this is crap
I do play music, and have performed vocally many times. The analog means are where the art is. When you speak of "control", I wonder if you are not confused over just what that means.
Have you ever witnessed somebody performing like a god? When it hits, and thought is action, and they just nail it? Surely you can't assert they would have "better" control given a more limited means!
Perhaps you just have no skill, or are inhibited somehow.
And that's not some attack, but a genuine question. There are lots of us who do not have skill, that perception of the world that links thoughts and actions. Those that do work years for it, and reach that point of control --and it is control of the highest order.
A perfect example of what I will say below is this "random access" thing. It doesn't connect to the greater point at hand, other than to reinforce "flawed" in your generally known sense of the word. Then again, somebody can just move the thing to the point desired, where with a digital device, they can't, without stepping through, taking time and such... A movement, compared to stepping, or holding for a time, are both difficult means of control, right?
They are both flawed too, right?
So then who gives a shit about that? The product of invoking that "lack of random access" does not compute, given the subject matter, so why invoke it?
You seem to get confused over absolutes, trying to assert them where none exist. Really, I see this entire thread as a expression of that. The world must be very difficult for you, because it is messy, full of states and things, running all over the map.
There is a feedback loop that occurs when we do things. Throughout this entire thread, you've basically ignored that, and it bugs me as to why. Like the states, and completely ignoring where code can operate on them.
Why factor that out?
Is there some purity you are reaching for, minimalist expression?
So, that's where it is for me Divariski. What's the end game here? Is this some kind of Zen journey, where the path taken is the reward, not the product? Is it like scratching a itch, when relieved, is a loss in some bizzare need to do the scratching itself, rather than resolve the itch?
I know you can write programs, so I know you can very easily deal with the range of analog states, and author a program that would operate just as your simplistic basic program presented here does. That's not hard, and I would wager just about everybody contributing here can do the same, so why deny that?
And the timing stuff you mention about joystick ports all the time. Considered as a discrete entity, your comments have merit, however, when considered in the context of the experience, or task they don't.
Fetish maybe? I think there is a case for that, given what you often write here. What I don't get is the denial of simple, obvious, basic --and I mean really e-ffing basic things!
That is what is fucked up. Seriously.
Another one was the color resolution bit. Ataris have 160 pixels of color resolution. When we discussed that, you went to extraordinary lengths to marginalize otherwise rational facts to equalize the discussion to favor the Atari, biased as hell I might add, where that marginalization was to such a extreme it made conclusions, if entertained under those constraints, completely useless as they would have NO value outside of that limited context!
Why do that?
How is it in any way productive? That's my question really, and again, not a attack, just a fair question. You work really, really, really hard, like double overtime, over the point of obsession, hard to get there, and for what?
To see those words, "yes, you are right about that?"
So then, let me ask you this: What good are those words when the framing on the question is so convoluted as to render the exercise futile in the end? Useless.
Edited by potatohead, Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:10 PM.