'The device is designed to empower a country's authorities with absolute control over the gun's life history, says Van Zyl.'
Uh huh. I fail to see how this is a good thing. Sure fire arms are dangerous items and therr needs to be controls on who has access to them, but I really don't like the idea of any authority having 'absolute control' over anything I own.
Being an Australia one of the few things I envy about US law is the Bill or Rights, specifically the right to bear arms.
hmmmm, yeah Froggy's right. Fair trading is a seperate piece of law, however I do beleive the terminology used in the 'fair use' exceptions mentioned above differs from the US terminology. 'fair dealing' perhaps... dunno.
So, every piece of Disney work is their identity? Any character they develop, can be said to be the property of the viewers collectively?
The problem with this view is that there is obviously a large grey area where, if laws are to be made, lines must be drawn somehow. At some point an artist can cross over from using a logo, character or trademark to make soem kind of statement, to blatantly co-opting anothers (individual or copany) work for themselves.
I see your idea for corporate logos, and I hope I made it clear that through my post that I percieved a distinction between the logo, and a genuine artistic creation, one of identity and one of creativity.
Of course, but what do we do when business attempts to pass it's corporate creations off as genuine art? (Or did you mean to say that the works in question are genuine art?)
I'm half way through Naomi Klein's 'No Logo', so shoot me if this comes off as a mindless repetition of her points.
Basically Klein's point on this particular issue is that many companies brands have come to represent far more than the company in itself, but rather the an entire cultural group or idea (this is in fact what the company desires to achieve). She suggests that a number of brands have passed from being brands in themselves and have become part of the vocabulary. Of course these bits of the vocabulary tend to be shouted much louder in the marketplace (or society if you so wish). Klein suggests that to voice some kind of dissent and still be heard that it has become necessary touse the use the vocabulary of those who have been given the resources necessary to be heard.
Personally I feel that if brands want to become part of the cultural landscape then they need to begin to accept that culture feeds from what surrounds it. They cannont legitimately say "Hey, we want to be part of your life", then once we accept them begin to impose all sorts of regulations on the way we live our lives.
(Hmmm, sorry if that turned out worse than I had planned....)
That's all well and good but does everyone have to use th same solution? While a PDA/phone may suit you well, someone who is constantly accessing their data may be better served by a lighter phone and this style of thing. Part of the problem I see with people reactions to new tech is that simply because it may not be well suited to their needs they assume it wn't fill anyones needs. Basically we don't all have to use the same solutions...
From the Earth Explorer site referenced in the article :
"EarthExplorer has failed to start because it has detected that your browser does not meet the requirements necessary to run EarthExplorer. Please download a compatible version by clicking one of the buttons below."
"Mozilla 1.0+, Netscape 6.0, and Netscape 7.0 uses the JAVA 2 Virtual Machine which does not support the original Java applet security model used with EarthExplorer applets."
Who the fruck builds sites that rely on older standards when they know newer ones are available???
[Note: I actually have no understanding of the JVM security model....]
....doing stupid things, breaking laws, and coming out of nowhere....
This could be just as easily applied to motorists (or society in general if you so wish). This is compounded further by the fact that road laws seem to completely ignore the advanteages of bicycles as a means of transport. Does a bike really need to stop at a red light when planning to turn left, when it can easily slip around without obstructig the flow of traffic.
BTW : If you think cyclists make driving a worrying experience you should really try riding a bike in traffic.....
Slashdot Interview with Someone Involved....
on
Perpetual Skislope
·
· Score: 1
I think I may actually know someone involved with the business side of the one being built in the Sydney, Australia. He's also a semi-techi type person sooooo.....
Is there anything people would like to know about this? Post below and I'll put the good one's to him.
Slashdot Mirror
ah crap, this is what I get for being tired and lazy and hence not previewing... ..items and therr... -> there ...Being an Australia... -> Australian
'The device is designed to empower a country's authorities with absolute control over the gun's life history, says Van Zyl.' Uh huh. I fail to see how this is a good thing. Sure fire arms are dangerous items and therr needs to be controls on who has access to them, but I really don't like the idea of any authority having 'absolute control' over anything I own.
Being an Australia one of the few things I envy about US law is the Bill or Rights, specifically the right to bear arms.
hmmmm, yeah Froggy's right. Fair trading is a seperate piece of law, however I do beleive the terminology used in the 'fair use' exceptions mentioned above differs from the US terminology. 'fair dealing' perhaps... dunno.
2 things to remember about our sunburnt country ... there is no such thing as fair use here.
Correct. But as I understand it we do have 'fair trading' and it's essentially the same concept as US 'fair use'.
> TGP, according to the acronym finder (http://www.acronymfinder.com [acronymfinder.com])...
I really don't think you've got anyone fooled into thinking you actually had to look that up, ya know.
Ya know, once somethings said like.. i dunno... FIVE HUNDRED FREAKIN TIMES it fails to be insightful.
So, every piece of Disney work is their identity? Any character they develop, can be said to be the property of the viewers collectively?
The problem with this view is that there is obviously a large grey area where, if laws are to be made, lines must be drawn somehow. At some point an artist can cross over from using a logo, character or trademark to make soem kind of statement, to blatantly co-opting anothers (individual or copany) work for themselves.
I see your idea for corporate logos, and I hope I made it clear that through my post that I percieved a distinction between the logo, and a genuine artistic creation, one of identity and one of creativity.
Of course, but what do we do when business attempts to pass it's corporate creations off as genuine art? (Or did you mean to say that the works in question are genuine art?)
I'm half way through Naomi Klein's 'No Logo', so shoot me if this comes off as a mindless repetition of her points.
Basically Klein's point on this particular issue is that many companies brands have come to represent far more than the company in itself, but rather the an entire cultural group or idea (this is in fact what the company desires to achieve). She suggests that a number of brands have passed from being brands in themselves and have become part of the vocabulary. Of course these bits of the vocabulary tend to be shouted much louder in the marketplace (or society if you so wish). Klein suggests that to voice some kind of dissent and still be heard that it has become necessary touse the use the vocabulary of those who have been given the resources necessary to be heard.
Personally I feel that if brands want to become part of the cultural landscape then they need to begin to accept that culture feeds from what surrounds it. They cannont legitimately say "Hey, we want to be part of your life", then once we accept them begin to impose all sorts of regulations on the way we live our lives.
(Hmmm, sorry if that turned out worse than I had planned....)
That's all well and good but does everyone have to use th same solution? While a PDA/phone may suit you well, someone who is constantly accessing their data may be better served by a lighter phone and this style of thing. Part of the problem I see with people reactions to new tech is that simply because it may not be well suited to their needs they assume it wn't fill anyones needs. Basically we don't all have to use the same solutions...
Seriously, it looks someones just misunderstood what a tablet PC is. Ooooor... More likely nobodies read the article.
"EarthExplorer has failed to start because it has detected that your browser does not meet the requirements necessary to run EarthExplorer. Please download a compatible version by clicking one of the buttons below."
"Mozilla 1.0+, Netscape 6.0, and Netscape 7.0 uses the JAVA 2 Virtual Machine which does not support the original Java applet security model used with EarthExplorer applets."
Who the fruck builds sites that rely on older standards when they know newer ones are available???
[Note: I actually have no understanding of the JVM security model....]
... one of the licensees listed on simputer.org is supposededly making some evaluation versions avaliable soon. See here.
I think I may actually know someone involved with the business side of the one being built in the Sydney, Australia. He's also a semi-techi type person sooooo..... Is there anything people would like to know about this? Post below and I'll put the good one's to him.