• Kagamin <spam here.lot> Aug 30 2010
• dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> Aug 30 2010
• Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> Aug 30 2010
• Kagamin <spam here.lot> Aug 30 2010
• BCS <none anon.com> Aug 30 2010
• Torarin <torarind gmail.com> Aug 31 2010
• BCS <none anon.com> Aug 31 2010
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Aug 31 2010
• Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> Aug 31 2010
• Torarin <torarind gmail.com> Aug 31 2010
• BCS <none anon.com> Aug 31 2010
• "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> Aug 31 2010
• Don <nospam nospam.com> Aug 31 2010

Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 Shit, just look at the  
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale  
 software.


Who cares about crap if free software is still better than for-sale?

 For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.


Lol, I use IE6 at my workplace. MS even can't get rid of it.

 Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works.  You seem to have a  
 very twisted view on reality.


They sell like hell. Even Hollywood does. What can be crappier than that? And
it gets crappier every second, every sequel, and sells never drop. and they
just make more crappier crap because profit is higher when they sell crap for
the price of masterpiece.

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

== Quote from Kagamin (spam here.lot)'s article
 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
 Shit, just look at the
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale
 software.


 For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.




IE6 may suck horribly by today's standards, but let's put it in perspective.  It
was released in 2001.  The state of the art improves over time, and in the case
of
web browsers it improves quickly.  It was actually a pretty decent browser for
its
time.  It's just that the people using it now are stuck using it because of some
legacy crapware (that probably didn't sell well and may have been developed
in-house) that runs on it and hasn't been updated since back when people
programmed using a magnetized needle and a steady hand.

 Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works.  You seem to have a
 very twisted view on reality.




more crappier crap because profit is higher when they sell crap for the price of
masterpiece.

Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap.  The
problem
is that everyone thinks that about a **different** ~60-70% because different
movies cater to different niches.  Having a single centralized "this movie is
crap" authority is how dictatorship works.  Producing movies even if only a
minority thinks they're worth watching, as long as that minority can pay enough
to
make it profitable is how capitalism works.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

dsimcha wrote:
 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap.  The
problem
 is that everyone thinks that about a **different** ~60-70% because different
 movies cater to different niches.


Reminds me of the old joke about advertising. Businessmen know that half of 
their advertising budget is wasted, they just don't know which half.


 Having a single centralized "this movie is
 crap" authority is how dictatorship works.  Producing movies even if only a
 minority thinks they're worth watching, as long as that minority can pay
enough to
 make it profitable is how capitalism works.


Hollywood moguls don't set out to make crap. They set out to make what sells. 
When they're investing $50 million in a project, they want some assurance that 
it will sell. Therefore, they look at movies that did sell well and make their 
new movie like them - that's why sequels are produced, and why stars get big 
salaries.

For all the drek that this does produce, it still produces far more good stuff 
than ones where a government agency decides what will be produced. For example, 
there's all that crap on TV, and then there's "Breaking Bad".

Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:

dsimcha Wrote:

 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap.  The
problem
 is that everyone thinks that about a **different** ~60-70% because different
 movies cater to different niches.  Having a single centralized "this movie is
 crap" authority is how dictatorship works.  Producing movies even if only a
 minority thinks they're worth watching, as long as that minority can pay
enough to
 make it profitable is how capitalism works.


I know, there's a niche for crap.
You can replace the question of quality with question of profit. I call it
ignorance.

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Kagamin,

 dsimcha Wrote:
 
 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap.
 The problem is that everyone thinks that about a **different**
 ~60-70% because different movies cater to different niches.  Having a
 single centralized "this movie is crap" authority is how dictatorship
 works.  Producing movies even if only a minority thinks they're worth
 watching, as long as that minority can pay enough to make it
 profitable is how capitalism works.
 


 You can replace the question of quality with question of profit. I
 call it ignorance.


Everything you like, someone else thinks is crap and someone else thinks 
is offensive. Same goes for me. And everyone else. Any standard chosen by 
/a man/ is arbitrary and not inherently any better than any other.

-- 
... <IXOYE><

Torarin <torarind gmail.com> writes:

So reviews are useless?

2010/8/31 BCS <none anon.com>:
 Hello Kagamin,

 dsimcha Wrote:

 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is crap.
 The problem is that everyone thinks that about a **different**
 ~60-70% because different movies cater to different niches. =A0Having a
 single centralized "this movie is crap" authority is how dictatorship
 works. =A0Producing movies even if only a minority thinks they're worth
 watching, as long as that minority can pay enough to make it
 profitable is how capitalism works.


 You can replace the question of quality with question of profit. I
 call it ignorance.


 Everything you like, someone else thinks is crap and someone else thinks =


 offensive. Same goes for me. And everyone else. Any standard chosen by /a
 man/ is arbitrary and not inherently any better than any other.

 --
 ... <IXOYE><

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Torarin,

 So reviews are useless?
 


Without context, yes they are useless. With context, your just looking at 
correlation: i.e "we like/dislike the same things".

 2010/8/31 BCS <none anon.com>:
 
 Hello Kagamin,
 
 dsimcha Wrote:
 
 Of course everyone thinks ~60-70% of what Hollywood puts out is
 crap. The problem is that everyone thinks that about a
 **different** ~60-70% because different movies cater to different
 niches.  Having a single centralized "this movie is crap" authority
 is how dictatorship works.  Producing movies even if only a
 minority thinks they're worth watching, as long as that minority
 can pay enough to make it profitable is how capitalism works.
 


 You can replace the question of quality with question of profit. I
 call it ignorance.


 thinks is offensive. Same goes for me. And everyone else. Any
 standard chosen by /a man/ is arbitrary and not inherently any better
 than any other.
 
 --
 ... <IXOYE><




... <IXOYE><

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 8/31/10 9:09 CDT, Torarin wrote:
 2010/8/31 BCS<none anon.com>:
 Hello Torarin,

 So reviews are useless?


 Without context, yes they are useless. With context, your just looking at
 correlation: i.e "we like/dislike the same things".


 I can understand the premise of the view that art cannot be
 quality-assessed, but I think there are still clichés, formulas, poor
 execution like bad acting, unrealistic dialog, etc., that can be
 pointed out by experienced reviewers.

 Torarin


Relevant reading:

http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html

Art is indeed a relational value (has value only defined jointly by a 
creator and a recipient) but that doesn't make it wholly relative.


Andrei

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Relevant reading:
 
 http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html
 
 Art is indeed a relational value (has value only defined jointly by a 
 creator and a recipient) but that doesn't make it wholly relative.


Where I draw the line is when someone tries to impose their taste upon others.

My father was in the Air Force, and so often lived on military bases in base 
housing. On one, all the base housing furnishings were selected by the base 
commander's wife. Whether she had good taste or not was irrelevant, all the 
officers' wives *loathed* her picking out their furnishings and imposing it on
them.

Torarin <torarind gmail.com> writes:

2010/8/31 BCS <none anon.com>:
 Hello Torarin,

 So reviews are useless?


 Without context, yes they are useless. With context, your just looking at
 correlation: i.e "we like/dislike the same things".


I can understand the premise of the view that art cannot be
quality-assessed, but I think there are still clich=E9s, formulas, poor
execution like bad acting, unrealistic dialog, etc., that can be
pointed out by experienced reviewers.

Torarin

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Torarin,

 2010/8/31 BCS <none anon.com>:
 
 Hello Torarin,
 
 So reviews are useless?
 


 looking at correlation: i.e "we like/dislike the same things".
 


 quality-assessed, but I think there are still clichés, formulas, poor
 execution like bad acting, unrealistic dialog, etc., that can be
 pointed out by experienced reviewers.
 


The best they can say is "I think this is junk and I think you will to!"

I will grant that there are people who can say that and be correct most of 
the time.

OTOH I was comming at it from the other side: that someone thinks something 
is good/bad/crap/offensive isn't proof of anything.
-- 
... <IXOYE><

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:43:27 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 Shit, just look at the
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale
 software.


 Who cares about crap if free software is still better than for-sale?

 For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.


 Lol, I use IE6 at my workplace. MS even can't get rid of it.

 Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works.  You seem to have  
 a
 very twisted view on reality.


 They sell like hell. Even Hollywood does. What can be crappier than  
 that? And it gets crappier every second, every sequel, and sells never  
 drop. and they just make more crappier crap because profit is higher  
 when they sell crap for the price of masterpiece.


This is all based on your opinion.  And unfortunately it's all wrong -- I  
know what is good and what is bad, you should just stop posting.

-Steve

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:43:27 -0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:
 
 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 Shit, just look at the
 over-abundance of totally crappy open source software versus for-sale
 software.


 Who cares about crap if free software is still better than for-sale?

 For-sale software that sucks doesn't last very long.


 Lol, I use IE6 at my workplace. MS even can't get rid of it.

 Crappy books don't sell, that's how capitalism works.  You seem to 
 have a
 very twisted view on reality.


 They sell like hell. Even Hollywood does. What can be crappier than 
 that? And it gets crappier every second, every sequel, and sells never 
 drop. and they just make more crappier crap because profit is higher 
 when they sell crap for the price of masterpiece.


 This is all based on your opinion.  And unfortunately it's all wrong -- 
 I know what is good and what is bad, you should just stop posting.
 
 -Steve


"Please, please, kids, stop fighting. Maybe Lisa's right about America 
being the land of opportunity, and maybe Adil's got a point about the 
machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers."
-Homer Simpson