tmroyal's comments

Isn't the real problem here that instead of an honest statement about why the app needs to be downloaded (ie. no Flash on the iPad), something looking like an advertisement is served instead? That the author assumed the worst might be due to the apparent dishonesty rather than any paranoia on the author's part.

Of course, the problem might be a little more complicated, because some less adept users seeing that a website will not load on their device might blame those who made the website.

Still, CBS's solution clearly isn't the one making lemonade out of lemons.

I don't think the problems that inspire education reform will go away until a large number people with clout re-conceptualize the whole notion and function of education. Education ends is too conflated with nationalist and career ambitions. If students were given the encouragement and support to complete relevant projects that can translate into attractive college applications or on-the-job skills, students would be better served to enter the workforce and would probably more effectively see the relevance of their actions. It's difficult to test student success and standardized tests, organized by specialist subjects, become irrelevant.

Marshall McLuhan (in the sixties) talked about how instant access to information made specialization in education less relevant. He predicted that schools would cease operating under the industrial assumption of specialization. In fact, many other hard boundaries - work/leisure, education/employment - would become blurred and resemble more pre-industrial, and even pre-literate, sensibilities. Unfortunately, technology moves so much slower than ideology, and people are treating the "jobs of the future" as if one learns math, and then one can work in some math-making factory, or something, for the rest of their life.

The dichotomy the author presents is irrelevant. Khan academy and mathalicious.com would both serve a project-based curriculum quite well.

"Music was born free; and to win freedom is its destiny." - Ferruccio Busoni

This reminds me of that article by Malcolm Gladwell about Cézanne and Picasso. Picasso is depicted as the visionary who revolutionizes artistic expression in his teens and Cézanne is a painter who struggles his entire life and doesn't achieve a breakthrough until he is much older. It might provide context to a discussion like this:

http://www.gladwell.com/2008/2008_10_20_a_latebloomers.html

Yet, I wonder if achievement is evenly distributed across the range of all ages, and what is not evenly distributed are mentions of the achiever's age when mentioning her or his achievement. If artist A revolutionizes the art world at the age of 23 and artist B does so at the age of 60, would it not be more likely to see when the respective artists achievements are mentioned? i.e.:

Artist A revolutionized the art world and he did so at the age of 23

Artist B revolutionized the art world.

Anyway, the statement "I'm 30 and haven't done anything, so I won't" is based on a number normative assumptions. Not everyone is 30 finds herself in the same set of circumstances. Further, normativity is antithetical to creation, so a sentiment behind this post is contradictory.

Ultimately, the answer is to have ideas that are easy to follow through but are not obvious. That's how you look like a prodigy, i think.

If you look and listen carefully, you can hear that the constant circular velocity is favored over sub-metric regularity. The notes in the middle of the measure are more rapid than the notes on the outside. It's a little ugly.

I dont think it is meaningless. The circle is used to represent repetition and the lines juxtaposed over the circle is used to represent a pattern of pitch. Together they represent a repeating pattern that changes. It isn't the deepest it could be, but it isn't horrible.

I am a beginner. I am trying to learn Rails. I am finding it difficult because the tutorials tend to be walkthroughs of creating very specific types of web apps, with understanding of the concepts being offered a side effect. I often have questions about why and wherefore of certain decisions tutorial authors make. My only recourse is the documentation, which is too large for me to maintain my excitement for too long, especially with my busy schedule.

I do not get excited about the sudden ability to make things because I have been making things (not webapps) for some time.

I have had much more success learning Sinatra. While the tutorials are similarly designed, the reduced reliance of magic makes it easier for me understand the purpose of the commands given. There are no files that are generated for me in places that I have to go looking for that do something important that I don't have to think about (but I do have to understand.) In fact, Sinatra has helped me to understand Rails in hindsight.

I think the issue is that the tutorials I have looked at tend to be trying to sell Rails as an awesome tool to make things. This has emphasized ease of use over understanding of concepts. You can contrast these tutorials with books or tutorials for any programming language. Books on programming languages tend to be more abstract and while they limit one's power at first, they enhance one's awareness in the end. Tutorials on Rails do the opposite for me.

Maybe I should have just bought a book on Rails (like the tutorials said.)

This is excellent not only as a question about the intrinsic value of information, but this piece also implicitly, even involuntarily, makes a negative statement about the valuation of conceptual art, of which this piece is an example. I read in this something akin to Epimenides Paradox (i.e. the value of this work is in showing how works like this have no value.)

The question pertaining to whether or not this is really art isn't very interesting. It's an old argument. What I find fascinating are the very passionate arguments against things labeling things like this art, sometimes coming from people who might not even follow art.

The objection must stem from the fact that the term 'art' automatically connotes a cultural/economic value and a signifier of class. There is a legitimate worry that the message from the art world is that you just aren't very impressive if you aren't just infatuated with Kadinsky, De Kooning and, by some perverse extension, Jeff Koons.

Calling something an installation like this art has the value of framing a very, very specific statement: something would be lost by not calling this art. That said, I wouldn't buy this, nor make any effort to see it in person. That would hardly be necessary. Nor would I label someone who didn't 'get' this a 'prole' or 'not with it' (as if my opinion counted.)

Still, this would not be enough to sway one holding on to a conservative definition of art. His or her value as a human being is at stake. Who can blame them? It's a shame, because these political concerns limit art in many thousands of tiny ways with a net result of making a more boring world. I guess politics of status limits activities in many other ways. Nothing new here.

If you really want to get your hands nasty, gross, and smelly, I would suggest learning to program using either an OS's native audio library (CoreAudio, ALSA/Jack, etc.) or using a cross platform library (PortAudio, RTAudio). One might consider using some toolkit (CLAM, STk) if they would not like to have to mess with reading headers.

pd seems too much of a musician's solution, though people are writing advanced plug-ins all the time for it in C/C++. (Max/MSP has support for Java). If you really just want to get your feet wet slightly damp, I'd recommend SuperCollider.

Then again, there's always matlab.

I for one would rather just program a Basic Stamp to drive a DAC made from resistors on a breadboard. Now that's hackin'!