Last time I checked, it was not illegal to download p0rn. Why are you lumping it in with illegal activities?
And yes, there are illegal ways of downloading p0rn (copyrighted or underage). But, regardless of the ethical considerations, there is no law against downloading a video of consenting adults engaged in sexual activities. (At least, no federal law that I know of. I am sure some of the more conservative states have laws against it)
So for those people who *are able* to grasp the second meaning, it is art, and for those who can't, it is not ? You just justified Ebert's opinion (for him, it ain't art) and nullified your position (art has an objective definition). We're back again to whatever a person calls art, is art.
No, I didn't say it wasn't art. I wasn't trying to imply that the 'art test' decided what was art. Anything that's created with the intent of multiple meanings, or 'found' and displayed with that intent is art.
Just like any collection of sounds that people make to try to convey a meaning is speech, and any collection of plant and animals prepared with the intent that people eat them is food.
Anything people can't generally figure out the secondary meaning, however, is not worth treating as art. It is speech in a secret language only you can understand, it is food that is it not possible to ingest.
Art without any communication is art that is an utter failure. It is 'art', in the same way that someone speaking nonsense is creating 'speech', or someone who made a 'tree bark salad' is creating 'food', and that should be about the level of attention we pay those artists.
Don't confuse that with bad art, which is art that does not get its intended meaning across well. Even with incredibly bad art, you can figure out what the creator was trying to say, even if they have failed. I.e., it's someone who mumbles and you miss a few words, or it's someone who burned the food...you can figure it out what was supposed to be going on, but they were not up to the task.
Anything created by Microsoft also sounds like it's from a line of hygiene products - hasn't stopped them so far..
I don't know what kind of women you know who would use such a product named "Visual Studio." Eww.
I disagree here is that paragraph
If I have a beef with the iPad, it's that while it's a lovely device for consuming content, it doesn't do much to facilitate its creation. The computer is the greatest all-purpose creativity tool since the pen. It put a music studio, a movie studio, a darkroom and a publishing house on everybody's desk. The iPad shifts the emphasis from creating content to merely absorbing and manipulating it. It mutes you, turns you back into a passive consumer of other people's masterpieces. In that sense, it's a step backward. Not much of a fairy-tale ending. Except for the people who are selling content.
I don't own any Apple products. I am not a fanboy. I use Ubuntu.
The author gets it wrong. The iPad is not a home computer replacement. It is a consumption device so that you can consume other people's content comfortably away from home ( or at home on a couch ). If you want to do the things you do on a computer, you go to your computer and I am sure Apple is hoping people will buy both.
If I ever buy anything like iPad that is how I will do it. If I have one it will be for reading the web on a plane ride, not a place where I will likely be doing photoshop or composing music.
Thankfully, we only get "thank you letter to Kathy.ppt" round these parts.
If Linux Corp. says it should support both, then it should support both. This is a major corporate operating system. It's not like just anyone can go and put together a Linux distribution. Linux Corp. wouldn't allow that. There would be law suits and drive by shootings and such.
Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. - Paul Tillich, German theologian and historian