Jim Andrews
Since the beginning
Works in Victoria Canada

ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
Discussions (847) Opportunities (2) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: re: browser wars and javascript question from GH


There are some downloadable templates for going fullscreen, no browser chrome, at
http://www.vispo.com/writings/#lingo ("Fullscreen Templates"). This is independent of kiosk
mode.

They're a bit old though. During the dev of the template, the Mac browsers would not go
fullscreen; Reiner Strasser handled the Mac part of the script. I'm under the impression that
some Mac browsers will now go fullscreen; but the templates haven't been updated. If you update
them for the Mac, T.whid, that would be great.

IE for the PC will go fullscreen, no browser chrome. Using the method you described, T.whid, is
important but on the PC, at any rate, you end up with a vertical scrollbar on the right of the
screen. In order to get rid of that last little bit of chrome, you need to use the method in the
template, which involves the simple use of frames. Kiosk mode may not require this, not sure; I
haven't played with kiosk mode.

Netscape for the PC will not go fullscreen-no-browser-chrome; it insists on a bit of chrome on
the top of the window. The template will make it go as near-fullscreen as Netscape will allow,
however, for the PC. Not quite sure of the behavior on the Mac.

There's info on kiosk mode for IE at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;154780
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2001/04/27/mac_hacks.html
http://www.kiosks.org/kioskmode.htm
.
.
.

ja

DISCUSSION

Peter Luining: Rationalizer 4


Here is an interesting new piece by Peter Luining of the Netherlands:
Rationalizer 4 ( http://www.lfoundation.org/engines/ratzio4.html ).

I asked Peter to comment on the piece and the behaviors/functions:

Peter> "1st of all I wanted to make an easy clickable interface so that action
& response is easy to explore. With most artificial lifeform works
you see there are no possiblities for user interaction or endless series of
parameters with which you can tweak shapes & life. Which makes the
last ones in my eyes more scientific models than games or art.
To go deeper into relations of shapes & function/ behaviour
would take me too long at this moment. What I can say is
that the shapes and colors I used were in the first place aesthetical
choices based on traditions of minimal painting. This is why I think
the piece has a different feeling than most other lifeform pieces.
Furthermore there's everything in the piece to create and sustain life,
simply said:
1st button below left lets you create life forms
2nd button below left lets you create forms that will sustain life
3rd button below left lets you erase life forms
4th button below left lets you create blocks that can give birth to life"
(from the Dirgames-L list)

The site I'm most familiar with of Peter Luining's is http://www.ctrlaltdel.org ; this has much
of Peter's Shockwave work on it; but http://www.lfoundation.org has a lot of his Shockwave work
also.

The nature of the work I've experienced of Peter's involves minimal rectilinear graphics, the
type of audio you hear in the new piece (which is kind of analogous auditorially to minimal
rectilinear visuals), and concise, simple, interactive interface.

Part of what I like about the new piece, Rationalizer 4, is how the emphasis is not so much on
the visuals or sound so much as the algorithms. How does it happen that the emphasis falls on
the algorithms? Perhaps by virtue of their doing lively things, interesting things, their
provision of the 'character' of the entities in the piece. In the case of this particular work,
there's an explicit emphasis on "artificial lifeforms"; but I suspect that even if that isn't
the case in a work, yet the algorithms are lively, do interesting things and make interesting
decisions, are suggestive of some manner of lively, decision-making 'animation', that the
emphasis would fall to some extent on the algorithms as objects of attention in the piece. The
behavior can, in such case, provide quite a bit of the 'character' of the objects. In this way,
interestingly algorithmic work is often concerned with "artificial lifeforms" whether it is
explicitly stated or not.

ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: resentment...


> The resentment issue is going to stick around for a while, because no one
> (by "no one" I mean Mark Tribe) has really addressed it, and no one (Mark
> Tribe) seems interested in addressing it. I am sure they have a steady
> increase in new subscribers, though I am at a loss to explain how it would
> happen- (closed circuits don't invite expansion).
>
> -e.

What would you like to see, Eryk?

I think what keeps Rhizome so popular is the unending string of announcements of projects,
competitions, jobs, and more good new URLs than you get on other lists. The discussion is OK,
but it's these other things that mark it as unique among lists.

Lists have their problems. Email has its problems. They deal with that via Rhizome Rare and
Rhizome Digest. And Net Art News. And the site. Nettime deals with it in a different way, by
censoring posts and by creating things like the Publications and Events posts that summarize
such posts, and things like the Unstable Digest.

Lordy, though, all I really want to do is create art and code and discuss net.art. Not
particularly into creating ha 'social sculpture'.

You're an artist. Are you moved to create an organization?

How many are? Not too many. And then they suck. More or less unavoidably? A primarily New York
hegemony in this case. Ah, back to the drawing board--no, make that the friggin RAD authoring
env.

ja

DISCUSSION

Re: The end of Premiere for Mac


> > What is your solution? Take IE away from Microsoft and give it to a
> > different company? Make it
> > open source?
>
> It seems to me that OS manufacturers should not be allowed to develop
> browsers (in which case IE could be taken by another company) or at
> least the portion that interacts with the rest of the network should be
> required to be open AND standards based. In Apples case, the GUI and
> interface functions are proprietary, but the portion that integrates
> with the network (the rendering engine) is open source and standards
> based. That model could work for MS as well, in lieu of selling/giving
> up IE.

So you're saying Apple has implemented a responsible solution to this situation? Is that your
position also, T.whid?

I don't understand some of the distinctions you make. You say "the GUI and interface functions
are proprietary, but the portion that integrates with the network (the rendering engine) is open
source and standards based."

So, I take it, for instance, that the DOM (Document Object Model) is in some sense open source
and standards based. The standards would be W3C standards, but are you saying the implementation
of the DOM is open source so that, for instance, one could inspect the code implementation of,
say, the window.open method? What do you mean by the GUI and interface functions?

Any sense of why the DOJ is not making any noise?

And thanks to T.whid and you for arguing forcefully and clearly on this question. It is
important.

ja

> > Microsoft could still develop OS accessible functionality that could,
> > if the developers chose,
> > be accessed through a Microsoft API accessible to registered browsers.
> > The 'registered' part
> > could deal with security issues.
>
> Whatever OS functionality MS wanted to open to browser developers would
> be fine, as long as the features did not create a situation that limits
> the network access of non-MS browsers to portions of the net. In
> simplified form, we don't need a telephone network that only speaks
> English.
>
> >
> > What was the DOJ's proposed solution? Wasn't it just this, to take IE
> > away from Microsoft? Was
> > it IE or was it some other partition?
>
> At one point, the goal was to break MS into a number of smaller
> companies. The idea was to separate OS operations from applications,
> etc. The intention was to encourage competition and remove the
> inherent conflicts presented by an OS manufacturer also producing the
> browser. Despite MS's claims to the contrary this would encourage
> innovation rather than stifle it.
>
> I agree it's desirable to bring the net closer to the desktop, in
> reality I think this is more likely with competition than without it.
> After all, browser development has practically stalled (in terms of
> real innovation) in the last 3-4 years since MS gained the majority of
> the market. Here's a semi-related interview with Marc Andreessen
> discussing the lack of innovation.
> <http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID020749>
>
>
> Jack

DISCUSSION

Re: The end of Premiere for Mac


> > Microsoft is an OS/system level company. They don't have the culture
> > to support something like
> > Premier or Director or Flash or anything particularly creative. If a
> > product isn't geared
> > primarily toward big business, they don't know what to make of it. But
> > they are often the best
> > at system design/architecture. It's that fresh Pacific, Seattle air,
> > T.whid.
>
> This is an important issue. If Microsoft (or anyone for that matter,
> but by virtue of their 90% market share, it appears to be MS), controls
> the gateway to the net, don't we all become reliant on their "corporate
> culture" as a filter for our experience? If they aren't particularly
> creative, and competition has vanished, won't the speed of innovation
> diminish? Why does this seem to be a desirable condition for so many?
>
> We keep talking about "OS-integration" as if it is some magical
> relationship between the OS and the browser. I believe this is a false
> notion, invented by Microsoft, as a means to justify the absorption of
> the browser into their portfolio of applications. If you recall, this
> notion first came up when the Netscape anti-trust case began. No
> matter how you color it, the browser will still be an application that
> runs on top of the OS. Because Microsoft controls the source to the
> underlying OS, it is true that they can create barriers that would
> hamper access, or otherwise limit the functionality of competing
> developers (browser makers, here). This is a matter of choice by
> Microsoft, however. Other than the removal of this artificially
> created barrier to development, there is no intrinsic advantage
> (performance, features, etc.) to Microsoft controlling the browser or
> someone else.
>
> It's too easy to divert this discussion into a "platform war." It's
> not about whether you like this flavor or that, or this browser is
> better than that one was. As an artist I am concerned about the
> environment within which we will operate in the future. I realize that
> artists are like cockroaches ;-) and will adapt and thrive in whatever
> the world presents, but as a person who is interested in creativity I
> would like an environment that maximizes that potential. Will an
> environment (the net) whose features are determined by a single
> corporation be more, or less, flexible? Will it be conducive to
> activities that may not support the corporation's agenda? Will
> innovation slow to the pace of corporate upgrade schedules? What
> happens when the corporation decides to filter everyone through their
> own portal (ala AOL) or begin a subscription upgrade service? For me
> it comes down to this: do we want the net to become an extension of
> one corporation, or a somewhat ad hoc collection of individuals
> functioning as a community? I believe that access to the net is a
> social function that is too important to allow a single entity to have
> control. Ideally, OS vendors should not be allowed to produce
> browsers, but in the least, they should be open source and standards
> based. I don't believe the nebulous promise of "additional features"
> is worth the price of limited freedom.

That's a pretty good argument, Jack. I agree with most of it. I suspect all the dangers you
outline are real ones.

I don't agree that OS-integration "is a false notion, invented by Microsoft, as a means to
justify the absorption of the browser into their portfolio of applications."

As net.artists, most of us *would* like to see the net more integrated with the desktop
computing environment. A lot of the more interesting pieces of net.art recently are projectors
(exe's) that you download, install, and then they can access the computer's file system and
system resources better while also accessing the Net and its resources.

Some of these embed IE, some of them don't.

Also, I disagree with "No matter how you color it, the browser will still be an application that
runs on top of the OS."

The OS browser would *eventually* be chopped into its constituent parts and one would be able to
access the parts. But this could as well be done by others, not Microsoft.

But you've convinced me that yes, there are real dangers.

What is your solution? Take IE away from Microsoft and give it to a different company? Make it
open source?

Microsoft could still develop OS accessible functionality that could, if the developers chose,
be accessed through a Microsoft API accessible to registered browsers. The 'registered' part
could deal with security issues.

What was the DOJ's proposed solution? Wasn't it just this, to take IE away from Microsoft? Was
it IE or was it some other partition?

ja