The brand name? So anonymous art is always worthless? How about cave
drawings? Certainly some don't think much of cave drawings as some have
been covered by graffiti.
> Some of the other stuff is at least in some part clever or interesting but
> largely relies on mainly dealers creating a market for it amongst the super
> rich with more money than sense. Sawn in half sharks for instance. I have
> seen some pretty silly modern art with ludicrous prices (especially some of
> the things I know the cost of making).
So art is defined by the market price?
> But where do you place some of the organic bronze castings of Henry Moore or
> carvings of Barbara Hepworth? When new they were controversial but today
> they are well regarded and sometimes stolen to order.
>
> One of the curiosities is that judgement of beauty in faces is sort of hard
> wired. Too much or too little facial asymmetry looks ugly or other worldly
> respectively. Notably the elves in Lord of the Rings were chosen for having
> exceptionally symmetric faces. Film stars mostly are more symmetric than in
> the average population but not perfect.
>
> The evolution of music over the centuries is probably the most complicated
> art form of all though. Stravinsky was cutting edge avant garde only a
> century ago where now it is mainstream classical music. Schoenberg's atonal
> music still remains inaccessible to most listeners.
>
> Once you add the possibilities that arise from modern jazz and later
> electronic synthesisers the gamut of possible music just exploded. You can
> really only tell good music or art by what is still being played or looked
> at a few hundred years later. The rest is just ephemera.
Why does being popular define art?
--
Rick C
Reply by rickman●May 31, 20172017-05-31
Phil Hobbs wrote on 5/31/2017 10:39 AM:
> On 05/31/2017 10:27 AM, rickman wrote:
>> Phil Hobbs wrote on 5/31/2017 10:11 AM:
>>> On 05/30/2017 10:04 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> John Larkin wrote on 5/30/2017 9:53 PM:
>>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 17:33:09 -0700 (PDT), pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be best to include every mosfet property in every
>>>>>>>>> schematic
>>>>>>>>> symbol:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure--plus maybe a big zener to illustrate avalanche behaviour and
>>>>>>>> a small tank of magic smoke. ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have to stop someplace--Big- and Little-Endians just disagree
>>>>>>>> about exactly where.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Resistors have capacitances (several), inductance, tempcos, and
>>>>>>> nonlinearity. Inductors have parasitics. We don't show any of that on
>>>>>>> the schematic symbols.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we design review a circuit, if we are not intimately familiar
>>>>>>> with each part, we pull up the data sheet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Circuit strays and nonlinearity are features of everything at some
>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no issue with how you folks do things. You make lots of good
>>>>>> stuff, and you're happy with your process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just think that a couple of small strokes of a pencil are a very
>>>>>> small price to pay for a vast improvement in the representation of
>>>>>> the physics of a fairly complex and very common part like a MOSFET.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>>
>>>>> The "busy" symbol is either a lot bigger than a bipolar transistor, or
>>>>> illegible. Either way, you have an ugly schematic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Schematics are art.
>>>>
>>>> Art has no absolutes. One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Art
>>>>
>>>> http://mentalfloss.com/article/12668/one-mans-trash-another-mans-art
>>>>
>>>> https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/297286/one-mans-trash-is-another-mans-art.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sidandjim.com/one-man-s-art
>>>>
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/usatoday/photos/a.100797840666.101835.13652355666/10152057191590667/?type=3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The idea that there is no such thing as beauty--i.e. the Good as an
>>> object of desire--is one of the philosophical errors that got us where
>>> we are today.
>>
>> No one is saying there is no such thing as beauty. The point is that
>> the definition of beauty depends on many factors. It is not an absolute.
>
> That's the error I'm talking about. Beauty is _not_ in the eye of the
> beholder.
So which eye defines beauty? Or is there an ASME spec?
--
Rick C
Reply by ●May 31, 20172017-05-31
On Wed, 31 May 2017 13:50:52 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:
>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
>message news:jhrticl8kb4qe68f0plg9fcsp9v3ac41n3@4ax.com...
>> To add further to the confusion...
>>
>> <http://s3.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/wanlass-us3356858a.pdf >
>>
>> See pages 3 and 4.
>
>Go figure, patent lawyers not caring for clarity or accuracy :-)
The whole point of the "teachings" is obscurity. ;-)
Reply by ●May 31, 20172017-05-31
On 31 May 2017 05:01:47 -0700, Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
>rickman wrote...
>>
>> ONE stroke. The difference is ONE LINE SEGMENT!
>> This entire conversation is about one line segment.
>
> Actually, two strokes, and worry about adding a dot.
>
> That never bothered me, heck, did it for 45 years.
> To me it's more about the larger, cluttered symbol.
> I like the simplicity. But I think we got carried
> away in AoE III; there are places it'd have made
> more sense. Plus, originally I wanted to make our
> readers familiar with both styles.
But if you change the style for no reason it leaves the reader trying
to fathom a reason where there is none. A standard symbol is a good
thing. Any standard.
Reply by ●May 31, 20172017-05-31
On Wed, 31 May 2017 16:01:31 +1000, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:
>On 31/05/17 14:36, pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The "busy" symbol is either a lot bigger than a bipolar transistor, or
>>> illegible. Either way, you have an ugly schematic.
>>
>> You're really fond of your symbol, and that's okay with me--
>> it's not a moral or theological issue after all.
>
>By which you mean "it's not an issue with any rational ground"
>and hence admitting some possibility of ending the debate :)
>
>The truth is, different designers have different *needs* from
>their symbols. Phil often cares about and so likes to be reminded
>of the physics, where Larkin and I like to remember it only when
>we need to.
>
>> In this instance I disagree aesthetically as well as practically.
>
>My argument wasn't aesthetic. A simpler symbol is easier to
>recognise. A parrot is very recognisable, unless it's in a
>flame tree, when the same parrot becomes almost completely
>invisible. Why fill your visual field with noise?
>
>Whether you need to be reminded of the physics or structure
>is truly a personal thing. That doesn't make it ungrounded,
>just contingent on your own needs.
Not that I disagree with you but the purpose of a schematic is to
convey information to others. It's generally accepted that the
designer knows what the circuit does. I don't mind a complete symbol
for CAD drawings but I'm not going to doodle in all the lines when
making a napkin schematic.
Reply by Jim Thompson●May 31, 20172017-05-31
On Wed, 31 May 2017 13:50:52 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:
>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
>message news:jhrticl8kb4qe68f0plg9fcsp9v3ac41n3@4ax.com...
>> To add further to the confusion...
>>
>> <http://s3.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/wanlass-us3356858a.pdf >
>>
>> See pages 3 and 4.
>
>Go figure, patent lawyers not caring for clarity or accuracy :-)
>
>Tim
That, or the inventor not proofing the application?
I had a recent event where the client (one of those jerks who insists
on being listed as an inventor, _first_ no less) proofed the
application rather than sending it to me first. The application was
denied because of a truly lousy explanation of the function :-(
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that
is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
Reply by Tim Williams●May 31, 20172017-05-31
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:jhrticl8kb4qe68f0plg9fcsp9v3ac41n3@4ax.com...
Go figure, patent lawyers not caring for clarity or accuracy :-)
Tim
--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
Reply by Jim Thompson●May 31, 20172017-05-31
On Mon, 22 May 2017 03:02:25 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:
>Proof in case:
>
>http://www.ecnmag.com/sites/ecnmag.com/files/legacyimages/ECN/Articles/CS-1109-Figure_02.jpg
>
>It's bad enough that AoE3 stooped to using those MOSFET symbols. (The only
>problem I can find with the tome! Why did it have to be such an important,
>and deceptive, problem!? Please Win, if you fix this in a reprint, I will
>send you the finest bottle of liquor I can find.)
>
[snip]
Give it up, Tim. Win has his head thoroughly stuffed in the sand and
his feet dug in, "Picking up steam now, maybe our book will push it a
bit."
So amuse yourself with the "designs" that will fail, or better yet,
flame, due to the symbol confusion.
To add further to the confusion...
<http://s3.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/wanlass-us3356858a.pdf >
See pages 3 and 4.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
"It is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you do that
is the secret of happiness." -James Barrie
Reply by John Larkin●May 31, 20172017-05-31
On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:31:24 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:25:20 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 May 2017 10:39:24 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 05/31/2017 10:27 AM, rickman wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> No one is saying there is no such thing as beauty. The point is that
>>>> the definition of beauty depends on many factors. It is not an absolute.
>>>
>>>That's the error I'm talking about. Beauty is _not_ in the eye of the
>>>beholder.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Phil Hobbs
>>
>>But there is a radical range of variation between humans. Some people
>>actually hate chocolate, some actually like cilantro. Some men like
>>the bodies of slim women, some like ample ones, some don't care for
>>either.
>>
>>Is this worth a hundred million dollars?
>>
>>https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/18/arts/18BASQUIAT/18BASQUIAT-master1050.jpg
>>
>>Lots of people thing that's high art.
>
>Self portrait ?>:-}
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Given that the "artist" is dead now, it's pretty realistic.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by John Larkin●May 31, 20172017-05-31
On Wed, 31 May 2017 17:00:55 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>On 2017-05-31 16:21, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Wed, 31 May 2017 09:03:51 -0400) it happened rickman
>> <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ogmepa$t9c$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> I really can't believe this conversation is even happening.
>>
>> Indeed, I remember a movie, long ago,
>> where Popes men came and almost got into a fistfight about:
>> 'If Jesus had a purse or not'.
>> Don't remember the name of the movie...
>>
>
>That might have been 'The name of the rose', an adaptation
>of Umberto Eco's novel of the same name. I think the argument
>was 'did he, or did he not, own the clothes he was wearing?'
>There were lots of stabs at religious zeal in the story.
>
>Jeroen Belleman
That guy was really hard to read. Rose was better than his others.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics