I thought about artist

Post #333,217 by crazy 9/27/10 11:50:27 AM 9/27/10 1:48:53 PM Reply	I thought about artist In most cases, art is static. And there is no $ risk of the art mis-performing, unless it is a giant structure, and then it is based on falling over and killing people, or an opening didn't draw enough people. Those are not internal hidden failures. They don't fall into the level of constrained details that are required to program. No art viewer cares if the pigments are arguing with each other and 5 years from now the painting will crumble. I could ramble on, but I simply don't accept any type of art as having the business functionality that allows for the type of hidden damage programmers create. And it doesn't even create it's own reality, it creates an impression on the person experiencing it. When that person walks away, the art effectively doesn't exist in their world other than the thoughts left behind. But a program is acting independently of user, they merely intersect occasionally. Both religious figures and politicians depend on convincing others of their realities before they can exist. And no matter how well they convince, they just changed other people's behavior, for a while. If they convinced them to do something because the angels said so, they lied. Programmers create the angels. Programmers directly alter the behavior of independent agents, and can control (not that they always do, but CAN control) every single thing the programs does. And the program will continue to affect real world events, at least as long as the admins keep the systems running. As per the programmer's spec. Hmm. Ok, so while the freedom gives the initial ability to create these worlds, as long as there is hardware involved the admins are necessary. You can be one of my angels, box. Don't forget, angels are interchangeable. Eventually. Back to religious figures and politicians: With the exception of dictator, and I mean way past Saddam level, they can't control individual actions, they can merely guide. And people are stupid. They can be convinced of almost anything, using many levels of language, which is used in a way to confuse them, not clarify. Whatever comes out of the process is subject to debate. Computers are the opposite. You have to exactly specify what it does. Programmers (of the level I'm describing) create multiple realities, on their own, until the reality they create matches the desired goals of the customer. Nothing like religious figures and politicians. Edited by crazy Sept. 27, 2010, 12:13:54 PM EDT Edited by crazy Sept. 27, 2010, 12:15:19 PM EDT I thought about artist In most cases, art is static. And there is no $ risk of the art mis-performing, unless it is a giant structure, and then it is based on falling over and killing people, or an opening didn't draw enough people. Those are not internal hidden failures. They don't fall into the level of constrained details that are required to program. No art viewer cares if the pigments are arguing with each other and 5 years from now the painting will crumble. I could ramble on, but I simply don't accept any type of art as having the business functionality that allows for the type of hidden damage programmers create. And it doesn't even create it's own reality, it creates an impression on the person experiencing it. When that person walks away, the art effectively doesn't exist in their world other than the thoughts left behind. But a program is acting independently of user, they merely intersect occasionally. Both religious figures and politicians depends on convincing others of their realities before they can exist. With the exception of dictator, and I mean way past Saddam level, they can't control individual actions, they can merely guide. And people are stupid. They can be convinced of almost anything, using many levels of language, which is used in a way to confuse them, not clarify. Whatever comes out of the process is subject to debate. Computers are the opposite. You have to exactly specify what it does. Programmers (of the level I'm describing) create multiple realities, on their own, until the reality they create matches the desired goals of the customer. Nothing like religious figures and politicians. Edited by crazy Sept. 27, 2010, 01:48:53 PM EDT Expand All History \| Collapse All History
Post #333,220 by drook 9/27/10 11:58:17 AM Reply	Economists -- Drew
Post #333,225 by beepster 9/27/10 12:05:09 PM Reply	If I got to invent my reality I'd have tons more money :-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,227 by crazy 9/27/10 12:07:15 PM Reply	So basically the answer is no one?
Post #333,576 by scoenye 10/2/10 10:54:22 AM Reply	Judges They can create any virtual reality they like and you get to live in it.
Post #333,583 by crazy 10/2/10 11:57:56 AM Reply	Judges win on straight power No question. But they have intense review of their processes. They have to pretend to follow the law, but let's face it, we've seen some tortured logic to allow their viewpoint to drive a judgment. The intense review can take a very long time, though, and the power to enforce bad decisions is immense. So they do create reality. So as long as they cover their bases to not be impeached, and are elected for life, yeah, those few win 100%. They are not creating a product that satisfies a client, though, so no, they aren't what I had in mind, (at least as a reasonable comparison to what I do), so I won't be using them as an example. I don't pretend that level of power.

Welcome to IWETHEY!