How the hell do you remember which one is AdWords and which one is AdSense? Is there some kind of mnemonic rhyme I can memorize? It might not have been quite as sexy if they called the programs AdBuyer and AdShower, but it sure would have been easier on my brain.
Seriously, do you write it on the back of your hand, or what?
My punctuation was bad in that last post -- what I was trying to say was, "They actually saved a lot of money by not having sound in space. I like to think saving money was on purpose." Of course the no sound thing was on purpose. The effects were very sophisticated, like the handheld camera and imperfect zoom and so on. I just admire film styles slightly more if they actually make life easier for the filmmakers *while* making it a better show for the viewers -- like the way El Mariachi got complements for the odd cutting style, when really he just couldn't get the lips to sync all the time and had to cut away...
Indeed, you're right -- I haven't checked that particular preferences panel recently. If it works, it'll definitely make my browsing experience better.
They introduced it, they were doing it over 28kbps modems (which is probably where all the buffering lines come from...
No. I have DSL. If I go try to watch, say, the Daily Show on Real or WMP, I expect that about half the time I'll have pauses or drops in quality or whatever because of connection issues. If I go to watch, say, a movie trailer in Quicktime, it downloads as fast as possible, shows me how much is downloaded, lets me start when I think I'll be able to see the whole thing, and lets me pause and jump around within everything already loaded without lag if I want to see something again or wait until the rest is loaded.
All of the cracks about Real come because the model of only giving you the data *right* when you need it is simply inferior to the model of giving you all the data at once. It's another example of rights holders crippling their own damn product in a hopeless attempt to prevent you from downloading it and showing it to your friends.
If web sites are using realtime streaming to show live content, then fair enough -- I don't blame Real if the connection gets slow. If they're using realtime streaming to show short pre-recorded clips that could easily fit in a RAM buffer, then they deserve ridicule for doing it, and Real deserves ridicule for encouraging it.
If I had to pick five words to describe the cell market in the US, they would be "horrible form of market failure." This is because 1) the only decisive factor for choosing a cell provider for most people is coverage and reception, 2) starting a new network with competitive coverage is so expensive it's essentially impossible.
The upshot is, the three or four national competitors who can afford to stay in the game compete on coverage, and cooperate on shafting their customers in every way possible. A prime example is phones -- you have to buy a phone with that provider's brand, even though all the phones could work with all the providers, because there's no market force pushing the providers to open it up.
For one thing, spaceships don't make whooshing or rumbling sounds - scenes in space are completely silent.:-)
My cousin does sound mixes for movies, and pointed out that all those sound effects are actually a pretty significant budget item in special effects-heavy movies. Whether it was part of the calculation or not, they actually saved a bunch of money by doing it that way.
I like to think that was on purpose -- I'm definitely prepared to give Joss credit for being clever in more than one way at a time. And for the record, in a symbolic way at least I get sad for the world every time I remember that Firefly was cancelled. Groups of people with that much talent who like what they're doing that much shouldn't be broken up over money.
And babies should never die and no one you love should ever stop loving you back and war sucks too, I guess. It's just one of those things...
The following are honest questions. I'd be grateful if you took the time to answer.
Keep in mind that the goal is civil marriage, rather than religious marriage. No religious figure will ever be forced to perform any marriage they don't choose to, or recognize any marriage as being legitimate in the eyes of their god. Civil marriage will simply grant gays the same thousands of rights and responsibilities under the law that straight couples have -- do you feel this pushes their beliefs on you?
Here's another question: Christians believe that a marriage should be a lifelong commitment to a single partner, for the purpose of raising children. Despite this, it is completely legal for two infertile people to get a civil marriage, have casual sex with strangers, and get a divorce a week later. Do you feel that other people's beliefs are forced on you when this happens?
Finally, since the definition of a civil union is simply a civil marriage that two men or two women may enter, under a different name, I'd like to turn your question around on you: why insist that it must be a civil union instead of a civil marriage? What is the benefit to you of calling it one instead of the other?
The only reason I can think of is to deny rights to a unioned gay couple that are granted to a married straight couple -- and that probably explains why so many gay people are looking for legal marriages rather than civil unions.
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that all of your items are cached locally in some fairly useful format, and I'm almost certain there's an easy way to export ones you care about if not. Now, whether you choose to back up your items, and whether you can find a way outside of SL to read them, is up to you... if you choose to keep your possessions solely on their server, I'm betting they make no representations about their safety.
There's still problems with format lock-in, blah blah, but it's a far cry from claiming they own everything you create. Having come up with a scheme like this, they also show every sign of Not Being Evil, so I doubt they would attempt to take advantage of closed formats or whatever in the future.
A major reason that nix systems have a reputation hereabouts for superior security is that developers bother to write tools like this, and admins bother to run them and pay attention. It's not ironic -- it's an object lesson. As linux gets more exposure, we'll have an increasing need for this type of thing.
For example, I've worked under linux at work for years, I could whip out the perl command to ROT-13 your entire drive in a couple of seconds, and I'm pretty sure any linux box I set up would be totally insecure. Don't downplay the significance of tools like this...
Spawning a separate process for the UI is irrelevant. The point is 99.999% of Mac applications have no reason to ever need more than 4 GB of RAM. For those, only one thread is needed -- they're all set. For the remaining group, it should be doable, though annoying, to put the RAM intensive processing in a separate thread.
I agree that having 64bit versions of the UI code would be convenient -- the point of the Apple dev in the linked discussion was that, since it wouldn't be useful for any app that needs less than that much RAM, and since that's almost all of them, it wasn't a top priority. From that perspective, I agree -- it's not.
It's a long discussion, and looks like it's kind of a mixed bag: all apps (which choose to use it) benefit from 64bit math, all UI code benefits from *not* being 64bit, but if you want 64bit pointers, you have to spawn a separate process for them. I can see how it would be annoying, or even a dealbreaker, if you had lots of existing 64bit code that couldn't compile because it needed contradictory libs... for the vast majority of us, though, this seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.
Of course, this is definitely where we reach the limit of my understanding, so who knows...
Did you see the/. post from an Apple dev a few days ago, saying that putting the windowing interface in 64 bit actually slows it down due to longer pointers, and doesn't have any benefit? The claim was that, if they created 64 bit versions of the interface code, they would then have had to tell their developers not to use them. In the meantime, all of the proc-intensive tasks that would benefit from 64 bit are already using it, and the proc is designed such that using whichever is appropriate doesn't impose a performance penalty...
I guess my real question is, do you know something I don't (most people do), or are you just "hoping Tiger is finally a fully 64 bit version" because 64 is twice as much?
Hmm, I guess I was thinking eg Schlotsky's Deli is a case study, where n of 1 actually includes a fair bit of data about the population (at least, the population that eats sandwiches).
But you're right that I didn't really have a good grasp of the term -- thanks.
As long as they have enough people who pay the freight, bitching or not, nobody else can say that the price is too high to be a "good business model".
What we can say, which is essentially the same thing, is "it seems likely that another pricing scheme not only would serve me better, but also make higher profits." You're right that any business model which is profitable could be considered good, but if there's another one that provides more utility and higher profits, the first one becomes what economists call "bad."
Or something, I've forgotten most of that class. Anyway, the specific argument in this case is that wifi is rarely offered as an independent service -- it's offered only as a tangential plus to another service, like coffee or rail travel. In this context, you don't just have to look at how much the wifi makes, but what effect it has on business in general. I for one significantly prefer shops with free wifi, and I'm not alone -- when Schlotsky's Deli offered free wifi throughout the US, they found that something like 1 in 4 customers listed it as a factor in choosing where to eat...
The statistics I barely remember from a year ago don't hold much weight, I'll grant you -- but the point is that we don't have to trade anecdotes, we can look at actual case studies. My money is on free wifi translating to better business, and for-pay wifi adding expenses that significantly limit its profitability. In that context, the GP is correct -- wifi providers would do well to get their minds right.
Help me out, because in all seriousness it's clear you know ten times as much as me... right now my mac is running, uh, ps ax | wc -l = 60 threads. Would there really be no advantage to having two processors to run them on? Is it that in normal usage, speed limitations come mostly from one app wanting to use 110%, and not a bunch of apps each wanting 20-80% ?
The best response to this would be for some prominent organization (EFF?) to create an alternative code of conduct, specifying rules for handing over personal information, banning accounts, silently limiting bandwidth or blocking ports, etc. It's not just a p2p download thing -- most of us have a strong interest in supporting ISPs who foster new protocols and applications, stand up for their customers, and (on the hosting side) resist third party attempts to shut down hosted content.
Just complaining about the RIAA's code, or even switching ISPs that enforce it, has only a passive effect on the situation. If we have a good positive alternative to get behind instead, it will send a much stronger, clearer message to ISPs -- and incidentally maybe improve the general quality of service from them as well.
Unfortunately, I'm kinda busy for the next couple years. Anyone else want to run with this one?:)
I don't know anything about your fictitious world, man. I could be wrong, but my impression was that in the real world Tridge is an open source hacker who was directly approached by Linus Torvalds and asked to change what he was doing because it was damaging a relationship beneficial to Linux development... obviously he's under no obligation to do so, but yeah, in that case he can be expected to explain why he blew Linus off.
The fact that it doesn't explain his apparently antisocial behavior. Both Linus and BK dude sound as though they were working together and attempting to find an equitable solution, including a natively supported SCM-independent export format. Tridge sounds like he was given an opportunity to negotiate and come up with a solution everyone could be happy with, and he sent them all a fuck you instead.
Of course, I don't know if that's the case, because he didn't bother to defend himself. See?
I have every right to insult yo momma right now. If I did, though, it would be completely reasonable to expect me to explain why -- and saying that there's no law saying I can't isn't exactly a great explanation.
That book is exactly what I thought of as well. I seem to come across half a dozen news stories every year that he already thought of... anyone who hasn't read the book, should.
Anyway, in Earth, most people didn't use this technology even though it was available. The reason was control -- it took way too much concentration to control all of your thoughts *before* they activated subvocalizations. At best it was just annoying, like controlling a mouse on too much caffeine. At worst it could get pretty embarrassing...
Speaking of which, that book, which was written in 1985, also featured an email system that held all your outgoing mail for a couple of hours in case of second thoughts, and basically predicted all the effects of effortless worldwide communication. I'm sure he wasn't the only one who got what was going on back then, but he was probably one of very few who could *also* write decent sex scenes...
You're looking for a show about someone who travels from place to place helping people, but can never be tracked down because his identity keeps changing. We could have him be on the run from some kind of huge evil intelligence empire with "Centre" in their name, located in the general vicinity of DC.
Could this be an impassioned plea for *The Pretender* to return to the airwaves? Astonishing...
This is a great point, and I'd hate to see.xxx legally required, but that doesn't make it useless. It simply becomes an easy flag that says "I would prefer that whoever you consider to be minors not have access to this material." The vast majority of porn sites aren't interested in underage users anyway, I bet -- they don't have credit cards and they cause trouble if the parents find out. Are there any problems with xxx as a voluntary tool?
I guess the only one that comes to mind for me is that not every "adult only" site would want to be associated with hard core pornography, which is what xxx more typically means. What are the alternatives, given that long TLDs suck?.res[tricted]?.adult?.old? I kind of like that one...
maybe ebay isn't the problem ...
on
Book 'Em, Dano
·
· Score: 1
My dad was a paratrooper in Alaska about 25 years ago, and says this kind of thing happened all the time -- a couple of supply sergeants stole literally half the stores, transferring stuff between them to make accounts add up any time there was an inspection. Another time, my dad borrowed a lock from another guy for his locker, and the guy opened it up and took all his stuff (it's possible he was a bit naive back then, huh?).
Anyway, the way I read this, it's probably the military that's rampant with thieves -- not too surprising for the world's largest and best funded bureaucracy. It's possible that eBay aided the process, but I bet it simply put all the thieves into a searchable database and made the problem a little more visible.
Not that I know shit about shit, as my dad would say. What do you think?
OK, I shouldn't fall for the troll, but the idea that writing shorthand URLs on walls is art, but non-web-enabled graffiti isn't, is purely laughable. I browse at +3 so I won't have to see things that transparently stupid.
I liked the article, just not the headline. The idea sounds like a fun experiment, though I can't see it scaling well enough to be worth trying '@grafedia.blah' when you see a random word written on a wall.
The next question that's going to come up, of course, is if graffiti is in fact art already. Heh. I've already had the conversation where we talk about whether something is art or not. They're all the same, and I'm over it. For me it's enough to say, some graffiti seems lame, some makes me happy and I'm glad it's there. I recognize that y'all may disagree, and all I can say is, there's a city full of walls you can post complaints at.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I have a question ...
How the hell do you remember which one is AdWords and which one is AdSense? Is there some kind of mnemonic rhyme I can memorize? It might not have been quite as sexy if they called the programs AdBuyer and AdShower, but it sure would have been easier on my brain.
Seriously, do you write it on the back of your hand, or what?
My punctuation was bad in that last post -- what I was trying to say was, "They actually saved a lot of money by not having sound in space. I like to think saving money was on purpose." Of course the no sound thing was on purpose. The effects were very sophisticated, like the handheld camera and imperfect zoom and so on. I just admire film styles slightly more if they actually make life easier for the filmmakers *while* making it a better show for the viewers -- like the way El Mariachi got complements for the odd cutting style, when really he just couldn't get the lips to sync all the time and had to cut away ...
Indeed, you're right -- I haven't checked that particular preferences panel recently. If it works, it'll definitely make my browsing experience better.
They introduced it, they were doing it over 28kbps modems (which is probably where all the buffering lines come from ...
No. I have DSL. If I go try to watch, say, the Daily Show on Real or WMP, I expect that about half the time I'll have pauses or drops in quality or whatever because of connection issues. If I go to watch, say, a movie trailer in Quicktime, it downloads as fast as possible, shows me how much is downloaded, lets me start when I think I'll be able to see the whole thing, and lets me pause and jump around within everything already loaded without lag if I want to see something again or wait until the rest is loaded.
All of the cracks about Real come because the model of only giving you the data *right* when you need it is simply inferior to the model of giving you all the data at once. It's another example of rights holders crippling their own damn product in a hopeless attempt to prevent you from downloading it and showing it to your friends.
If web sites are using realtime streaming to show live content, then fair enough -- I don't blame Real if the connection gets slow. If they're using realtime streaming to show short pre-recorded clips that could easily fit in a RAM buffer, then they deserve ridicule for doing it, and Real deserves ridicule for encouraging it.
If I had to pick five words to describe the cell market in the US, they would be "horrible form of market failure." This is because 1) the only decisive factor for choosing a cell provider for most people is coverage and reception, 2) starting a new network with competitive coverage is so expensive it's essentially impossible.
The upshot is, the three or four national competitors who can afford to stay in the game compete on coverage, and cooperate on shafting their customers in every way possible. A prime example is phones -- you have to buy a phone with that provider's brand, even though all the phones could work with all the providers, because there's no market force pushing the providers to open it up.
For one thing, spaceships don't make whooshing or rumbling sounds - scenes in space are completely silent. :-)
...
My cousin does sound mixes for movies, and pointed out that all those sound effects are actually a pretty significant budget item in special effects-heavy movies. Whether it was part of the calculation or not, they actually saved a bunch of money by doing it that way.
I like to think that was on purpose -- I'm definitely prepared to give Joss credit for being clever in more than one way at a time. And for the record, in a symbolic way at least I get sad for the world every time I remember that Firefly was cancelled. Groups of people with that much talent who like what they're doing that much shouldn't be broken up over money.
And babies should never die and no one you love should ever stop loving you back and war sucks too, I guess. It's just one of those things
Oh, I almost forgot to close my /sarcasm tag.
...
That would suck. Then the whole rest of this page would be sarcastic too
Yeah, close call.
The following are honest questions. I'd be grateful if you took the time to answer.
Keep in mind that the goal is civil marriage, rather than religious marriage. No religious figure will ever be forced to perform any marriage they don't choose to, or recognize any marriage as being legitimate in the eyes of their god. Civil marriage will simply grant gays the same thousands of rights and responsibilities under the law that straight couples have -- do you feel this pushes their beliefs on you?
Here's another question: Christians believe that a marriage should be a lifelong commitment to a single partner, for the purpose of raising children. Despite this, it is completely legal for two infertile people to get a civil marriage, have casual sex with strangers, and get a divorce a week later. Do you feel that other people's beliefs are forced on you when this happens?
Finally, since the definition of a civil union is simply a civil marriage that two men or two women may enter, under a different name, I'd like to turn your question around on you: why insist that it must be a civil union instead of a civil marriage? What is the benefit to you of calling it one instead of the other?
The only reason I can think of is to deny rights to a unioned gay couple that are granted to a married straight couple -- and that probably explains why so many gay people are looking for legal marriages rather than civil unions.
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that all of your items are cached locally in some fairly useful format, and I'm almost certain there's an easy way to export ones you care about if not. Now, whether you choose to back up your items, and whether you can find a way outside of SL to read them, is up to you ... if you choose to keep your possessions solely on their server, I'm betting they make no representations about their safety.
There's still problems with format lock-in, blah blah, but it's a far cry from claiming they own everything you create. Having come up with a scheme like this, they also show every sign of Not Being Evil, so I doubt they would attempt to take advantage of closed formats or whatever in the future.
A major reason that nix systems have a reputation hereabouts for superior security is that developers bother to write tools like this, and admins bother to run them and pay attention. It's not ironic -- it's an object lesson. As linux gets more exposure, we'll have an increasing need for this type of thing.
...
For example, I've worked under linux at work for years, I could whip out the perl command to ROT-13 your entire drive in a couple of seconds, and I'm pretty sure any linux box I set up would be totally insecure. Don't downplay the significance of tools like this
Uh, I dunno ... is that one of those glottal stop words? Here in this country we use vowels.
"Lo-tor!"
"Lot-rrr"
"Lort!"
I think I hurt my glottis *and* my epiglottis. It's definitely bed time.
Spawning a separate process for the UI is irrelevant. The point is 99.999% of Mac applications have no reason to ever need more than 4 GB of RAM. For those, only one thread is needed -- they're all set. For the remaining group, it should be doable, though annoying, to put the RAM intensive processing in a separate thread.
I agree that having 64bit versions of the UI code would be convenient -- the point of the Apple dev in the linked discussion was that, since it wouldn't be useful for any app that needs less than that much RAM, and since that's almost all of them, it wasn't a top priority. From that perspective, I agree -- it's not.
Hmm, I found it:
c id=12211776
... for the vast majority of us, though, this seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.
...
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=145810&
It's a long discussion, and looks like it's kind of a mixed bag: all apps (which choose to use it) benefit from 64bit math, all UI code benefits from *not* being 64bit, but if you want 64bit pointers, you have to spawn a separate process for them. I can see how it would be annoying, or even a dealbreaker, if you had lots of existing 64bit code that couldn't compile because it needed contradictory libs
Of course, this is definitely where we reach the limit of my understanding, so who knows
Did you see the /. post from an Apple dev a few days ago, saying that putting the windowing interface in 64 bit actually slows it down due to longer pointers, and doesn't have any benefit? The claim was that, if they created 64 bit versions of the interface code, they would then have had to tell their developers not to use them. In the meantime, all of the proc-intensive tasks that would benefit from 64 bit are already using it, and the proc is designed such that using whichever is appropriate doesn't impose a performance penalty ...
I guess my real question is, do you know something I don't (most people do), or are you just "hoping Tiger is finally a fully 64 bit version" because 64 is twice as much?
Hmm, I guess I was thinking eg Schlotsky's Deli is a case study, where n of 1 actually includes a fair bit of data about the population (at least, the population that eats sandwiches).
But you're right that I didn't really have a good grasp of the term -- thanks.
As long as they have enough people who pay the freight, bitching or not, nobody else can say that the price is too high to be a "good business model".
...
What we can say, which is essentially the same thing, is "it seems likely that another pricing scheme not only would serve me better, but also make higher profits." You're right that any business model which is profitable could be considered good, but if there's another one that provides more utility and higher profits, the first one becomes what economists call "bad."
Or something, I've forgotten most of that class. Anyway, the specific argument in this case is that wifi is rarely offered as an independent service -- it's offered only as a tangential plus to another service, like coffee or rail travel. In this context, you don't just have to look at how much the wifi makes, but what effect it has on business in general. I for one significantly prefer shops with free wifi, and I'm not alone -- when Schlotsky's Deli offered free wifi throughout the US, they found that something like 1 in 4 customers listed it as a factor in choosing where to eat
The statistics I barely remember from a year ago don't hold much weight, I'll grant you -- but the point is that we don't have to trade anecdotes, we can look at actual case studies. My money is on free wifi translating to better business, and for-pay wifi adding expenses that significantly limit its profitability. In that context, the GP is correct -- wifi providers would do well to get their minds right.
Help me out, because in all seriousness it's clear you know ten times as much as me ... right now my mac is running, uh, ps ax | wc -l = 60 threads. Would there really be no advantage to having two processors to run them on? Is it that in normal usage, speed limitations come mostly from one app wanting to use 110%, and not a bunch of apps each wanting 20-80% ?
The best response to this would be for some prominent organization (EFF?) to create an alternative code of conduct, specifying rules for handing over personal information, banning accounts, silently limiting bandwidth or blocking ports, etc. It's not just a p2p download thing -- most of us have a strong interest in supporting ISPs who foster new protocols and applications, stand up for their customers, and (on the hosting side) resist third party attempts to shut down hosted content.
:)
Just complaining about the RIAA's code, or even switching ISPs that enforce it, has only a passive effect on the situation. If we have a good positive alternative to get behind instead, it will send a much stronger, clearer message to ISPs -- and incidentally maybe improve the general quality of service from them as well.
Unfortunately, I'm kinda busy for the next couple years. Anyone else want to run with this one?
I don't know anything about your fictitious world, man. I could be wrong, but my impression was that in the real world Tridge is an open source hacker who was directly approached by Linus Torvalds and asked to change what he was doing because it was damaging a relationship beneficial to Linux development ... obviously he's under no obligation to do so, but yeah, in that case he can be expected to explain why he blew Linus off.
What, exactly, is deficient in his statement?
The fact that it doesn't explain his apparently antisocial behavior. Both Linus and BK dude sound as though they were working together and attempting to find an equitable solution, including a natively supported SCM-independent export format. Tridge sounds like he was given an opportunity to negotiate and come up with a solution everyone could be happy with, and he sent them all a fuck you instead.
Of course, I don't know if that's the case, because he didn't bother to defend himself. See?
I have every right to insult yo momma right now. If I did, though, it would be completely reasonable to expect me to explain why -- and saying that there's no law saying I can't isn't exactly a great explanation.
That book is exactly what I thought of as well. I seem to come across half a dozen news stories every year that he already thought of ... anyone who hasn't read the book, should.
...
...
Anyway, in Earth, most people didn't use this technology even though it was available. The reason was control -- it took way too much concentration to control all of your thoughts *before* they activated subvocalizations. At best it was just annoying, like controlling a mouse on too much caffeine. At worst it could get pretty embarrassing
Speaking of which, that book, which was written in 1985, also featured an email system that held all your outgoing mail for a couple of hours in case of second thoughts, and basically predicted all the effects of effortless worldwide communication. I'm sure he wasn't the only one who got what was going on back then, but he was probably one of very few who could *also* write decent sex scenes
You're looking for a show about someone who travels from place to place helping people, but can never be tracked down because his identity keeps changing. We could have him be on the run from some kind of huge evil intelligence empire with "Centre" in their name, located in the general vicinity of DC.
...
Could this be an impassioned plea for *The Pretender* to return to the airwaves? Astonishing
This is a great point, and I'd hate to see .xxx legally required, but that doesn't make it useless. It simply becomes an easy flag that says "I would prefer that whoever you consider to be minors not have access to this material." The vast majority of porn sites aren't interested in underage users anyway, I bet -- they don't have credit cards and they cause trouble if the parents find out. Are there any problems with xxx as a voluntary tool?
.res[tricted]? .adult? .old? I kind of like that one ...
I guess the only one that comes to mind for me is that not every "adult only" site would want to be associated with hard core pornography, which is what xxx more typically means. What are the alternatives, given that long TLDs suck?
My dad was a paratrooper in Alaska about 25 years ago, and says this kind of thing happened all the time -- a couple of supply sergeants stole literally half the stores, transferring stuff between them to make accounts add up any time there was an inspection. Another time, my dad borrowed a lock from another guy for his locker, and the guy opened it up and took all his stuff (it's possible he was a bit naive back then, huh?).
Anyway, the way I read this, it's probably the military that's rampant with thieves -- not too surprising for the world's largest and best funded bureaucracy. It's possible that eBay aided the process, but I bet it simply put all the thieves into a searchable database and made the problem a little more visible.
Not that I know shit about shit, as my dad would say. What do you think?
OK, I shouldn't fall for the troll, but the idea that writing shorthand URLs on walls is art, but non-web-enabled graffiti isn't, is purely laughable. I browse at +3 so I won't have to see things that transparently stupid.
I liked the article, just not the headline. The idea sounds like a fun experiment, though I can't see it scaling well enough to be worth trying '@grafedia.blah' when you see a random word written on a wall.
The next question that's going to come up, of course, is if graffiti is in fact art already. Heh. I've already had the conversation where we talk about whether something is art or not. They're all the same, and I'm over it. For me it's enough to say, some graffiti seems lame, some makes me happy and I'm glad it's there. I recognize that y'all may disagree, and all I can say is, there's a city full of walls you can post complaints at.