will have to get a job to cover
>>living expenses, thus reducing or eliminating the time they can spend on
>>creating art.
> And? Your point is?
My point is: why not pay an artist for producing art you like, thus
supporting them and allowing them to continue producing what you consider
'good' art, instead of refusing to support any artist and so cutting down
on the amount of art that can be produced?
>>Or were you planning on supporting everyone who claims that they have
>>artistic vision?
> feh I think the point went flying a couple of miles over your head.
Mmmmh, the point that seemed to be coming across was "pop culture is
largely crap, so let's not pay for any art." Didn't seem to quite hold
together.
Torrain
---
Both concepts are operationally meaningless; there is no instrument which,
pointed at a book or painting, will tell how much "black magic" or
"obscenity" is in it. These things are in the nervous system of the observer.
-- R.A. Wilson, "The Illuminati Papers"
Deviancy
> Agreed.
Wow
> Pure curious: why not just take the CD with you if you like it that much?
>
I'm quite anal with my cd's and my car player seems to put fine scratches on
them, same goes for the other computers cdrom. Mind you they still work,
but they are marred
So I put everything on cdr and leave the originals in their nice little case
away from dust and whatnot. They are my master copies that only come out in
dire circumstances. True, my analness makes it to where I have to "break"
the reproduction law but I used to put all of my cds on tape, now it's just
a cd. The industry is still making money from me, tdk, memorex, etc
probably have some deal with the record industry.
Deviancy
exile <ex...@21stcentury.net> wrote in message
news:8o7qm5$1g0...@news.21stcentury.net...\> Just think... you coulda' bought linux and no one would be snickering at
you.
>
Egads man. I hate linux.
It's not hard or anything it's just pathetic. It's the stigma thats
attached to it nowadays. Every computer geek who wants to be "elite" seems
to say he or she adores linux. To me it's just a icky os. When I jumped
from the pathetic 3.1 to 95 I was happy. Lots more eye candy even though
3.1 was stable as hell. 98 wasn't much of a jump but ME is even cuter. All
I do is play games and go online nowadays and maybe a little webpage work.
Windows does all of this so linux is kind of unecessary, besides wouldn't
one still need windows? Most games are direct x driven are they not? and do
any of these new games even run under linux?
Deviancy
> In order to be an artist one needs to make money at it. It's not possible
to
> do real quality work as a sideline or avocation... {tho' regardless...
even if
> it is a hobby the same rules apply... folk sell their painted sweatshirts
and
Think you're missing the point. I didn't say getting money from ones art is
wrong, I said expecting it to make money is wrong. One must find your art
to be worth their hard earned money and mp3's are proving that their art
isn't worth the hard earned money. If those who prefer to download from
napster decide to burn so and so's songs to a cd instead of buying the cd
thats saying they have no respect for the persons art. It's like if I
really liked this painting but I didn't like it enough to pay for it, so I
took a picture of it and enlarged it does that mean I truly respect the
artist? no.
I'll hop on napster and I'll download an assorted mix of music. If
something really catches my ear I'll hop on amazon.com or download more from
that artist then hop on amazon.com and get their cd. If the music is just
good but I can kind of tell I'll either be sick of it by the weeks end or
find out they are a one hit wonder the song will remain in mp3 hell or maybe
burned to a cd. In short what I'm saying is this, if the music isn't going
to be something I'd listen to for quite awhile I won't buy the cd.
I love the Police, I know I'll want to hear "wrapped around your finger" for
years to come so I got the cd. Sure I could have burned it but a cdr
supposedly doesn't have the same life span plus I truly respect the artists
for making such great music that I still adore it and it's a 17 year old
song. I liked a song by the offspring, I downloaded it, I grew weary of it
within months so I deleted it and never bought the album.
This is how movies work to, if I see a trailer and I can tell the movies
going to be good but not great, I'll wait for the rental.
As for games, the only game I see thats worth 50 dollars is a game I'll
enjoy for quite awhile. Like I can still play Metroid, I mean that game is
a dinosaur but it still rawks. Meanwhile you have eye candy like Quake II
that made me sick after three weeks. So one's cdr fodder and the other is
something I'll replace when it wears out.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> Agreed.
> Wow
:)
>> Pure curious: why not just take the CD with you if you like it that much?
> I'm quite anal with my cd's and my car player seems to put fine scratches on
> them, same goes for the other computers cdrom. Mind you they still work,
> but they are marred
Yick. *sigh* My CD-ROM drive has started sounding like it's trying to
eat a cat. Not good for the CDs.
> So I put everything on cdr and leave the originals in their nice little case
> away from dust and whatnot. They are my master copies that only come out in
> dire circumstances. True, my analness makes it to where I have to "break"
> the reproduction law but I used to put all of my cds on tape, now it's just
> a cd. The industry is still making money from me, tdk, memorex, etc
> probably have some deal with the record industry.
I think they have something, yes... I remember that before the beginning
of last year, everyone was picking up CDRs because there was supposedly going
to be legislation that doubled the prices or some such... Can't remember
details, though.
Torrain (suspects this may be largely irrelevant, but is too tired to be sure)
Deviancy
> I think they have something, yes... I remember that before the beginning
> of last year, everyone was picking up CDRs because there was supposedly
going
> to be legislation that doubled the prices or some such... Can't remember
> details, though.
>
A typical tdk high bias blank tape was usually 2, a tdk cdr is about 1.40
Now you know the cd is going to sound better, usually.
I'm making a killer comp now. (I just got my burner two weeks ago, thats why
theres the excitement)
As for games, I'm still going to buy them. I'm on a damn 56.6 modem that
gets 2100cps because of the analog routers and switches and whatnot. A
decent game would take a day to download, probably. I'm an impatient person
so it seems i'll be off to software etc each time a game comes out that I
want.
Deviancy
--nightshade-- <ns_de_cybaxATya...@microsoft.com> wrote in
message
news:ns_de_cybaxATyahooDOTcom__...@news.newsguy.com..
.
> you paid for the others as well. it doesn't come pre-loaded on machines
> for free.
>
Well it's never been the normal version
It's always part of the restore cd and those restore cds are a pain in the
ass
So I have 98 and 3.1
Must get the new os, must, must, must
I like staying current when it comes to os's
maggot
Then why are you still using DOS?
maggot
Deviancy
maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> wrote in message
news:39A867EF...@monkeybrains.net...
Did I?
I use dos at work to do pings, ipconfigs and whatnot, other then that, it's
a dead art in my eyes.
maggot
Deviancy wrote:
>
> maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> wrote in message
> > > So I have 98 and 3.1
> > >
> > > Must get the new os, must, must, must
> > >
> > > I like staying current when it comes to os's
> >
> > Then why are you still using DOS?
> >
> Who says I'm using DOS?
You're using Windows98? You're using DOS. Just because the command
prompt has been crippled doesn't mean you're not using it. Why do you
think they call it Kludge?
maggot
maggot
Frances Kathleen Moffatt wrote:
>
> From my definition, because the building is created to house things rather
> than to express or evoke emotion.
All buildings are crated with this primary motive. The fact that each
separate type of building doesn't look the same is because they are, in
fact, art. If you don't believe that office buildings are art I
recommend you do a quick web search on Bauhaus and skip anything that
references the band.
> Intent and focus do figure into this;
> if you'd said "the architectural work of J. Edgar Whosis" then I'd be more
> open to considering it art, but "office block" puts the emphasis on the
> purely practical function of the building.
Yes you get a very specific image and construct in your mind. If you
only thought of them as functional you would not get a visual or an
emotional reaction. Were I to say "penicillin" however, it doesn't seem
likely that you would have an image spring to mind. One has a presence
that imbues everything around it with its quality, much like
art-specifically minimalism. The other has an effect, and though it has
a physical presence it has little to recommend itself.
> But the question of how inspiring art is must be determined by the
> viewer's involvement as well, which is subjective.
Sure, but that's not necessarily the given you ascribe to it. It is
merely a modern philosophy which competes with the other modern
philosophy that art is solely about the involvement with the creator,
and has no reference to any viewer whatsoever. The fact that millions
consider a mass reproduced urinal with some graffiti to be art pretty
much defies and defines the concept that art's effect has anything to do
with the viewer.
> The artist who has a generic job part-time and gets some income from their
> art part-time is going to be hurt.
Just like every single other person not born to the richest 5 or 10
percent of the population of Earth, yet they still have provided us with
almost the world's entire collection of great art.
> Making art costs money.
Making certain kinds of art costs money. "Spiral Jetty" was enormously
expensive whereas Warhol's Campbell's Soup can cost a few bucks to
produce. The time investment was comparable.
> If you don't
> pay an artist, then they're giving up both time and money,
No, they are willingly giving up time and money for their own
experience. Trust me on this one, artists will go on making incredible
works of art, time and time again, sinking thousands and thousands of
dollars into their art because (and this is the important part) it is
their PASSION! We do it because we thrive on the experience, we cannot
help but create- and damn few of us expect to be subsidized for every
last thing we do, as much as we'd like it.
We aren't giving up *anything* any more than an accountant gives up his
money and time to take a weekend in the Bahamas.
> and trying to
> manage on just the income from the part-time job.
Just like everyone on Earth has to try and manage while doing the things
they love, like playing sports, spending time with their kids, posting
to Usenet, and so on.
> If they need more than
> the part-time job can provide, then they have to work more, and spend less
> time on art (or less time on sleep, take your pick).
Most artists are not so incompetent at budgeting their time as you would
have us believe, and would not make art 40 hours a week even if we
could.
> But paying for art also makes it possible for the artist to produce more
> art.
And should every artist be some kind of assembly line for artistic
creation? Does every artists sit in a studio churning out massive
amounts of gold from wool?
> And if you don't pay for art, then the only entities who can afford
> to produce anything are going to be those who can afford to loose the
> money on it for the PR value.
That's utter nonsense. Do you know *any* of these artists you are
defending? I know hundreds and none of us have stopped producing art on
a regular basis just because we have a dry spell. None of us would
volunteer hundreds of hours every year helping others out, or working
for charities if we did it for money instead of love.
> If you stop paying for songs, Pepsi is still
> making enough to afford to produce them.
Who "produces" these magical non-songs into songs then? Some lawyer, or
ad man? Where will Pepsi find the fella who is going to provide them
with this music? Do you think this mysterious person is then going to
make music for Pepsi and crawl back into their hole and disappear? Do
you know how Ridley Scott made it through the 80's after Blade Runner
flopped? How he made his career before he got into directing movies?
Making TV commercials, most notoriously Apple's 1984 commercial. These
ads were not fantastically conjured up out of some marketing division,
but developed and produced by working artists, who made money by
working, just like everyone else does. Not all of us get to do it in an
artistic way. It took me seven years before I managed to start making
money off of my art, but somehow I kept on producing, and in large
amounts at times. I sunk $5k into a movie I knew would never make money
because I wanted to make it.
Do you honestly think that somehow the world artistic pool is just going
to dry up because artists stop getting paid for their work? Even in
that absurd scenario people will continue to make art, but you aren't
even defending the idea of an artist being paid for their work, which
they almost always are. You are defending the right for them (or more
specifically the people who hired them) to reap huge amounts of revenue
by mass producing something. Ending this practice will have no effect
whatsoever on artists across the world, just the ability of other to
exploit them.
maggot
maggot
alicesar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> No it's not. Look at all of the early painters and composers... they
> were backed by the crown and the church. They worked full time at their
> art. {:} Aside from those who taught of course.}
BS. They all worked very hard for a great deal of their lives before
receiving such backing, yet somehow they managed to make it to the point
where a monarch would want to put them on their payroll. Getting a
patron was a goal to aspire to like getting a label is now, yet it
doesn't stop a great deal of art from occurring, completely outside the
realm of bucketloads of cash.
> }Sure that means that artists won't be able to survive off their art
> )alone but seriously how many great artists were in that situation in first
> place?
> }
> }Name one.
>
> Michaelangelo? How long do you think the Sistene Chapel would have
> taken if he's painted it in his spare time?
That was a work for hire. When did artists being hired for work become
threatened? Did Pope Julius charge admission to see Michelangelo's
work? Does the Vatican charge licensing fees for reproductions?
> How many more would you like me to name?
One great work of art that would have not been done had licensing and
copyright laws not been in place.
> One simply needs the time to perfect their skills and develop their
> voice. One needs to be unencumbered and ummm... unexhausted. Art takes
> one hell of a lot of energy... one needs to be able to maintain that at
> a pretty consistent rate for a fairly long period of time in order to
> do anything really important.
And this needs to be subsidized by who? Now we are not only responsible
for compensating artists for their hard work, but paying for their
training and education? Buying their half-baked work until they get
good enough to produce something that deserves to be called "art?"
maggot
Lucid H. Dreaming
Check the top 40 or your local gallery sometime.
While you're at it. Point me at a fairly recent truely _great_ work
by someone who wasn't at best slowly haemorraging money.
That an artist has to live off their art is a fairly recent notion.
Leonardo da Vinci freelanced as an engineer to survive.
Most of the great composers who weren't court composers of some description
taught music for a living.
The expectation that a persons art can not be truely great unless they are
a professional artist is not only innacurate. It is unfair on the artist.
In a world of corporations. If art is treated like a commodity then
the corporations will dress up their "content" as art and do a better
job selling it than any real artist.
And people swallow it all hook line and sinker...
I was listening on the radio a couple of weeks ago and some stupid chick
was stating how she believed the "artists" in Bardot[1] where getting ripped
off because they weren't getting paid enough money.
Lip syncing is now considered art as long as the person who's doing it
lives off it.
Art's dead.
The only way to resurrect it is to divorce it from the commercialism that
has ruined it.
Sure that means that artists won't be able to survive off their art alone
but seriously how many great artists were in that situation in first place?
Name one.
The entire concept of a professional artist is a convenient fiction
allowing the "content producers" to dominate the field with their
product.
?
[1]A manufactured pop group that was created for a TV show called
pop-stars
Lucid H. Dreaming
>Lucid H. Dreaming (dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au) writes:
>> In article <8o7ihb$9f4$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>
>>, Frances Kathleen Moffatt wrote:
>
>> Brittany Spears, Puff Daddy, Nsync vs Mozart, Phillip Glass, John Zord
>> Coca Cola ads vs Eraser Head, Elephant Man
>> almost all jewelry vs Tutankamen Burial mask
>> The Book Of Kells vs Syndicated Penny Romances
>> Unix vs Windows
>> gcc vs Visual Basic
>> Macintosh G4 cube vs PC clone
>> The Great Pyramids vs an Office Block
>
>and I'd tend to agree with you on the music and the Kells/Penny Romances.
>OTOH, I know people who are going to dimiss both Kells and Penny Romances
>as cheap propaganda of the society in which they were created, and I found
>Eraserhead to be a badly paced, clanky movie that relied on distorting
>physiology for the shock scenes. YMMV, of course, though you don't
>seem to realize that mine might as well...
So you are saying that
Penny Romances have more value than the Book of Kells?
and that a Coca Cola ad has more value than Eraserhead?
Yes or No....
A G4 cube is art because it is the realisation of a vision.
Steve Jobs would probably have forced the release of it even if he thought
it would flop. It's elegant.
>*raised eyebrow* Oh, this could be interesting. IMHO, art is something
>designed to evoke a particular emotional (and possibly intellectual)
>response. The measure of art's quality is the degree to which it evokes
>that response - and it's worth keeping in mind that the symbols or
>language that art uses to evoke it's effect is going to become outdated
>sooner or later, and what was once considered 'great art' can be dismissed
>as irrelevant because the viewer is not familiar with the symbol set. So
>for me, neither Windows nor Unix constiture great art, and an office block
>does not even properly fall into the category of art, be it good or bad.
The sheer elegance of the implementation of unix and gcc make them art
the same way that cathederals are art.
If an office block isn't art then why is brittany spears or puff daddy?
Office blocks tend to expressions of dominance over the landscape.
You've replaced my sliding scale of good to bad with a dualism
of is and isn't.
>
>Your definition of art?
There isn't such a thing as art... art is something things have
just like all objects have mass.
Things which are great art have this attribute in abundance
while mediocre art have it in only small doses.
The act of creation imbues things with art.
Next time you are in the wild take a look at a fern...
The sheer elegance of it's form is art.
>
>> Just to drive this point home please share with us an example
>> of a truly *great* piece of art being produced where the *primary* motivation
>> was money.
>
>Ishtar Rising, by R.A. Wilson.
Having not read it I can't make any definite statements.
But from what I have read of his (the illuminatus trilogy) I can imagine
that it would be very good and sometimes hilariously
funny but wouldn't have the
style or elegance to be truly great.
Do you think R.A. Wilson will be revered down the generations?
Take gregorian chants. Most people don't understand the language they are
sung in or have the musical vocabulary to comprehend _why_ the
notes that are sung were chosen. The progressions are almost alien
but they still inspire feelings of awe and majesty.)
(If anyone wants me to go into a deep discussion of hexachords and their
relevance to modern music now is a good time to ask.)
>> There's too much art in the world for any individual person to appreciate it
>> all. A reduction in the amount of good art being produced is worth it
>> if the amount of bad art being produced to a larger extent.
>
>Why?
Because good just isn't good enough... If it isn't inspiring on every
level it probably isn't worth experiencing.
>
>> And? Your point is?
>
>My point is: why not pay an artist for producing art you like, thus
>supporting them and allowing them to continue producing what you consider
>'good' art, instead of refusing to support any artist and so cutting down
>on the amount of art that can be produced?
I have seen a lot of people say this but even good artists
who go "pro" generaly barely make a living and take part time work to
supplement their income.
So the only people who are realy going to be hurt by the de-commodifying of
art are going to be the people who commodified it in the first place.
>
>Mmmmh, the point that seemed to be coming across was "pop culture is
>largely crap, so let's not pay for any art." Didn't seem to quite hold
>together.
No my point was that paying for art encourages a culture of production
not a culture of art. And this needs to be destroyed by any means
possible before we are all watching "I love that caffinated drink pepsi"
songs on the pepsi chart.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>Egads man. I hate linux.
>
>It's not hard or anything it's just pathetic. It's the stigma thats
>attached to it nowadays. Every computer geek who wants to be "elite" seems
>to say he or she adores linux. To me it's just a icky os. When I jumped
>from the pathetic 3.1 to 95 I was happy. Lots more eye candy even though
>3.1 was stable as hell. 98 wasn't much of a jump but ME is even cuter. All
>I do is play games and go online nowadays and maybe a little webpage work.
>Windows does all of this so linux is kind of unecessary, besides wouldn't
>one still need windows? Most games are direct x driven are they not? and do
>any of these new games even run under linux?
And this is final and obvious proof that america has a severe shortage of
skilled technicians.
It's the equivalent of a master draftsman saying he prefers crayons.
? - Who for the record doesn't particularly like linux and uses BSD
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
>>> Coca Cola ads vs Eraser Head, Elephant Man
>>> almost all jewelry vs Tutankamen Burial mask
>>> The Book Of Kells vs Syndicated Penny Romances
>>> Unix vs Windows
>>> gcc vs Visual Basic
>>> Macintosh G4 cube vs PC clone
>>> The Great Pyramids vs an Office Block
>>I'm not sure I'd agree that the last four constitute 'art' in either case,
>>and I'd tend to agree with you on the music and the Kells/Penny Romances.
>>OTOH, I know people who are going to dimiss both Kells and Penny Romances
>>as cheap propaganda of the society in which they were created, and I found
>>Eraserhead to be a badly paced, clanky movie that relied on distorting
>>physiology for the shock scenes. YMMV, of course, though you don't
>>seem to realize that mine might as well...
> So you are saying that
> Penny Romances have more value than the Book of Kells?
> and that a Coca Cola ad has more value than Eraserhead?
> Yes or No....
I am saying that, _in_my_opinion_, neither Coca Cola ads nor Eraserhead
were something that I'd consider good art. They may be the realization of
the creator's vision, but their presentation did not evoke anything
lasting for me. And I value the Book of Kells above 1c romances, but I am
willing to accept that there are people who will dismiss it as a dirty old
book and find far more meaning in uplifting tales of love, romance, and
human fullfillment. This is not always a thought that cheers me, but I
won't set myself up as an authority who can say that they're wrong.
You follow? I rate Kells about 1c romances and find Eraserhead and Coca
Cola ads irrelevant; that doesn't mean that Kells *is* better than 1c
romances and that Eraserhead and CC ads really *are* irrelevant.
> A G4 cube is art because it is the realisation of a vision.
> Steve Jobs would probably have forced the release of it even if he thought
> it would flop. It's elegant.
>>*raised eyebrow* Oh, this could be interesting. IMHO, art is something
>>designed to evoke a particular emotional (and possibly intellectual)
>>response. The measure of art's quality is the degree to which it evokes
>>that response - and it's worth keeping in mind that the symbols or
>>language that art uses to evoke it's effect is going to become outdated
>>sooner or later, and what was once considered 'great art' can be dismissed
>>as irrelevant because the viewer is not familiar with the symbol set. So
>>for me, neither Windows nor Unix constiture great art, and an office block
>>does not even properly fall into the category of art, be it good or bad.
> The sheer elegance of the implementation of unix and gcc make them art
> the same way that cathederals are art.
> If an office block isn't art then why is brittany spears or puff daddy?
> Office blocks tend to expressions of dominance over the landscape.
From my definition, because the building is created to house things rather
than to express or evoke emotion. Intent and focus do figure into this;
if you'd said "the architectural work of J. Edgar Whosis" then I'd be more
open to considering it art, but "office block" puts the emphasis on the
purely practical function of the building.
> You've replaced my sliding scale of good to bad with a dualism
> of is and isn't.
Pardon, but I really didn't find that your description of good and bad came
across as a sliding scale. And for me, art is very much a matter of
intent. It doesn't have to be the primary intent - J. Whosis can put
little flutes on his office block - but it must be intent.
>>Your definition of art?
> There isn't such a thing as art... art is something things have
> just like all objects have mass.
> Things which are great art have this attribute in abundance
> while mediocre art have it in only small doses.
> The act of creation imbues things with art.
> Next time you are in the wild take a look at a fern...
> The sheer elegance of it's form is art.
'K. Correct me if I'm wrong; you define objects which contain the quality
of art to be those which are created, either naturally or to be the
realization of an artist's vision, and which possess elegance?
>>> Just to drive this point home please share with us an example
>>> of a truly *great* piece of art being produced where the *primary* motivation
>>> was money.
>>Ishtar Rising, by R.A. Wilson.
> Having not read it I can't make any definite statements.
> But from what I have read of his (the illuminatus trilogy) I can imagine
> that it would be very good and sometimes hilariously
> funny but wouldn't have the
> style or elegance to be truly great.
> Do you think R.A. Wilson will be revered down the generations?
Not sure, but I really don't think that mass appeal is a good criteria to
determine what great art is (otherwise, I'd be rating 1c romances over
the Book of Kells :) ). I *hope* he is.
> Take gregorian chants. Most people don't understand the language they are
> sung in or have the musical vocabulary to comprehend _why_ the
> notes that are sung were chosen. The progressions are almost alien
> but they still inspire feelings of awe and majesty.)
> (If anyone wants me to go into a deep discussion of hexachords and their
> relevance to modern music now is a good time to ask.)
Could you? I'd like to hear it. Seriously. :)
>>> There's too much art in the world for any individual person to appreciate it
>>> all. A reduction in the amount of good art being produced is worth it
>>> if the amount of bad art being produced to a larger extent.
>>Why?
> Because good just isn't good enough... If it isn't inspiring on every
> level it probably isn't worth experiencing.
But the question of how inspiring art is must be determined by the
viewer's involvement as well, which is subjective. People could dismiss
'Moonlight Sonata' as "that damn Muzak" and get ecstatic over the gorgeous
recreation of the hero's journey found in a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle
comic.
>>> And? Your point is?
>>My point is: why not pay an artist for producing art you like, thus
>>supporting them and allowing them to continue producing what you consider
>>'good' art, instead of refusing to support any artist and so cutting down
>>on the amount of art that can be produced?
> I have seen a lot of people say this but even good artists
> who go "pro" generaly barely make a living and take part time work to
> supplement their income.
> So the only people who are realy going to be hurt by the de-commodifying of
> art are going to be the people who commodified it in the first place.
The artist who has a generic job part-time and gets some income from their
art part-time is going to be hurt. Making art costs money. If you don't
pay an artist, then they're giving up both time and money, and trying to
manage on just the income from the part-time job. If they need more than
the part-time job can provide, then they have to work more, and spend less
time on art (or less time on sleep, take your pick).
>>Mmmmh, the point that seemed to be coming across was "pop culture is
>>largely crap, so let's not pay for any art." Didn't seem to quite hold
>>together.
> No my point was that paying for art encourages a culture of production
> not a culture of art. And this needs to be destroyed by any means
> possible before we are all watching "I love that caffinated drink pepsi"
> songs on the pepsi chart.
But paying for art also makes it possible for the artist to produce more
art. And if you don't pay for art, then the only entities who can afford
to produce anything are going to be those who can afford to loose the
money on it for the PR value. If you stop paying for songs, Pepsi is still
making enough to afford to produce them, but the amateur band or the
songwriter with something to say can't afford to take the time off from
work to get their work out.
Torrain
alicesar...@my-deja.com
again.
In article <slrn8qdldt....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au>,
dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
}In article <8o808m$3ps...@news.21stcentury.net>, exile wrote:
}>In article <slrn8qbpcb....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au>,
}>dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
}
}>}Look around... it already is... May as well try and resurrect it.
}>
}>Art's dead?
}
}Check the top 40 or your local gallery sometime.
The top 40's never been art. Local galleries... ceased to interest me a
long time ago.
}While you're at it. Point me at a fairly recent truely _great_ work
}by someone who wasn't at best slowly haemorraging money.
I've not seen any great art in years... not since it became "passe."
No one gives a fuck... no one bothers. It's not possible so why even
put forth the effort?
}That an artist has to live off their art is a fairly recent notion.
}
}Leonardo da Vinci freelanced as an engineer to survive.
Look at his output.
}Most of the great composers who weren't court composers of some
description
}taught music for a living.
}
}The expectation that a persons art can not be truely great unless they
are
}a professional artist is not only innacurate. It is unfair on the
artist.
No it's not. Look at all of the early painters and composers... they
were backed by the crown and the church. They worked full time at their
art. {:} Aside from those who taught of course.}
}In a world of corporations. If art is treated like a commodity then
}the corporations will dress up their "content" as art and do a better
}job selling it than any real artist.
}
}And people swallow it all hook line and sinker...
"Have" ...it's "have."
}I was listening on the radio a couple of weeks ago and some stupid
chick
}was stating how she believed the "artists" in Bardot[1] where getting
ripped
}off because they weren't getting paid enough money.
}
}Lip syncing is now considered art as long as the person who's doing it
}lives off it.
}
}Art's dead.
No... it's not. Lots of folk are trying to kill it and lots of folk
are trying very hard to change its meaning, but it's not dead. Art's
been through times that were much tougher and come out ahead. It's far
too vital and integral to the human spirit to die.
}The only way to resurrect it is to divorce it from the commercialism
that
}has ruined it.
}
}Sure that means that artists won't be able to survive off their art
alone
}but seriously how many great artists were in that situation in first
place?
}
}Name one.
Michaelangelo? How long do you think the Sistene Chapel would have
taken if he's painted it in his spare time?
How many more would you like me to name?
Anyway... aside from that, you've got folk like Van Gogh who worked at
his art full time and had someone to pay his bills for him, Rousseau,
who made a living off of his rich friends, Munch {and many others} that
simply had the cash... Consider also that artists used to be respected
as valid contributors to society... folk took their work seriously and
helped them out.
{By the way... Fuck minimalism.}
One simply needs the time to perfect their skills and develop their
voice. One needs to be unencumbered and ummm... unexhausted. Art takes
one hell of a lot of energy... one needs to be able to maintain that at
a pretty consistent rate for a fairly long period of time in order to
do anything really important.
}The entire concept of a professional artist is a convenient fiction
}allowing the "content producers" to dominate the field with their
}product.
"Product" is such a repugnant term to use to describe art.
There's absolutely no reason that an artist shouldn't be able to make
a living at his art. It's when it becomes the intent that the work
suffers.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
exile
Hardrock Llewynyth
Year of Our Lord Sat, 26 Aug 2000 08:26:32 GMT:
>http://www.be.com/products/freebeos/beosdatasheet.html
>http://openoffice.org
>http://www.debian.org
>http://linux.corel.com/ {I think Photopaint's still free and coreldraw's been
>ported.}
>http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/native/ {Get it before micros~1 eats it with .net
>{you still have a few choices left...}}
I got the data packet and full tech manual for this (don't ask how)
back when it was still a $2k commercial OS.
Impressive, if a bit unusual. Gonna plop it on a box as soon as i get
one built for it. True microkernal, fully POSIX compliant,
transparent architecture... I'd post some specs, but i can't find
where i packed the manual.
Hardrock
--
Episkopos Hardrock Llewynyth GAC, AGSF(ret) hard...@speakeasy.org
http://www.speakeasy.org/~hardrock/
My mind has become animated.
Hardrock Llewynyth
in this Year of Our Lord Sat, 26 Aug 2000 08:33:35 -0700:
>It's not hard or anything it's just pathetic. It's the stigma thats
>attached to it nowadays. Every computer geek who wants to be "elite" seems
>to say he or she adores linux. To me it's just a icky os. When I jumped
Yeah, there is something really slimy and disgusting about stability,
flexibility, power, and, the worst part, not costing a fuckton.
>from the pathetic 3.1 to 95 I was happy. Lots more eye candy even though
>3.1 was stable as hell. 98 wasn't much of a jump but ME is even cuter. All
3.1 wasn't very stable. I proved that on a daily basis. I have done
the same with 95/98. NT 4 was a little better; i usually only got it
to crash once a week or so. 2000 Pro i do monthly. All of them still
need to be rebooted at least once a week to function properly. If i
don't, i get all sorts of weirdness.
Never managed to crash a linux box (well, i can freeze up RedHat 6.0
in X because of my shitty vid card, but that doesn't really count).
I've never needed to do a "maintenance reboot" on a linux box. The
only time it needs to be taken down is for updates, kernal recompiles,
or hardware upgrades.
Friend of mine used to be a network tech for a finance company (he's
now senior admin for a major ISP). They had a linux box set up
primarily as a print server. It was running a very early Slackware
install (it may have even been a 0.x beta, don't recall). It had
never been rebooted once when he was working there, and at the time he
left it had an uptime of close to 3 years.
Try that with an NT box.
>I do is play games and go online nowadays and maybe a little webpage work.
>Windows does all of this so linux is kind of unecessary, besides wouldn't
>one still need windows? Most games are direct x driven are they not? and do
>any of these new games even run under linux?
Direct X is a proprietary MS format. Many games use it. Many games
use OpenGL instead, which is supported by Linux. As for web work, the
tools availlable for Linux are better; and if you are running a
server, nothing beats Apache for stability, power, or price.
So far, the only thing that Windows does better than linux is games
and audio. Macs are better for graphics; though gimp is certainly
damn good, i don't like the interface as much. I have an aquaintence
who is writing professional audio apps, so this may change as well.
Hardrock.
Hardrock Llewynyth
Unworthy write in this Year of Our Lord 27 Aug 2000 13:35:34 +1000:
>? - Who for the record doesn't particularly like linux and uses BSD
I have friends that do. I don't, mainly because 1) i don't have a box
available to run it on, 2) there is more support available for linux,
and 3) there is more software development being done for linux. I
know BSD will run a lot of linux software in emulation; but not all of
it, and emulation always causes headaches.
Hardrock, who plans to put up NetBSD, QNX, OS/2 Warp, OpenDOS 7.x, and
PC Geos boxes up when he has the hardware.
Hardrock Llewynyth
Year of Our Lord Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:11:25 -0700:
>> > Then why are you still using DOS?
>> >
>> Who says I'm using DOS?
>
>You're using Windows98? You're using DOS. Just because the command
>prompt has been crippled doesn't mean you're not using it. Why do you
>think they call it Kludge?
And his 3.1 box runs on top of DOS.
For stand-alone boxes, Caldera puts out OpenDOS 7.x. An updated
version of Digital Research DOS.
Hardrock, wondering if PC Geos will run on it.
Hardrock Llewynyth
Year of Our Lord Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:24:26 GMT:
> No it's not. Look at all of the early painters and composers... they
>were backed by the crown and the church. They worked full time at their
>art. {:} Aside from those who taught of course.}
Hardly.
Many of them worked in offices just like people do now. Some sponged
off of relatives or lovers. Quite a number died penniless.
Church/Crown sponsorship did work for a number of artists; but was
notoriously fickle. Look at Mozart. One could be the court favorite
one month, and on the streets the next. Most artists died, if not
penniless, then certainly not wealthy (or even comfortable in most
cases).
>Anyway... aside from that, you've got folk like Van Gogh who worked at
>his art full time and had someone to pay his bills for him, Rousseau,
>who made a living off of his rich friends, Munch {and many others} that
>simply had the cash... Consider also that artists used to be respected
>as valid contributors to society... folk took their work seriously and
>helped them out.
Then there was Renior, who painted porcelain dishes and vases for a
living. Some of the Flemish painters, the "Little Dutch Masters"
worked in offices, others took commissions for what would now be
corporate-officer portraits. Writers working in patent offices, law
offices, etc. have given us the great works of philosophy and
literature; L'Etranger, Critique of Pure Reason, etc. (i'm probably
getting the names and circumstances mixed up, but the point holds true
despite my faulty memory.)
>{By the way... Fuck minimalism.}
Fuck it yourself, i'm rather fond of it. Though i tend to prefer it's
Zen incarnation, rather than the Bauhaus or other western minimalist
schools.
> There's absolutely no reason that an artist shouldn't be able to make
>a living at his art. It's when it becomes the intent that the work
>suffers.
Good art, by definition, is not something that will appeal to the
general populace. The appeal of any particular style or personal
vision will appeal only to a tiny fragment. The prices necessary to
make a living off this art will be beyond the ability of this
fragment, so the chances of being able to make a living off it at all
rapidly approaches nil.
The closer you get to mass-appeal, and profitability, the farther from
"art" and closer to "commodity" you move.
I cannot remember the source of the quote, i wish i could, but someone
said "No truly great artist can make a decent living from his art
until after he's dead." I believe that to be very much the case. Not
a given, but certainly a reasonable expectation.
Having spent some time in the local art scene, and grown thoroughly
sick of it, i don't think making money, and making art are entirely
compatible.
Hardrock
saint benton of the one-winged dove
>Thus did "Deviancy" <mary...@cdsbitemenet.com> the Unworthy write
>in this Year of Our Lord Sat, 26 Aug 2000 08:33:35 -0700:
>
>>It's not hard or anything it's just pathetic. It's the stigma thats
>>attached to it nowadays. Every computer geek who wants to be "elite" seems
>>to say he or she adores linux. To me it's just a icky os. When I jumped
>
>Yeah, there is something really slimy and disgusting about stability,
>flexibility, power, and, the worst part, not costing a fuckton.
Mmm. Slimy.
I run windows from my home machine (( wibbling between 2K pro and
98 on a reasonable basis )) but I talk to machines running a flavor
of unix most of the day with it.
>>from the pathetic 3.1 to 95 I was happy. Lots more eye candy even though
>>3.1 was stable as hell. 98 wasn't much of a jump but ME is even cuter. All
>
>3.1 wasn't very stable.
Concur. 3.1 as not stable. It may have had a thin veneer of stability
because you were used to dumping out to DOS on a regular basis to
play DOS games, but 3.1 by itself tends to curl up into a fetal
position after a bit of use.
Also, it's memory management and scheduler make it totally unsuitable
for the things that even 9x can do with reasonable amounts of ease.
> I proved that on a daily basis. I have done
>the same with 95/98. NT 4 was a little better; i usually only got it
>to crash once a week or so. 2000 Pro i do monthly.
I crashed Win 9x and 2000 with about the same frequency. The 2000
box was a touch more stable, but I rebooted it more because I was
playing with it in lots of different ways, whereas since I've
changed over to 9x, my box configuration has remained pretty much
the same. I've crashed my BeOS system once hard enough that
kernel_team went to heaven, and I've had applications bomb on it
on a fairly regular basis, but the applications were seriously
beta (( think Mozilla M8 and Opera Beta 7 )), but other than that
it runs well.
> All of them still
>need to be rebooted at least once a week to function properly. If i
>don't, i get all sorts of weirdness.
I typically reboot every third day or thereabouts. Now, if we play
contrast an compare with a linux box that I have handy:
[benton@gore benton]$ uptime
11:38am up 175 days, 10:33, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.05, 0.01
Doesn't really compare.
>Never managed to crash a linux box (well, i can freeze up RedHat 6.0
>in X because of my shitty vid card, but that doesn't really count).
I've sent one to thrash-land because of insufficent memory, but
it didn't crash, just became very very slow.
>I've never needed to do a "maintenance reboot" on a linux box. The
>only time it needs to be taken down is for updates, kernal recompiles,
>or hardware upgrades.
In general, that is the experience of most people who use linux
on a reglar basis.
>Friend of mine used to be a network tech for a finance company (he's
>now senior admin for a major ISP). They had a linux box set up
>primarily as a print server. It was running a very early Slackware
>install (it may have even been a 0.x beta, don't recall). It had
>never been rebooted once when he was working there, and at the time he
>left it had an uptime of close to 3 years.
Wouldn't the rollover bug bitten it? They must have rebooted it at
some point.
>Try that with an NT box.
Not possible.
>>I do is play games and go online nowadays and maybe a little webpage work.
>>Windows does all of this so linux is kind of unecessary, besides wouldn't
>>one still need windows? Most games are direct x driven are they not? and do
>>any of these new games even run under linux?
>
>Direct X is a proprietary MS format. Many games use it. Many games
>use OpenGL instead, which is supported by Linux. As for web work, the
>tools availlable for Linux are better; and if you are running a
>server, nothing beats Apache for stability, power, or price.
Have you tried thttpd? Many people have cheered it's small footprint
and speed over apache for some things. A site that I know well uses
Apache as well as thttpd. thttpd serves the images and ads.
>So far, the only thing that Windows does better than linux is games
>and audio. Macs are better for graphics;
Depends on what you are talking about. x86 has the best 3D video
on the consumer level.
> though gimp is certainly
>damn good, i don't like the interface as much. I have an aquaintence
>who is writing professional audio apps, so this may change as well.
May the One shine on us all, even if we enjoy console.
--
saint benton of the one-winged dove -- ICQ: 32861590
The Blue Citadel: http://www.velvet.net/~benton/
alt.gothic.quotes: http://www.velvet.net/~benton/quotes.html
join the journal cult: http://benton.livejournal.com/
Hardrock Llewynyth
Year of Our Lord Sat, 26 Aug 2000 07:21:22 GMT:
> In order to be an artist one needs to make money at it. It's not possible to
No, one needs to make money at something.
>do real quality work as a sideline or avocation... {tho' regardless... even if
History says different. Hang around the library looking up the lives
of some of the artists, particularly the writers.
>it is a hobby the same rules apply... folk sell their painted sweatshirts and
>so forth... You'd expect them to give them away?}
They are painting them precisely for the purpose of selling them.
Flawed analogy.
> Selling out would mean to make art for money. This sucks, is about equivelant
>to design, and is plain boring.
>
> Making art for artistic reasons and then figuring out a way to sell it is
>entirely valid though.
But truly good art is hard to sell. Mozart's financiers complained
about his finished products. And Van Gogh would have starved to death
had Theo not supported him.
> Money cannot = intent.
But that is the attitude of a huge percentage of the art community
today.
maggot
Hardrock Llewynyth wrote:
>
> Thus did maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> the Unworthy write in this
> Year of Our Lord Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:11:25 -0700:
>
> >> > Then why are you still using DOS?
> >> >
> >> Who says I'm using DOS?
> >
> >You're using Windows98? You're using DOS. Just because the command
> >prompt has been crippled doesn't mean you're not using it. Why do you
> >think they call it Kludge?
>
> And his 3.1 box runs on top of DOS.
>
> For stand-alone boxes, Caldera puts out OpenDOS 7.x. An updated
> version of Digital Research DOS.
>
> Hardrock, wondering if PC Geos will run on it.
Anything that will run 3.11 should run New Deal. That's pretty much
what it's best at, running on old systems.
maggot
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt wrote:
Whoa boy, did I ever fail to come across clearly...
>> From my definition, because the building is created to house things rather
>> than to express or evoke emotion.
> All buildings are crated with this primary motive. The fact that each
> separate type of building doesn't look the same is because they are, in
> fact, art. If you don't believe that office buildings are art I
> recommend you do a quick web search on Bauhaus and skip anything that
> references the band.
>> Intent and focus do figure into this;
>> if you'd said "the architectural work of J. Edgar Whosis" then I'd be more
>> open to considering it art, but "office block" puts the emphasis on the
>> purely practical function of the building.
> Yes you get a very specific image and construct in your mind. If you
> only thought of them as functional you would not get a visual or an
> emotional reaction. Were I to say "penicillin" however, it doesn't seem
> likely that you would have an image spring to mind. One has a presence
> that imbues everything around it with its quality, much like
> art-specifically minimalism. The other has an effect, and though it has
> a physical presence it has little to recommend itself.
I do get an image, actually, but I don't think that was your point. If I
only think of an office building as functional, then no, I won't get an
emotional reaction - but if I shift my focus, then I can. I'm not saying
that it's more or less art - I'm only pointing out that the context in
which it's presented is going to affect how much I focus on its artistic
aspect.
>> But the question of how inspiring art is must be determined by the
>> viewer's involvement as well, which is subjective.
> Sure, but that's not necessarily the given you ascribe to it. It is
> merely a modern philosophy which competes with the other modern
> philosophy that art is solely about the involvement with the creator,
> and has no reference to any viewer whatsoever. The fact that millions
> consider a mass reproduced urinal with some graffiti to be art pretty
> much defies and defines the concept that art's effect has anything to do
> with the viewer.
Does it? I mean, the millions that consider it art seem to play a pretty
large part in your statement; isn't that an aspect of art's effect on the
viewer?
I'm not saying that the viewer's involvement does or doesn't define art
(though doubtless there are theories on both POVs) - I'm saying that how
inspiring art is is an aspect of its relationship to the viewer, which
changes from viewer to viewer. Just because no-one looks at something, it
doesn't mean that it's not art. It does mean that you can't tell what
effect that art has on the/a viewer.
>> The artist who has a generic job part-time and gets some income from their
>> art part-time is going to be hurt.
> Just like every single other person not born to the richest 5 or 10
> percent of the population of Earth, yet they still have provided us with
> almost the world's entire collection of great art.
Agreed. 'Hurt' was a bad word for me to use, too; it implies that that is
part of their function or intent. Flog me with a noodle.
>> Making art costs money.
> Making certain kinds of art costs money. "Spiral Jetty" was enormously
> expensive whereas Warhol's Campbell's Soup can cost a few bucks to
> produce. The time investment was comparable.
Yep.
>> If you don't
>> pay an artist, then they're giving up both time and money,
> No, they are willingly giving up time and money for their own
> experience. Trust me on this one, artists will go on making incredible
> works of art, time and time again, sinking thousands and thousands of
> dollars into their art because (and this is the important part) it is
> their PASSION! We do it because we thrive on the experience, we cannot
> help but create- and damn few of us expect to be subsidized for every
> last thing we do, as much as we'd like it.
> We aren't giving up *anything* any more than an accountant gives up his
> money and time to take a weekend in the Bahamas.
Antoher term with connotations that I didn't take into account. I'd count
that as giving something up. Just as I'd count skipping a double-bill to
spend time with my boyfriend as giving something up, or not working the
last three weeks of the summer so I can have some free time as giving
something up. It doesn't mean that I won't like what I'm doing; it just
means that I'm cutting out a certain range of possibilities.
>> and trying to manage on just the income from the part-time job.
> Just like everyone on Earth has to try and manage while doing the things
> they love, like playing sports, spending time with their kids, posting
> to Usenet, and so on.
Again, yep. It's not impossible, it's not a cruel hardship, it's not the
end of the world. It is a bit of a hassle, that's all.
>> If they need more than
>> the part-time job can provide, then they have to work more, and spend less
>> time on art (or less time on sleep, take your pick).
> Most artists are not so incompetent at budgeting their time as you would
> have us believe, and would not make art 40 hours a week even if we
> could.
Here, maybe this will come across better: If they need more than the
part-time job can provide, then they have to work more, and spend less
time on something else, possibly art.
>> But paying for art also makes it possible for the artist to produce more
>> art.
> And should every artist be some kind of assembly line for artistic
> creation? Does every artists sit in a studio churning out massive
> amounts of gold from wool?
No.
I didn't say that paying the artist means that they *should* produce more
art, I said it makes it *possible*. Presumably, if you like the artist,
you think this is a good thing; presumably, if you don't think you own the
artist, you're not going to be hideously put out if they decide they
aren't going to keep putting out stuff you personally like just because
you paid them.
>> And if you don't pay for art, then the only entities who can afford
>> to produce anything are going to be those who can afford to loose the
>> money on it for the PR value.
> That's utter nonsense. Do you know *any* of these artists you are
> defending? I know hundreds and none of us have stopped producing art on
> a regular basis just because we have a dry spell. None of us would
> volunteer hundreds of hours every year helping others out, or working
> for charities if we did it for money instead of love.
Sorry, it was an extreme and inaccurate statement. Thank you for pointing
that out. However, I didn't mean it to come across as implying that artists
are producing art for money, just that it can be problematic to produce
art if you can't afford to produce it.
As to how many I know, I'd count at least sixty, and I think every single
one of them would kick my ass for making that statement.
>> If you stop paying for songs, Pepsi is still
>> making enough to afford to produce them.
> Who "produces" these magical non-songs into songs then? Some lawyer, or
> ad man? Where will Pepsi find the fella who is going to provide them
> with this music? Do you think this mysterious person is then going to
> make music for Pepsi and crawl back into their hole and disappear? Do
> you know how Ridley Scott made it through the 80's after Blade Runner
> flopped? How he made his career before he got into directing movies?
> Making TV commercials, most notoriously Apple's 1984 commercial. These
> ads were not fantastically conjured up out of some marketing division,
> but developed and produced by working artists, who made money by
> working, just like everyone else does.
Uhm. Lucid was arguing that refusing to pay for art would prevent such a
situation as listening to "I love that caffeinated pepsi drink" on the
Pepsi chart. My response was just that Pepsi is currently making enough
to afford to have songs produced even if it makes no income from the
songs, not that it wouldn't hire artists to do so.
> Not all of us get to do it in an
> artistic way. It took me seven years before I managed to start making
> money off of my art, but somehow I kept on producing, and in large
> amounts at times. I sunk $5k into a movie I knew would never make money
> because I wanted to make it.
Congratulations. Sincerely.
> Do you honestly think that somehow the world artistic pool is just going
> to dry up because artists stop getting paid for their work? Even in
> that absurd scenario people will continue to make art, but you aren't
> even defending the idea of an artist being paid for their work, which
> they almost always are. You are defending the right for them (or more
> specifically the people who hired them) to reap huge amounts of revenue
> by mass producing something. Ending this practice will have no effect
> whatsoever on artists across the world, just the ability of other to
> exploit them.
No, I don't. What I do think is that paying the artist for art that you
like is a good thing.
I listen to Captain Tractor. I like their songs. I like hearing what they
say and I like the music. It's what falls under my category of good
experiences. And I'd like to, if possible, do something pleasant for them,
just as... a thank-you, or an acknowledgement. But I don't know them. I
can't sit down and talk with them, or cook them dinner, or buy them drinks,
or take them out camping, or clean up their place, or give them backrubs, or
donate time to their favourite charity or anything. And if I pay money for
their stuff, it's not a "Good boy, here's the magic ticket, keep jumoping
through hoops", it's a "I really appreciate what you did but I don't know
what I could get you that you'd appreciate and like as much, so I'm stuck
with giving you this generic gift certificate." And it's not what I'd like
to do, but it's the best I can do for them.
I'm not assuming that they put out the CDs so they could rake in the cash.
I'm not assuming that they did it for acknowledgement. I'm not assuming
that they know I exist or that they care if I do. But I like what they
do, and I want to do something that they'll like in return.
Torrain
--
"Money itself is not wealth, just a medium for the transference of wealth."
-- R.A. Wilson
maggot
exile wrote:
>
> In article <31eiqs8s2rg2gln67...@4ax.com>, Hardrock Llewynyth <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
> }>{By the way... Fuck minimalism.}
> }
> }Fuck it yourself, i'm rather fond of it. Though i tend to prefer it's
> }Zen incarnation, rather than the Bauhaus or other western minimalist
> }schools.
>
> Hardly the same thing... Minimalism as minimalism is a construct of the later
> 2oth century... a pretentious, selfish, uniquely stupid branch of the art
> world that's, in my opinion, responsible for a large part of the lack of
> respect fot the arts today. I can hardly say I blame folk.
Gee it couldn't have anything to do with the widespread distribution of
motion pictures and recorded music that distilled the interest in
galleries and art exhibits, could it? This lack of interest certainly
couldn't explain why a lot more minimalist sculptors are making money in
art than, say, classical artists.
If you don't get it, that's fine, but face up to the fact that enough
people do get it to want to see it propogated-and that you just missed
the entire last 100 years of evolution in the field of art. This is the
same kind of flack Whistler was getting back in the day.
maggot
exile
}Thus did ex...@21stcentury.net (exile) the Unworthy write in this
}Year of Our Lord Sat, 26 Aug 2000 08:26:32 GMT:
}
}>http://www.be.com/products/freebeos/beosdatasheet.html
}>http://openoffice.org
}>http://www.debian.org
}>http://linux.corel.com/ {I think Photopaint's still free and coreldraw's been
}>ported.}
}>http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/native/ {Get it before micros~1 eats it with .net
}>{you still have a few choices left...}}
}
}http://www.qnx.com/
}
}I got the data packet and full tech manual for this (don't ask how)
}back when it was still a $2k commercial OS.
}
}Impressive, if a bit unusual. Gonna plop it on a box as soon as i get
}one built for it. True microkernal, fully POSIX compliant,
}transparent architecture... I'd post some specs, but i can't find
}where i packed the manual.
How cool...
It does say you can run it from a file on linux or '98...
:}
Thanks
exile
}So far, the only thing that Windows does better than linux is games
}and audio. Macs are better for graphics; though gimp is certainly
}damn good, i don't like the interface as much. I have an aquaintence
}who is writing professional audio apps, so this may change as well.
Dig around a bit... there are some excellent audio apps for linux
{linuxlinks.com} I tend to think the drivers for more esoteric studio hardware
might be the only real problem.
linuxartist.org as well... a lot of stuff's been ported... Corel's managed an
entire graphics environment, There's Houdini and Maya and Blender and a "lot"
of 3d apps... Gimp's good for bitmap stuff... postscript support is pretty
strong... Berlin's got lots of promise, there's a lot of new 3d interfaces,
some of the proposals for X's rewrite look realy impressive, DVD is almost
here, etc, etc...
exile
}Thus did maggot <mag...@monkeybrains.net> the Unworthy write in this
}Year of Our Lord Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:11:25 -0700:
}
}>> > Then why are you still using DOS?
}>> >
}>> Who says I'm using DOS?
}>
}>You're using Windows98? You're using DOS. Just because the command
}>prompt has been crippled doesn't mean you're not using it. Why do you
}>think they call it Kludge?
}
}And his 3.1 box runs on top of DOS.
Wondering where OS2 fits into this.
exile
}Thus did ex...@21stcentury.net (exile) the Unworthy write in this
}Year of Our Lord Sat, 26 Aug 2000 07:21:22 GMT:
}
}> In order to be an artist one needs to make money at it. It's not possible to
}
}No, one needs to make money at something.
True...
}>do real quality work as a sideline or avocation... {tho' regardless... even if
}
}History says different. Hang around the library looking up the lives
}of some of the artists, particularly the writers.
I'm idealizing... I realize that this has seldom been the case... if you want
an optimal situation though...
}>it is a hobby the same rules apply... folk sell their painted sweatshirts and
}>so forth... You'd expect them to give them away?}
}
}They are painting them precisely for the purpose of selling them.
}Flawed analogy.
Why?
}> Selling out would mean to make art for money. This sucks, is about equivelant
}>to design, and is plain boring.
}>
}> Making art for artistic reasons and then figuring out a way to sell it is
}>entirely valid though.
}
}But truly good art is hard to sell. Mozart's financiers complained
}about his finished products. And Van Gogh would have starved to death
}had Theo not supported him.
Yeah... I'd dare say they both fell under the heading of "professional"
though.
}> Money cannot = intent.
}
}But that is the attitude of a huge percentage of the art community
}today.
Far be it from me to buck the tide of popular opinion. I think that it makes
for inferior art.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>> So you are saying that
>> Penny Romances have more value than the Book of Kells?
>> and that a Coca Cola ad has more value than Eraserhead?
>> Yes or No....
>
>I am saying that, _in_my_opinion_, neither Coca Cola ads nor Eraserhead
>were something that I'd consider good art. They may be the realization of
>the creator's vision, but their presentation did not evoke anything
>lasting for me. And I value the Book of Kells above 1c romances, but I am
>willing to accept that there are people who will dismiss it as a dirty old
>book and find far more meaning in uplifting tales of love, romance, and
>human fullfillment. This is not always a thought that cheers me, but I
>won't set myself up as an authority who can say that they're wrong.
>
>You follow? I rate Kells about 1c romances and find Eraserhead and Coca
>Cola ads irrelevant; that doesn't mean that Kells *is* better than 1c
>romances and that Eraserhead and CC ads really *are* irrelevant.
>
>> the same way that cathederals are art.
>> If an office block isn't art then why is brittany spears or puff daddy?
>> Office blocks tend to expressions of dominance over the landscape.
>
>From my definition, because the building is created to house things rather
>than to express or evoke emotion. Intent and focus do figure into this;
>if you'd said "the architectural work of J. Edgar Whosis" then I'd be more
>open to considering it art, but "office block" puts the emphasis on the
>purely practical function of the building.
>
>> You've replaced my sliding scale of good to bad with a dualism
>> of is and isn't.
>
>Pardon, but I really didn't find that your description of good and bad came
>across as a sliding scale. And for me, art is very much a matter of
>intent. It doesn't have to be the primary intent - J. Whosis can put
>little flutes on his office block - but it must be intent.
"Good" to "bad" implies a sliding scale "is and "is not" implies a binary
Something can be "better" than one thing and be "worse" than another.
I was actualy debating using "not art" and "is art" to make my point since
you seem to have a fairly well defined absolute sense of what is and
isn't art compared to your sense of the "goodness" and "badness" of art.
(On a side note taking a subjective stance on meanings may seem to be
a more enlightened stance and in some ways it is. And it is one of the
simplest ways to explain how we view the world since like Quantum Physics
it allows multiple realities to co-exist.
It may even be true since there are theories that human conciousness
is emergant behavior caused by quantum physics... truely fascinating stufff
http://www.culture.com.au/brain_proj/quantum.htm
However for the purposes of a debate a subjective stance is functionaly
useless since the only responce to a disagreement is to agree to disagree
since there is no right or wrong in the first place and even if there was
there is no way to prove it. So it is better to work from an objective stance)
And although it would be easier to try and tie in the concept "not art"
and "is art" as a starting point for an assault on the idea that it's
allright to pay for art. It's not the healthiest way to go about it since
it's counter to the idea that any act should be approached
as an act of art.
But anyway my point with that was that you're making an equivalent objective
value judgement when you say something is or isn't art as I do when I
declare that something is good or bad art.
>
>>>Your definition of art?
>
>> There isn't such a thing as art... art is something things have
>> just like all objects have mass.
>> Things which are great art have this attribute in abundance
>> while mediocre art have it in only small doses.
>> The act of creation imbues things with art.
>> Next time you are in the wild take a look at a fern...
>> The sheer elegance of it's form is art.
>
>'K. Correct me if I'm wrong; you define objects which contain the quality
>of art to be those which are created, either naturally or to be the
>realization of an artist's vision, and which possess elegance?
Not elegance the way you think of it
more Mathematical elegance...
Ummm niftiness you know?
Not quite that...
If you don't have any appreciation for elegant solutions then listening to
some instrumentals might convey the idea... I'm not sure just how to
explain it... but some things just "work". It's a lot more common with
music than other forms of art you'd recognise as art, but it does happen.
And all truly great art has it.
>
>Not sure, but I really don't think that mass appeal is a good criteria to
>determine what great art is (otherwise, I'd be rating 1c romances over
>the Book of Kells :) ). I *hope* he is.
Not mass appeal... I mean how popular gregorian chants are compared to the top
40. Think longevity.
Think respect from the people who aren't sheep.
>
>> Take gregorian chants. Most people don't understand the language they are
>> sung in or have the musical vocabulary to comprehend _why_ the
>> notes that are sung were chosen. The progressions are almost alien
>> but they still inspire feelings of awe and majesty.)
>> (If anyone wants me to go into a deep discussion of hexachords and their
>> relevance to modern music now is a good time to ask.)
>
>Could you? I'd like to hear it. Seriously. :)
Ok most modern music is based around the 12 tone scale.
You will find a fair amount of music that is atonal
but we'll just ignore this for convenience :)
And it is tempered to an approximation of the perfect tempering
Tempering being when chords are played the chords that are supposed
to sound consonant do so.
It's an approximation because depending on the scale the tuning required
to get a perfect tempering varies.
But anyway it may be a 12 tone scale. But most classical music uses
major and minor scales.
This is because they were the most dominant of the twelve modes
that previously existed.
if you ever find a keyboard try playing a sequence of adjacant white keys
going up an octave in order. Do it this with each key. The order of tones
and semitones that each of these sequences corrosponds with the 8 modes.
Now hexachords are sets of 6 notes that were used as the basic building block
in a gregorian chant...
It's been a long time since I've looked into it and I barely remember the
details
but more information can be found at
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/hex1.html
but anyway each of the modes corrosponds to a commonly used
combination of hexachords in use at that time where one hexachord
would mutate into another to allow people use notes that staying
within one hexachord would otherwise prevent them from doing.
And why hexachords in the first place?
Because those proggressions sound the most consonant when used with the
human voice.
This understanding of consonance has permeated western culture to such
an extent that unless the sound being made approaches noise
people will hear consonance and disonance based around the
patterns established with the hexachord and the human voice
not around the actual harmonics of the sound.
Hence the need for tempering and other such kludges.
And that's it... one of the fundamental building blocks of modern
music is based around a bunch of monks that sung a lot a thousand years
or so ago instead of say playing gongs or whistling.
>
>> Because good just isn't good enough... If it isn't inspiring on every
>> level it probably isn't worth experiencing.
>
>But the question of how inspiring art is must be determined by the
>viewer's involvement as well, which is subjective. People could dismiss
>'Moonlight Sonata' as "that damn Muzak" and get ecstatic over the gorgeous
>recreation of the hero's journey found in a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle
>comic.
And they'd be full of shit.
Seriously.
Would you take someone who said that seriously... or have any hope
of respecting their opinions on art?
>
>The artist who has a generic job part-time and gets some income from their
>art part-time is going to be hurt. Making art costs money. If you don't
>pay an artist, then they're giving up both time and money, and trying to
>manage on just the income from the part-time job. If they need more than
>the part-time job can provide, then they have to work more, and spend less
>time on art (or less time on sleep, take your pick).
But that places an expectation on the part of the artist to produce
for money and an expectation on the part of the (Ugh!) consumer
that art will be produced for money.
It's better to totaly decommodify art and let the hardships sort
the wheat from the chaff.
Trust me artists will nearly _kill_ themselves to produce art.
I should know.
>
>>>Mmmmh, the point that seemed to be coming across was "pop culture is
>>>largely crap, so let's not pay for any art." Didn't seem to quite hold
>>>together.
>
>> No my point was that paying for art encourages a culture of production
>> not a culture of art. And this needs to be destroyed by any means
>> possible before we are all watching "I love that caffinated drink pepsi"
>> songs on the pepsi chart.
>
>But paying for art also makes it possible for the artist to produce more
>art. And if you don't pay for art, then the only entities who can afford
>to produce anything are going to be those who can afford to loose the
>money on it for the PR value. If you stop paying for songs, Pepsi is still
>making enough to afford to produce them, but the amateur band or the
>songwriter with something to say can't afford to take the time off from
>work to get their work out.
You're assuming that art needs to cost a lot of money.
This is obviously false. Probably even to you.
I do not need to demonstrate any counterpoints.
If something is sponsered then either the influences will be obvious
and hence the "art" will be easy to ignore
or the artist will have full artistic expression.
In either case the art isn't being commodified the way it is now.
A product won't be dressed up as art to compete with art if it's
sponsered.
Creeping corporate control of the artistic meme-space is another
issue entirely... It would be arts
equivalent of wearing corporate logo's to be cool.
A post modern joke that isn't funny anymore.
And that is the main problem.... The redefinition by the music/cinema/gallery
cartels (and friends) of art as a commodity
made by a professional artist. The "art" being validated by the artists
status as a professional artist.
exile
}Thus did alicesar...@my-deja.com the Unworthy write in this
}Year of Our Lord Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:24:26 GMT:
}
}>were backed by the crown and the church. They worked full time at their
}>art. {:} Aside from those who taught of course.}
}
}
}Many of them worked in offices just like people do now. Some sponged
}off of relatives or lovers. Quite a number died penniless.
}Church/Crown sponsorship did work for a number of artists; but was
}notoriously fickle. Look at Mozart. One could be the court favorite
}one month, and on the streets the next. Most artists died, if not
}penniless, then certainly not wealthy (or even comfortable in most
}cases).
No one said there'd be a lot of money in it.
}>Anyway... aside from that, you've got folk like Van Gogh who worked at
}>his art full time and had someone to pay his bills for him, Rousseau,
}>who made a living off of his rich friends, Munch {and many others} that
}>simply had the cash... Consider also that artists used to be respected
}>as valid contributors to society... folk took their work seriously and
}>helped them out.
}
}Then there was Renior, who painted porcelain dishes and vases for a
}living. Some of the Flemish painters, the "Little Dutch Masters"
}worked in offices, others took commissions for what would now be
}corporate-officer portraits. Writers working in patent offices, law
}offices, etc. have given us the great works of philosophy and
}literature; L'Etranger, Critique of Pure Reason, etc. (i'm probably
}getting the names and circumstances mixed up, but the point holds true
}despite my faulty memory.)
That's all part of it... Renoir's dishes were hardly anything he'd consider
to be art... We all have to take side jobs or day jobs at some point or
another.
What do you think their output would have been had they been unencumbered?
}>{By the way... Fuck minimalism.}
}
}Fuck it yourself, i'm rather fond of it. Though i tend to prefer it's
}Zen incarnation, rather than the Bauhaus or other western minimalist
}schools.
Hardly the same thing... Minimalism as minimalism is a construct of the later
2oth century... a pretentious, selfish, uniquely stupid branch of the art
world that's, in my opinion, responsible for a large part of the lack of
respect fot the arts today. I can hardly say I blame folk.
}> There's absolutely no reason that an artist shouldn't be able to make
}>a living at his art. It's when it becomes the intent that the work
}>suffers.
}
}Good art, by definition, is not something that will appeal to the
}general populace. The appeal of any particular style or personal
Whos definition?
}vision will appeal only to a tiny fragment. The prices necessary to
}make a living off this art will be beyond the ability of this
}fragment, so the chances of being able to make a living off it at all
}rapidly approaches nil.
It does make it more difficult.
}The closer you get to mass-appeal, and profitability, the farther from
}"art" and closer to "commodity" you move.
Why?
}I cannot remember the source of the quote, i wish i could, but someone
}said "No truly great artist can make a decent living from his art
}until after he's dead." I believe that to be very much the case. Not
}a given, but certainly a reasonable expectation.
Sounds like a line of bullshit to me.
}Having spent some time in the local art scene, and grown thoroughly
}sick of it, i don't think making money, and making art are entirely
}compatible.
We were discussing the current idea, in the art world, that money=intent?
exile
wrote:
}exile wrote:
}> In article <31eiqs8s2rg2gln67...@4ax.com>, Hardrock Llewynyth
} <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
}> }>{By the way... Fuck minimalism.}
}> }
}> }Fuck it yourself, i'm rather fond of it. Though i tend to prefer it's
}> }Zen incarnation, rather than the Bauhaus or other western minimalist
}> }schools.
}>
}> Hardly the same thing... Minimalism as minimalism is a construct of the
}> 2oth century... a pretentious, selfish, uniquely stupid branch of the art
}> world that's, in my opinion, responsible for a large part of the lack of
}> respect fot the arts today. I can hardly say I blame folk.
}
}Gee it couldn't have anything to do with the widespread distribution of
}motion pictures and recorded music that distilled the interest in
}galleries and art exhibits, could it? This lack of interest certainly
"Large part"
"Distilled"?
Of course it did. It's a little silly of you to deny that.
}couldn't explain why a lot more minimalist sculptors are making money in
}art than, say, classical artists.
Define "classical artist."
...And tell me what money has to do with anything.
}If you don't get it, that's fine, but face up to the fact that enough
}people do get it to want to see it propogated-and that you just missed
We used to have a large metal sculpture in Downtown Chicago.
We no longer have a large metal sculpture in Downtown Chicago.
The "propagation" thing is a bit lost on me.
}the entire last 100 years of evolution in the field of art. This is the
I've not missed the last 1oo years of art... I've dimissed one aspect of it.
There is nothing evolutionary about minimalist sculpture and painting. There
is something very wrong about covering a canvas with a solid color and selling
it to the public, misrepresented as art.
I do not wonder at the public's lack of respect for this... I do tend to
wonder why the art world *ever* had any respect for it. It makes us look like
idiots and charlatans. It's ivory tower nonsense.
}same kind of flack Whistler was getting back in the day.
Bullshit.
Minimalist artists ceased to break any new ground long ago.
Cass
<Pine.BSF.4.21.000825...@toybox.twisted.org.uk>,
Nick/Yaruar <yar...@twisted.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Cass wrote:
>
> > > Satar <sata...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8o4662$l6k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > You pay 50 dollars for the rights to use the CD. Making copies and
> > > > installing on different computer violates copyright laws.
> > > >
> > > > If you want me to provide citation that backs my statements, e-mail me.
> > > >
> > > No need, it's besides the point. It's just wrong, I paid 50 bucks for
> > > that
> > > cd. My reciept from wal-mart claims it's mine :)
> >
> > You own the CD. You are free to use it as a coaster or whatever.
> >
> > It's actually using it that involves copyright law; you see, in order
> > to get any use out of it, you have to at least copy stuff from the CD
> > into the computer's RAM. Which is an infringement of copyright.
> >
> > It's insane.
>
> No, because that's not how copyright law works. There is a concept of
> 'Fair Use' which means that you can actually do whatever you want to the
> thing as long as you only use it once at a time...) That's where the
> DVD-CSS case hinges around whetehr breaking the encryption was to do with
> copying for piracy, or for the ability to play on a different system
> (Linux)
Fair use is a lot more complicated than that, and only exists in the
United States; the rest of the world is considerably more restrictive.
However, to restate the basic concept: fair use doesn't say that some
action isn't an infringement of copyright, but rather that that action
is legal. If a copyright infringement is fair use, then (in the US)
it's legal to do without permission from the copyright holder.
For example, taping shows to watch them later (time-shifting) on a VCR
is a copyright infringement, but (because of a case called Sony v.
Universal) it's a legal fair use. The EFF lawyers in the DeCSS case are
arguing that decrypting a DVD to watch it on multiple platforms is like
time-shifting, and thus legal.
--
Cass
Dag
Lucid H. Dreaming <dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn8qbima....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au...
> Just to drive this point home please share with us an example
> of a truly *great* piece of art being produced where the *primary*
> motivation was money.
Most of the classical paintings and music that we consider "great" where
made purely to order and specified by a customer. Yet we don't dis
Michaelangelo or Rafael for selling out.
Dag
Dag
> In article <8o808m$3ps...@news.21stcentury.net>, exile wrote:
> >In article <slrn8qbpcb....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au>,
> >dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H. Dreaming) wrote:
>
> >}Look around... it already is... May as well try and resurrect it.
> >
> >Art's dead?
>
> Check the top 40 or your local gallery sometime.
>
Perspective. Perspective. Great art is old art, new stuff suck. That's
the basics of most people views. Many of the 'great classical
composers' where the backstreet boys of their time. They turned out
crap in an almost mechanical fashion to an audience who only went to the
concerts becuase that composer was cool that week. Yet we consider them
"great".
Same with many of the "great painters"
Dag
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
>>> of is and isn't.
>>Pardon, but I really didn't find that your description of good and bad came
>>across as a sliding scale. And for me, art is very much a matter of
>>intent. It doesn't have to be the primary intent - J. Whosis can put
>>little flutes on his office block - but it must be intent.
> "Good" to "bad" implies a sliding scale "is and "is not" implies a binary
> Something can be "better" than one thing and be "worse" than another.
Agreed. But the definition of 'is' and 'is not' can change with the
perspective of the viewer, so I wouldn't consider it an absolute scale
either.
> I was actualy debating using "not art" and "is art" to make my point since
> you seem to have a fairly well defined absolute sense of what is and
> isn't art compared to your sense of the "goodness" and "badness" of art.
[snipped quantum, opened the link]
> However for the purposes of a debate a subjective stance is functionaly
> useless since the only responce to a disagreement is to agree to disagree
> since there is no right or wrong in the first place and even if there was
> there is no way to prove it. So it is better to work from an objective stance)
Working on it.
> And although it would be easier to try and tie in the concept "not art"
> and "is art" as a starting point for an assault on the idea that it's
> allright to pay for art. It's not the healthiest way to go about it since
> it's counter to the idea that any act should be approached
> as an act of art.
Shouldn't it be (not any acts, I mean, but some acts)? If you're trying
to find an equation or put together a program, for example, and you want
it to be elegant, wouldn't/shouldn't you approach it with that goal (of
elegance, and thus of art) in mind?
> But anyway my point with that was that you're making an equivalent objective
> value judgement when you say something is or isn't art as I do when I
> declare that something is good or bad art.
Again; not saying that it absolutely is or isn't, just saying that when
seen from a particular perspective it is or isn't... It's the office
block versus the example of early Whosis architecture.
>>> There isn't such a thing as art... art is something things have
>>> just like all objects have mass.
>>> Things which are great art have this attribute in abundance
>>> while mediocre art have it in only small doses.
>>> The act of creation imbues things with art.
>>> Next time you are in the wild take a look at a fern...
>>> The sheer elegance of it's form is art.
>>'K. Correct me if I'm wrong; you define objects which contain the quality
>>of art to be those which are created, either naturally or to be the
>>realization of an artist's vision, and which possess elegance?
> Not elegance the way you think of it
> more Mathematical elegance...
*L* I was thinking of adding examples to my last statement, and
mathematics would have been one of them. :)
> Ummm niftiness you know?
> Not quite that...
Elegant. Not kludgy. A pattern or set that accomplishes its purpose with
simplicity, efficacity, and a minimum of irrelevant bells and whistles.
Something that you can apply to many situations. Precision, neatness, and
simplicity.
Sort of like that?
> If you don't have any appreciation for elegant solutions then listening to
> some instrumentals might convey the idea... I'm not sure just how to
> explain it... but some things just "work". It's a lot more common with
> music than other forms of art you'd recognise as art, but it does happen.
> And all truly great art has it.
Okay. It's not the definition I'd use, but I (think I) see where you're
coming from and I think that that's a good guideline for deciding what is
and isn't great art.
>>Not sure, but I really don't think that mass appeal is a good criteria to
>>determine what great art is (otherwise, I'd be rating 1c romances over
>>the Book of Kells :) ). I *hope* he is.
> Not mass appeal... I mean how popular gregorian chants are compared to the top
> 40. Think longevity.
> Think respect from the people who aren't sheep.
Hum. (Not that I'm entirely comfortable with defining anyone as sheep,
but in the attempt to adopt the objective stance necessary for a debate)
Actually, yes, I could see him being read a hundred years or a hundred
and fifty years from now. Beyond that, I don't know... OTOH, no, I don't
think he'd meet your criteria for great art. (Moore's _Watchmen_,
however...)
[read and snip hexchords, open link for later (my Usenet provider has a
time limit, sorry)]
>>> Because good just isn't good enough... If it isn't inspiring on every
>>> level it probably isn't worth experiencing.
>>But the question of how inspiring art is must be determined by the
>>viewer's involvement as well, which is subjective. People could dismiss
>>'Moonlight Sonata' as "that damn Muzak" and get ecstatic over the gorgeous
>>recreation of the hero's journey found in a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle
>>comic.
> And they'd be full of shit.
> Seriously.
> Would you take someone who said that seriously... or have any hope
> of respecting their opinions on art?
I could take them seriously, yes. I don't know if I'd respect their
opinions on art (possibly moreso the Hero's Journey attitude that the
Moonlight is Muzak one - some of the Return to NY stuff had very good
parallels, though I'm not sure how deliberate it was).
>>The artist who has a generic job part-time and gets some income from their
>>art part-time is going to be hurt. Making art costs money. If you don't
>>pay an artist, then they're giving up both time and money, and trying to
>>manage on just the income from the part-time job. If they need more than
>>the part-time job can provide, then they have to work more, and spend less
>>time on art (or less time on sleep, take your pick).
> But that places an expectation on the part of the artist to produce
> for money and an expectation on the part of the (Ugh!) consumer
> that art will be produced for money.
> It's better to totaly decommodify art and let the hardships sort
> the wheat from the chaff.
> Trust me artists will nearly _kill_ themselves to produce art.
> I should know.
I know. Maggot already (quite rightly) pointed out that artists aren't
doing it for the money. I shall have to speak to my dealer about
supplying me with a better grade of crack.
But. I still think that you should repay the artist for art. Not to make
them jump through hoops for the money, but because they're doing something
(presumably) that you appreciate, and it seems distinctly rude not to show
your appreciation.
>>>>Mmmmh, the point that seemed to be coming across was "pop culture is
>>>>largely crap, so let's not pay for any art." Didn't seem to quite hold
>>>>together.
>>> No my point was that paying for art encourages a culture of production
>>> not a culture of art. And this needs to be destroyed by any means
>>> possible before we are all watching "I love that caffinated drink pepsi"
>>> songs on the pepsi chart.
>>But paying for art also makes it possible for the artist to produce more
>>art. And if you don't pay for art, then the only entities who can afford
>>to produce anything are going to be those who can afford to loose the
>>money on it for the PR value. If you stop paying for songs, Pepsi is still
>>making enough to afford to produce them, but the amateur band or the
>>songwriter with something to say can't afford to take the time off from
>>work to get their work out.
> You're assuming that art needs to cost a lot of money.
> This is obviously false. Probably even to you.
> I do not need to demonstrate any counterpoints.
*sigh* I know.
> If something is sponsered then either the influences will be obvious
> and hence the "art" will be easy to ignore
> or the artist will have full artistic expression.
I'd have to check, but weren't many great works of art sponsored by a patron?
> In either case the art isn't being commodified the way it is now.
> A product won't be dressed up as art to compete with art if it's
> sponsered.
*raised eyebrow* Not even for the sheep?
<bitter>But if you (generic) are working on the assumption that there are
sheep out there - people who'll settle for popular culture rather than
great art - then why not dress up ads as art? It makes people feel elite
and cultured *and* it sells soft drinks! Nifty!</bitter>
> Creeping corporate control of the artistic meme-space is another
> issue entirely... It would be arts
> equivalent of wearing corporate logo's to be cool.
> A post modern joke that isn't funny anymore.
> And that is the main problem.... The redefinition by the music/cinema/gallery
> cartels (and friends) of art as a commodity
> made by a professional artist. The "art" being validated by the artists
> status as a professional artist.
I agree that that's an unpleasant situation; I just don't like the idea of
refusing to pay for any art because of it.
Torrain
--
Thou shalt not post while on cheap drugs and/or sleep poisons.
maggot
exile wrote:
>
> In article <39A9FEDF...@monkeybrains.net>, mag...@monkeytrapbrains.net
> wrote:
> }couldn't explain why a lot more minimalist sculptors are making money in
> }art than, say, classical artists.
>
> Define "classical artist."
Go get your own damn education.
> ...And tell me what money has to do with anything.
See the rest of this thread.
> }If you don't get it, that's fine, but face up to the fact that enough
> }people do get it to want to see it propogated-and that you just missed
>
> We used to have a large metal sculpture in Downtown Chicago.
>
> We no longer have a large metal sculpture in Downtown Chicago.
You still have *lots* of large metal sculptures in downtown Chicago,
just not that one.
> The "propagation" thing is a bit lost on me.
So is your question.
> }the entire last 100 years of evolution in the field of art. This is the
>
> I've not missed the last 1oo years of art... I've dimissed one aspect of it.
Yeah, the one which questions the way ivory tower intellectuals insist
on defining art.
> There is nothing evolutionary about minimalist sculpture and painting. There
> is something very wrong about covering a canvas with a solid color and selling
> it to the public, misrepresented as art.
That's because you have absolutely no idea what you're looking at.
You're looking for cherubs and sailboats and can't find them so you get
upset.
>
> I do not wonder at the public's lack of respect for this...
But I do wonder at the art critic's insistence that the public does not
accept this. Ever seen the side of a building painted sky blue along a
busy street? Kids playing on a long steel box in a park? Perhaps
you've seen an office building?
>I do tend to
> wonder why the art world *ever* had any respect for it. It makes us look like
> idiots and charlatans. It's ivory tower nonsense.
Whoah, major contradiction in terms here. Are we commies too?
>
> }same kind of flack Whistler was getting back in the day.
>
> Bullshit.
> Minimalist artists ceased to break any new ground long ago.
Oh, so if you're not breaking new ground you shouldn't bother doing
anything?
maggot
Cass
<ns_de_cybaxATyahooDOTcom__...@news.newsguy.com>,
--nightshade-- wrote:
> In article <96732907...@nntpc-01.meganews.com>, "Deviancy"
> <mary...@cdsbitemenet.com> wrote:
>
> > > you paid for the others as well. it doesn't come pre-loaded on
> > > machines for free.
>
> > Well it's never been the normal version
>
> still paid for it. :P
>
> > It's always part of the restore cd and those restore cds are a pain in
> > the ass
>
> eew. you mean they don't supply you with a full install CD?
Nope. All Major Manufacturers (Compaq, HP, etc.) supply their customers
with WinXX preinstalled, and give a "software restore" CD which
basically works as a ghost backup.
This is one reason why you're better off buying a frankenclone.
(Incidentally, my iMac came with _both_ a software restore CD and an
install CD for MacOS 9.)
--
Cass
Cass
<tene...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Silly technical note that I heard last night:
> It seems that it's much easier to burn CDs *after* you run Disk Defrag,
> since that puts all of the files associated with the disk you're burning in
> one place, enabling the disk drive to recite the info in one long unbroken
> string instead of a-m from location 2, n-p from location 1, q-s from
> location J, s.5-t from location beta, etc.
This is only true if (a) you're burning from your HD (the original
poster was copying disc to disc) and (b) you've got a particularly fast
burner, as most burners are so much slower than modern HDs it's quite
absurd.
For example, on my iMac DV I've tried testing Toast with simulation
burns, and I usually see results that indicate that it could keep up
with a 20x or 30x burner. Since I only own a 4x, this is rather
irrelevant. :)
Only once have I had any problems with speed, and that was when burning
my FreeBSD CD. I downloaded the ISO image, and mounted it; but then
when I tried burning from it, I got some serious lag, in the middle of
the file the read speed dropped to about .5x; I suspect this was
because of the file format translation (from ISO to HFS); I copied the
ISO image onto my HD as a directory, burned from the dir, and it worked
fine.
--
Cass
Cass
<daimon...@crosswdins.net> wrote:
> Deviancy wrote:
> >
> > Heres the thing
> >
> > Most games do not say the agreement details on the outside, you must wait
> > till you purchase it to find out.
> >
> > So therefore you aren't agreeing to anything since you didn't see it prior
> > to the sale
> >
> > Therefore there is no crime being done since you never agreed to it
> >
> > Yeah, absurd but it worked for me before
>
> Really? You must have had an extremely gullible judge then. Within
> the packaging lies the software agreement, this is true. However, as a
> consumer, you can request from the store to examine the contents of
> ANYTHING that you purchase.
You don't have to, though.
> Chances are, in addition, that you had to
> agree to the software liscence in one form or another before you
> installed or initially ran the program.
True.
> Plus, you can always RETURN the
> bloody software with the packaging around the CD itself unbroken for a
> refund to the store of purchase. If your store of purchase refuses to
> have a policy like this, or the software does not come with a seal
> around the disks, then it is your right as an informed and intelligent
> purchaser to not purchase from them, and to complain your case to their
> manager and the software company.
And to ignore the license, if the software company doesn't assist you.
You have to be able to get your money back somehow, otherwise the
license is invalid and will be replaced by a court-constructed
'reasonable' license which, believe me, doesn't look like anything the
software industry has written.
> > My complaint was this
> >
> > The system requirements had extra footnotes on the paperwork inside
> >
> > I argued that I didn't agree to these requirements because at the time of
> > purchase I didn't see them nor could I access them even if I wanted to see
> > them. Purchase had to be made first.
>
> That's a problem with store policy and the packagers, NOT the
> programmers, who are the ones who you are ultimately stealing
> intellectual property from. As I said above, you can ask to view the
> documentation in advance. I'll be willing to bet that the store at which
> you bought the software has an open copy in the back somewhere...
Sure, you could, but the law doesn't force you to. The law suggests
that you should assume that the software you purchase will be licensed
under reasonable conditions to allow you to use it.
If there's a seperate licensing agreement, that can supercede the
reasonable license if you have reasonable notice of the agreement. The
notice requirement is on the seller's end.
If they printed the license on the back of the box, then maybe they'd
get around this. But they don't go that far.
--
Cass
exile
}> }couldn't explain why a lot more minimalist sculptors are making money in
}> }art than, say, classical artists.
}>
}> Define "classical artist."
}
}Go get your own damn education.
I got my "own damned education" thank you. You made the statement... you
should be willing to stand by it or... at the very least... admit that you
don't know what you're talking about.
}> ...And tell me what money has to do with anything.
}
}See the rest of this thread.
Where do you answer this question?
}> }If you don't get it, that's fine, but face up to the fact that enough
}> }people do get it to want to see it propogated-and that you just missed
}>
}> We used to have a large metal sculpture in Downtown Chicago.
}>
}> We no longer have a large metal sculpture in Downtown Chicago.
}
}You still have *lots* of large metal sculptures in downtown Chicago,
}just not that one.
But does anyone like them?
}> The "propagation" thing is a bit lost on me.
}
}So is your question.
Huh?
}> }the entire last 100 years of evolution in the field of art. This is the
}>
}> I've not missed the last 1oo years of art... I've dimissed one aspect of it.
}
}Yeah, the one which questions the way ivory tower intellectuals insist
}on defining art.
Where did I define art?
}> There is nothing evolutionary about minimalist sculpture and painting. There
}> is something very wrong about covering a canvas with a solid color and
} selling it to the public, misrepresented as art.
}
}That's because you have absolutely no idea what you're looking at.
}You're looking for cherubs and sailboats and can't find them so you get
}upset.
I don't particularly like cherubs... I've seen some sailboats by Feninger
and Turner that I like. I prefer Bellmer or Ernst or Fellini.
You are doing exactly what I'm accusing minimalists of doing by the way...
claiming that it's not art to me because I don't understand it in an attempt
to validate artwork that's, quite simply, worthless.
I do understand it though... the concepts are so simple as to be
simplistic... hardly worth the effort to realize.
Minimalism has been dead for years, though... I don't really see why this
discussion is going on this far.
}> I do not wonder at the public's lack of respect for this...
}
}But I do wonder at the art critic's insistence that the public does not
}accept this. Ever seen the side of a building painted sky blue along a
}busy street? Kids playing on a long steel box in a park? Perhaps
}you've seen an office building?
Once or twice. How is it relevant?
}>I do tend to
}> wonder why the art world *ever* had any respect for it. It makes us look like
}> idiots and charlatans. It's ivory tower nonsense.
}
}Whoah, major contradiction in terms here. Are we commies too?
What are you talking about?
}> }same kind of flack Whistler was getting back in the day.
}>
}> Bullshit.
}
}> Minimalist artists ceased to break any new ground long ago.
}
}Oh, so if you're not breaking new ground you shouldn't bother doing
}anything?
That's when you're wasting my time. And your own... You should stop
misrepresenting yourself as an artist and go into sales or something.
Satar
do not believe in groups who change their music format, style or edit
their music to sell out to corporate radio/business. That's why I
admire groups like KMFDM.
You mean that NSYNC, Backstreet boys, Metallica, Manson, ect. don't
make you sick?
Regards,
Satar
In article <39A706A4...@crosswdins.net>,
daimon...@crosswinds.net wrote:
> No, it does NOT make me sick. Since when should an artist produce
> art simply to produce art? Why is the artist not allowed to make a
> living from its work? I say work, because producing anything requires
> effort to be put into it, this is work. Why should the artist not
> receive restitution for this work? If this is that artists sole source
> of income, it becomes a job. Many artists and entertainers produce
their
> work for money, and attempt to live off this money. Does this mean
that
> actors should receive such pittances for their work that they too are
> forced to find other jobs so that they can afford to continue to be an
> actor? Don Henley's job is to provide entertainment, in a musical
form,
> both in recorded audio and live stage show formats. That is what he
> does. Deal with it.
>
> --
> Christ "Daimon" Wagner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
exile
}Although I agree that an artist should profit from his/her own work, I
}do not believe in groups who change their music format, style or edit
}their music to sell out to corporate radio/business. That's why I
}admire groups like KMFDM.
}
}You mean that NSYNC, Backstreet boys, Metallica, Manson, ect. don't
}make you sick?
Metallica?
Tigress
I don't see what the big deal is about what is and isn't art, or what
constitutes as "good." The center of the whole debate is: do I like it?
That, my friends, is what determines art from garbage.
For example: I *love* Josephine Wall's art. Her colors are bright and
ethereal and depicts subject matter (fairies, goddesses) that I like. I
think it's beautiful, therefore, I consider it art. However, my former art
professor may consider it simply a medium for children not worth
considering.
Another example is the sculpture outside my University's museum. To me it's
just an extremely ugly hunk of metal, but the caretaker is nuts about it. I
frankly don't know what she sees in it, so I don't consider it art.
Examples of video that I consider art is _The Crow_, _American Beauty_, or
_American History X_. That first example may have a lot of you rolling your
eyes, but I enjoy the movie when I see it (and have a large collection of
stills from it as a result) because I like a lot of visual effects and the
fight scenes. I *love* a good fight scene. The latter two often make people
tell me that they don't "get it." But I like the issues being raised and the
statements on humanity.
Another interesting choice I have for art is pro wrestling, which ties into
my previous statement of my appreciation of a good fight scene. A lot of
people say that it's too violent/sexual/vulgar, but I enjoy it because I
like watching a 2 of 3 falls match between Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit.
(Which I saw live last night. *drool*) Or watching Lita pull out her amazing
aerials or Kane with his 300+ pound flying lariat. Even the 40-foot leap
that Shane McMahon and Steve Blackman took last night I consider art.
Because I *like* it.
So there you have it. I leave you to your regular debates.
Thanks for reading my (poorly organized) rant.
--
Katherine Dunn
kdh...@netzero.net
Tigress's Lair -- http://www.crosswinds.net/~drksdr
Tigress.com -- http://eyeofthetigress.tripod.com
Sabbat Justice -- http://www.crosswinds.net/~sabbatjustice
exile
}Time to express my views on art! Weee!
}
}I don't see what the big deal is about what is and isn't art, or what
}constitutes as "good." The center of the whole debate is: do I like it?
}That, my friends, is what determines art from garbage.
}
}For example: I *love* Josephine Wall's art. Her colors are bright and
}ethereal and depicts subject matter (fairies, goddesses) that I like. I
}think it's beautiful, therefore, I consider it art. However, my former art
}professor may consider it simply a medium for children not worth
}considering.
You still got formal stuff to consider... at least, as an artist. But I'd
have to agree... that is the bottom line.
maggot
exile wrote:
>
> In article <39AAC1BC...@monkeybrains.net>, mag...@monkeytrapbrains.net wrote:
> }exile wrote:
> }> In article <39A9FEDF...@monkeybrains.net>, mag...@monkeytrapbrains.net
>
> }> }couldn't explain why a lot more minimalist sculptors are making money in
> }> }art than, say, classical artists.
> }>
> }> Define "classical artist."
> }
> }Go get your own damn education.
>
> I got my "own damned education" thank you. You made the statement... you
> should be willing to stand by it or... at the very least... admit that you
> don't know what you're talking about.
If you really want to get into a semantical debate over the definition
of common terms then I'm sure there are plenty of people who are more
than willing to go off on whatever tangent you wish to inject to make
their points too.
> }You still have *lots* of large metal sculptures in downtown Chicago,
> }just not that one.
>
> But does anyone like them?
I don't know, I haven't been to Chicago for years. I'll write my
Grandparents and ask if that will make you feel better.
> }> The "propagation" thing is a bit lost on me.
> }
> }So is your question.
>
> Huh?
Precisely.
> }> }the entire last 100 years of evolution in the field of art. This is the
> }>
> }> I've not missed the last 1oo years of art... I've dimissed one aspect of it.
> }
> }Yeah, the one which questions the way ivory tower intellectuals insist
> }on defining art.
>
> Where did I define art?
I don't know, what does you defining art have to do with what I just
wrote?
> }That's because you have absolutely no idea what you're looking at.
> }You're looking for cherubs and sailboats and can't find them so you get
> }upset.
> You are doing exactly what I'm accusing minimalists of doing by the way...
> claiming that it's not art to me because I don't understand it in an attempt
> to validate artwork that's, quite simply, worthless.
You're doing exactly what I said, dismissing something because you don't
get it.
> I do understand it though... the concepts are so simple as to be
> simplistic... hardly worth the effort to realize.
Oh, that's it. That explains it all. Thanks, you don't happen to need
a job as an art historian do you?
> Minimalism has been dead for years, though... I don't really see why this
> discussion is going on this far.
It doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I say something, you say "define
this" or "where did I say that?" or "Huh?" I mean, I hate to bring
other people into the equation here, but most people seem to understand
what I'm talking about. Maybe you ought to reassess your comprehension
skills when it comes to considering the relevance of certain art
movements.
> }> I do not wonder at the public's lack of respect for this...
> }
> }But I do wonder at the art critic's insistence that the public does not
> }accept this. Ever seen the side of a building painted sky blue along a
> }busy street? Kids playing on a long steel box in a park? Perhaps
> }you've seen an office building?
>
> Once or twice. How is it relevant?
Oh yeah, and "How is it relevant?" Geez, you're talking about public's
lack of respect for something, and I give you popular examples of said
item under discussion. Have you ever considered going back and
finishing high school?
> }>I do tend to
> }> wonder why the art world *ever* had any respect for it. It makes us look like
> }> idiots and charlatans. It's ivory tower nonsense.
> }
> }Whoah, major contradiction in terms here. Are we commies too?
>
> What are you talking about?
Wonder of wonders, he didn't get it!
> }> }same kind of flack Whistler was getting back in the day.
> }>
> }> Bullshit.
> }
> }> Minimalist artists ceased to break any new ground long ago.
> }
> }Oh, so if you're not breaking new ground you shouldn't bother doing
> }anything?
>
> That's when you're wasting my time. And your own... You should stop
> misrepresenting yourself as an artist and go into sales or something.
Wow! An actual statement! Look at that. Who would have thought.
maggot
Hardrock Llewynyth
dove) the Unworthy write in this Year of Our Lord Sun, 27 Aug 2000
16:09:38 GMT:
>Have you tried thttpd? Many people have cheered it's small footprint
>and speed over apache for some things. A site that I know well uses
>Apache as well as thttpd. thttpd serves the images and ads.
No. I will do so as soon as i get my webserver up; probably sometime
in October.
>>So far, the only thing that Windows does better than linux is games
>>and audio. Macs are better for graphics;
>
>Depends on what you are talking about. x86 has the best 3D video
>on the consumer level.
Sorry, not clear. I was thinking Professional 2D graphics and
rendering. Mac with Radius video components. Used this at a lab i
used to work at. Add the right software, a good HP or Nikon scanner,
and a Fuji dye-sub printer, and you have almost automatic colour
calibration from scanning to output once the base calibration is done
at installation.
>May the One shine on us all, even if we enjoy console.
Mmmm, CLI...
Hardrock, text geek.
Hardrock Llewynyth
Year of Our Lord Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:55:43 -0700:
>> }>{By the way... Fuck minimalism.}
>> }
>> }Fuck it yourself, i'm rather fond of it. Though i tend to prefer it's
>> }Zen incarnation, rather than the Bauhaus or other western minimalist
>> }schools.
>>
>> Hardly the same thing... Minimalism as minimalism is a construct of the later
>> 2oth century... a pretentious, selfish, uniquely stupid branch of the art
>> world that's, in my opinion, responsible for a large part of the lack of
>> respect fot the arts today. I can hardly say I blame folk.
>
>Gee it couldn't have anything to do with the widespread distribution of
>motion pictures and recorded music that distilled the interest in
>galleries and art exhibits, could it? This lack of interest certainly
>couldn't explain why a lot more minimalist sculptors are making money in
>art than, say, classical artists.
And, to backtrack a bit, Zen *is* minimalism. To say otherwise is to
demonstrate complete ignorance of the Zen aesthetic, and complete
ignorance of the origins of the minimalist aesthetic in western art.
Hardrock
exile
}> That's when you're wasting my time. And your own... You should stop
}> misrepresenting yourself as an artist and go into sales or something.
}
}Wow! An actual statement! Look at that. Who would have thought.
Thanks for clarifying.
exile
}And, to backtrack a bit, Zen *is* minimalism. To say otherwise is to
}demonstrate complete ignorance of the Zen aesthetic, and complete
}ignorance of the origins of the minimalist aesthetic in western art.
Ok... go ahead... explain it to me.
Cass
<ex...@21stcentury.net> wrote:
> In article <1h1nqs897qvurcvd4...@4ax.com>, Hardrock Llewynyth
> <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>
> }And, to backtrack a bit, Zen *is* minimalism. To say otherwise is to
> }demonstrate complete ignorance of the Zen aesthetic, and complete
> }ignorance of the origins of the minimalist aesthetic in western art.
>
> Ok... go ahead... explain it to me.
"Does anyone have a question?" asked Lin-chi. "If so, let him ask it
now. But the instant you open your mouth you are already way off."
--
Cass