Yeah, like Apple didn't invent the idea that looks are more important now that _everyone_ thinks they need a computer. Duh. Maybe Apple will sue all these retro-designers.
Certainly part of the problem is that the language of law has become so detailed that it does have a problem keeping up with technology. For example, laws written to prevent salacious materials are probably written specifically against selected media (e.g., "printed, reproduced, engraved, embossed, etched, painted or otherwise..."). Bits not mentioned, no case, no convictions. Why do you think that the anti-dancing statutes aften get wrapped around descriptions of the aureole (sp?) and the posterior curves and allowable exposure? A more general law - e.g., "no presentation in any form of images of..." would run into too many valid exceptions, which would let the judiciary make law case-by-case rather than the legislature law-by-law. A power thing?
I wonder if the trend is a matter of a simple sampling issue. Specifically, there are LOTs of crummy books out there - so a good strategy is to list the exceptions (fewer of them) - which means the good books. Also, if I were reading a crummy book - I'd bail, and (if ethically inclined, which I am, I'd have a hard time writing a critique because I'd be writing it based on only a partial read. 'Course, if I'm paid, perhaps reading the whole thing is part of the deal?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, like Apple didn't invent the idea that looks are more important now that _everyone_ thinks they need a computer. Duh. Maybe Apple will sue all these retro-designers.
Certainly part of the problem is that the language of law has become so detailed that it does have a problem keeping up with technology. For example, laws written to prevent salacious materials are probably written specifically against selected media (e.g., "printed, reproduced, engraved, embossed, etched, painted or otherwise ..."). Bits not mentioned, no case, no convictions. Why do you think that the anti-dancing statutes aften get wrapped around descriptions of the aureole (sp?) and the posterior curves and allowable exposure? A more general law - e.g., "no presentation in any form of images of ..." would run into too many valid exceptions, which would let the judiciary make law case-by-case rather than the legislature law-by-law. A power thing?
I wonder if the trend is a matter of a simple sampling issue. Specifically, there are LOTs of crummy books out there - so a good strategy is to list the exceptions (fewer of them) - which means the good books. Also, if I were reading a crummy book - I'd bail, and (if ethically inclined, which I am, I'd have a hard time writing a critique because I'd be writing it based on only a partial read. 'Course, if I'm paid, perhaps reading the whole thing is part of the deal?