On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:47:30 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:33:08 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   Speaking of which, when was the last time you saw a movie which had
>> > something *genuinely* original, something which hadn't been put into
>> > any form of storytelling before (and self-pretentious
>> > incomprehensible cheap art films don't count because that's not
>> > storytelling, it's randomness)?
> 
>> It doesn't count because you don't understand it?
> 
>   No, it doesn't count because it's not storytelling, but randomness.

Just because you aren't seeing a story doesn't mean there isn't one 
there.  It just means that for you, the method by which the story is 
being told is incomprehensible.  Doesn't mean it's that way for everyone.

>   I could make a random number generator create an image full of noise
> and claim "this is a completely original image, never seen before". That
> might be technically true, but it isn't saying much.

But what you're saying is in fact a true statement.

What you're doing is constraining a set using a subjective definition 
(that subjectiveness is "if I don't understand it, then it doesn't 
count", and is implied in the way you stated the condition).

You've done this in a couple of recent posts, which is why I mentioned 
it.  My example of counting to 10 was taking it to an absurd level to 
make a point about it.

In other news, did you know that no resistor has an orange band, if you 
exclude resistors that have orange bands?  Wow, that's amazing isn't 
it! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message