Space Cadet

*points* Haha! :smartass: :laugh3:

It's the Schrodinger's Cat scenario- two simultaneous possibilities, and they are showing us both. But it will be interesting to see how the two timelines are linked (or not). Here's an interesting interview with the head writers if anyone wants to know where their heads are... http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/02/02/lost-premiere-damon-carlton/ Also, has everyone seen the Kimmel interview? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKv1R66W8PM]YouTube- Damon Lindelof & Carlton Cuse Talk About LOST Premiere PART 1[/ame]

Last night, it was all about Lost all freaking night. :dead: Talk about a rabbit hole.

Wow that was sad, in oh so many ways.

Those who are dead are not dead they're just living in my head.... Or as Hurley just said, I've always thought it was funny how all the guys insist that none of them have ever watched the show and yet there's so many thematic similarities. (Although that guy really pushes his luck... :thinking: ) But then the moment you get into pop philosophy and psychology, common themes do tend to show up. Just look at how much Lost has in common with The Prisoner and Life on Mars (the real one).

Eeeeeeeeee!

What he said: She is talented, even if she had a pitchy night. She writes her own songs (supposedly) she seems to have a certain amount of artistic integrity, she's cute, and she's insanely popular with the midwestern teenybopper crowd. Vote for her, the thinking goes, and you'll look 'hip' and relevant. You have to be at a major label to be nominated, and your record company needs to put you forward for the award. And you need to make it onto the radio in America. (Is payola really over?) And that's why the system is dying.

Looks about right. Heh... you can pick Guy out because he's the one with elf ears. :lol::nice: Heh... for a second there I read it as 4chan and was going to say well I see your problem there... :laugh3: But it's probably the format. Look up the videos- the very end of Datascroller is clipped for some reason, but it's pretty much the entire song- http://apparatjik.com/resources/swf/data.swf

I do get many of them, but not all. (I like the ideas of math, but I'm terrible with actual numbers- it's an ADD thing...) The guy worked for NASA, so there's probably a few you have to be a math major to even have a chance at. This ones my favorite. My Dad actually told me that one almost word for word once. My reaction was similar. :laugh3: Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. Actually I'm slightly right brain dominant, so both words and numbers are left-brain ways for me to try to apply a system to all the shapes and colours in my head. Yet coming from a very left-brain dominant family (thanks Dad) I sort of work in the middle between the two and have a bit of trouble with purely emotional things.

Dunno. Nothing really sticks out in my mind- it works really well as an album. Every time I try to say these three songs, then I remember but these four other songs too. *shrugs* :D It gets charged to your card in pounds. When your credit card company puts the charge through they convert it to dollars based on the exchange rate at that moment, and that's the price you see on your credit card bill.

Yes, there does seem to be a very big genetic element to it. At the same time though, the brain is like a muscle- the more you exercise one part of it, the stronger that part gets. Studies have proved that self-belief plays a huge role in eventual ability, especially with math. The more you believe you can do it the harder you'll try and the better you'll get.

edit: epic post is epic. Sorry. :laugh3: I meant in the sense that both are more or less universally loathed for various reasons, right or wrong, but yet in spite of public opinion are still examples of art and literature. Well, fame and especially influence are exactly the criteria that determines whether something is a landmark and canonical or not, rather than just popular or critically praised. What gets people upset in cases like "voice of fire" is perceived artificial inflation in stature. Picasso's Guernica for example might be worth millions, but culturally it is really, trully priceless because it is so irreplaceable. Nothing will have the same stature, meaning, relevance, influence and so on. If voice of fire had been presented as a cool minimalist painting from the 60's, it may have had a few people going hey cool, because it's such a good representation of that era's aesthetic. Instead, it was presented in the 80's out of context as a landmark worth millions, and everyone went wait a minute we say if it's a landmark or not and it isn't, yet you're using our money to buy it. That's where the hate started. Actually they say he was really abusive on set. They hate each other's guts now. Yeah, as a former english lit major who's currently studying electronic engineering, I've seen plenty of both sides and that seems to be the case. Math is about a single, concrete right answer and an infinite number of wrong ones. The arts are about hundreds of potential right answers with degrees of rightness and millions of wrong ones. People seem to gravitate one way or the other depending on how much grey area their brains can process. Rule 34. Math really can be though. My dad is a mathematician, so there are all sorts of weird math books around the house, and the way some of them can turn something so rigid into something so beautiful... there are moments when great math can stir the soul in the same sort of way that great poetry can, especially when it's applied to the world. The way I see it, it's like binary .jpgs. Digital code is made of ones and zeros. A bit is either on or off, one or zero, high or low. There is no 1.5. There are no other options. But when you start stringing those ones and zeroes together, patterns emerge. Put enough together, and you may end up with an image of one of the great works of art. The same can happen with other forms of math. You may see a list of numbers and equations on a page, but it's a language, and if you knew how to read it you could see the poetry of what it's describing- the stars and planets, seashells, the rhythms of life, how everything comes together. Math can be crude or elegant, just like anything else. But to see the poetry, you need to speak the language. :thumbsup: Me too. Two systems describing one world. Actually, most of the great mathematicians (and their math) were profoundly creative. The creativity was just channeled in a different way. Philosophy or math- they are both systems that point to elements of the world. It's like the difference between a Mac mouse and a PC mouse- one has one button, one has several, but in the end it's all about how you learn to use it to perform the same tasks.

I love well-done minimalism. I have a background in graphic design and developed a thing for it during that time. Although that particular piece gets on my nerves, I have no problem with someone hanging it in a gallery and calling it art. Because it is. What I have a problem with is someone hanging a pricetag on it and calling it great art.

Awesome! :cool: Very jealous. And happy for them. :nice:

Listened twice now. Good stuff. :cool: A lot of the tracks we've already heard parts of scattered through bits of media. The ones we haven't are variations on the same sort of sound. Electronic heavy, poppy, kind of 80's and kind of not. Jonas does most of the vocals but you hear a lot of the other guys too. And then for lack of a better term, plenty more sonic wtf-ery at the end of tracks between songs. It's a really fun, happy-sounding sort of album. :nice:

Is it well-written? Does it follow the rules of good literature, or break them in an interesting way? ie. Is the plot interesting? Is it well-structured: Does it have a good arc to it, or if taking an unconventional approach does it work? Is it engaging? Is it relevant? Does it have something new and/or good to say? Does it make the reader think? Are the characters (whether flat or rounded, static or dynamic) well developed? Do they serve the plot well? Do they seem real? If they are caricatures, are they entertaining, and do the fulfill their intended roles well? Is the dialogue well-written? How is the setting handled? How does the narration impact everything? Is it the right tone for the story? Are the words well-chosen? If it's non-fiction, (like a textbook or scientific journal) how well does it present the information, and what is it's intended audience? Is the language well-chosen? Does it get the point across? Is it engaging? Is the structure logical and easy to follow?

Ok, taking the art part of the argument, this is art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire Some of the haters (of which I am one) may say that it isn't art, but it is. In the original context, it was interesting too, apparently. It was in a whole room full of weird graphically bold paintings at expo '67 in Montreal. It kind of fits with the whole 60's aesthetic. Then in the late 80's, it was purchased by our national art gallery for nearly two million dollars. And everyone has been debating it ever since. Because it's a board with 3 stripes on it that cost millions. It is stupid art. You could argue that it's bad art. But it will never stop being art no matter how much you hate it. In the same way, the writings of Amanda McKittrick Ros may be the worst literature in the history of English literature (look her up), but even bad literature is still literature. Goodnight Moon or Great Expectations, it has words in a book. They even tell stories. Therefore they are literature.

Word. :cool:

There's a difference? But yes, thinking about it, books with words in them would be a subset of the category "literature" as literature doesn't necessarily have to be in a book- eg a poem on the bus. Now if a book had nothing but pictures in it it probably wouldn't count as literature. However, if this is snobby bad books aren't really literature thing, then well, tough. They are.

I hear you there. I had a little tiny bit set aside for this, but not enough. Oh well. I'll just hope I can bum enough rides so that I don't need more bus tickets for a while. *sigh* I hate money. :bomb:

Just starting to listen now. :dance:

*comes on panicked cause she forgot what week it was* Oh thank goodness. I haven't been on the computer much to even start my list. :stunned: :nice: I remember when I was like that over Agaetis Byrjun.

If the title is "Eye On" I will laugh. It well may be that it was under our noses all along...

That new McLaren looks mental. :stunned: Will be interesting to see if that weird squashed fin works aerodynamically.

Heh... congratz dude. Nice picspam. :P