The international journal LEONARDO, a publication dedicated to art
and technology and published by the MIT Press, has collaborated with
Burning Man to publish a special section featuring The Art of Burning
Man. In the October 2003 issue of the journal, 20 artists discuss the
creative aspects of designing and building art for Burning Man. Among
the many art media discussed are fire, water, lasers, LED light,
metal, telestereo optics and fractal audio. Each essay is illustrated
with a photo of the artwork.

The Burning Man Special Section includes an introduction by Guest
Editor Louis M. Brill: "Desert Weirdness Introduces a New Era of Art"
and a feature article by Burning Man art curator Christine Kristen
(a.k.a. LadyBee): "The Outsider Art of Burning Man."
Artists' essays are divided into four themes as follows:
SCULPTURE - Michael Christian: Flock.
LIGHT SCULPTURE - Radiant Atmospheres: The Afterlife; Tim Black: L2K
Ring and Ship to Ship; Jeremy Lutes: The Lily Pond; Christopher
Schardt: Spin; Russell Wilcox: Beaming Man.
INTERACTIVE INSTALLATIONS - Cassidy Curtis and Chris Whitney: The
Telestereoscope; Deidre DeFranceaux and Jann Nunn: The Cradle;
Hendrik Hackl: The Ammonite Project; Cynthia "Kiki" Pettit: Firefall;
Kal Spelletich: The Myth of Sisyphus; Jenne Giles and Philip Bonham:
The Ribcage; Dan Das Mann: The One Tree; Susan Robb: The Golden Tower
Project; Finley Fryer: The Plastic Chapel.
MOBILE INSTALLATIONS - Dana Albany: The Bone Tree; Aaron Wolf Baum:
The Voice of the Nebulous Entity; Lisa Nigro: Draka, The Flaming
Metal Dragon; Steven Raspa: The Futura Deluxe Bubble Fountain and
Porta Temple; Austin Richards: Dr. Megavolt.

The Leonardo Burning Man project is accessible on-line at:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/Leonardo/gallery/burningman/

which inadvertantly goes to my point that ms/yahoo/google/the whole industry is struggling right now and people are getting fed up -- not because they are too smart. the problem is not just with ms os either.

I doubt it is a virus. If you think I should feel stupid I don't. I don't know how to tweak my car computer to get better mileage or not miss firing cylinders once in awhile either

Michael

Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
There is an ActiveX control attached to the message you sent to Rhizome
(which I didn't run of course). What is it? If you don't know, it's probably
a virus.

ja

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]On Behalf Of
Michael Watson
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:02 PM
To: Jim Andrews; list@rhizome.org
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: ms REALLY sucks

if Microsoft is so smart than why is it spending billions protecting itself
from every hacker freak on the planet (and holding up pretty well)?

+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

if Microsoft is so smart than why is it spending billions protecting itself from every hacker freak on the planet (and holding up pretty well)?

Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> wrote:

> > Patent law is strange and screwy. You can patent an algorithm. But
> > what's
> > the alternative? The nub of the matter is here. We are into an age in
> > which
> > many industrial machines are virtual.
>
> no doubt... and this makes for interesting legal philosophy
> considering the Creative Commons concept. how will the
> "non-commercial" license hold up? What if, for example, UC's
> research had been licensed in such a manner and MS utilized it
> for profitable gain in such a way that snuffed out competition?
> but for some reason, i'm less concerned about MS being sued by a
> small company and a university than large companies using the
> "legal" system to dominate the Web

Agreed.

It's appropriate that the MS suit revolves around the tag (or is it
the tag?). A question of the legal status of the process.
If you make that do not require any decisions by the 'user' appear
out of 'thin air', then yer violatin 'me magic patent buster pony up'.

Read the article you (s)cite on the junk frame patent. it does indeed sound
pretty junky.

i agree also with you that the nub of these matters seems a matter for
philosophical analysis, mainly.

there does need to be some way of patenting ideas so that research can be
carried out with some prospect of recompense. do you agree? even this might
be problematical. but ideas of what kinds? it isn't sufficient to just be
able to patent working code or working machines. the nub of the innovation
seems to be conceptual rather than material. like if one has an idea that
really merits a patent, then the patent description should be general enough
that, oh, changing a few lines of the code superficially or, if it is not a
virtual machine but a 'real' machine, making it out of titanium rather than
iron shouldn't matter. you have somehow to isolate the structure and nub of
the matter in an abstract way. and then, once that has been done, decide
whether the idea is really patentable according to some pretty wise and
experienced checklist with just history behind it.

if there's a loophole in an OS, hackers exploit it. if there's a loophole in
patent law, lawyers exploit it. people bang hard on the systems day and
night. does this give us better systems? lots of little bandaids and then
eventually changes at a higher level.

I don't understand your hypothetical scenario above, Ryan, of UC
hypothetically licensing their research via a 'non commercial' license. What
sort of crucial terms in the 'non commercial' license were you thinking of?

> (based on the wording of the
> complaint, it seems the lawsuit had more to do with MS's bundling
> of the browser and operating system to monopolize (sounds
> familiar...), than the actual use of the technology)
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108903,00.asp

I would have thought that UC went after Microsoft because they had a very
good case against Microsoft. They had made MS aware of their work and patent
quite early, if that counts, and also demonstrated that MS is in violation
of the patent. I suspect they went after Microsoft not for any other reason
than they figured they had their best case against Microsoft, as opposed to
other companies. And I suspect that the main reason they decided to sue was
to get some recompense from their research. And because the law permits it.
They wouldn't have chosen MS because it was the biggest challenge, but
because it was the duck. Ducks first in that game, I'll bet.

ja

+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

> I'm planning on a floating gallery of sorts in the
> California Delta.
>

I found myself lost on the Delta long ago
http://wwwdpla.water.ca.gov/cd/waterqualitybiology/DeltaShackBoat.jpg

But what is unique about video games is that players are spectators,
manipulators of the simulation and participants at the same time,
controlling image surrogates that represent them on the screen, and
acting in the virtual environment through their surrogate. In their
role as spectators and manipulators, they watch and dominate the
action. In their role as participants, they experience these image
surrogates as an extension, not only of their will, but of their body.
In essence, their body image expands to include the image under their
control, allowing them to take on a virtual presence in the game, as
part of their fictional role.

http://www.transparencynow.com/actout.htm

========

"How better to express and abiding hatred of government, any
government, than by sending to Sacramento a robot with a gun?"

Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's Magazine

=========

My husband's not as stupid as he looks, says Mrs Schwarzenegger

Arnold Schwarzenegger's wife has a message for the women of California.
Her husband is not stupid or sexist.

Shriver, niece of the late John Kennedy, stunned diehard Democrats when
she married the Terminator 17 years ago. Now they are reeling as she
stumps the state for her Republican husband, who is seen as a violent,
macho misogynist by some Californian feminists.

Schwarzenegger's movies are just part of the problem. One film expert
calculates that he slaughtered 191 victims in just five of his most
popular movies, an average of 38.2 each.

Discussing his preferred means of triumph over his robotic female enemy
in Terminator 3, he told Entertainment Weekly: "How many times do you
get away with this - to take a woman, grab her upside down and bury her
face in the toilet bowl."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/01/1064988272376.html

========
Will durst

Q. What's behind the marriage to Maria Shriver?
A. Probably phase one in a genetic experiment to breed a bullet proof
Kennedy.

http://www.willdurst.com/WeeksWorthJJ03.html

========

Transcript: Arnold Schwarzenegger Town Hall Meeting

HANNITY: Involving -- you had a number of heated exchanges with Arianna
in particular last night. Well, it seemed like she came ready to take
you on. You had one line in the debate, you thought you'd have a
perfect part for her in "Terminator 4."

Now, because of that comment -- you may not know this, so we're making
news here -- she is urging the women of California not to support you,
and she says this represents what you think of women. And she believes
you were referring to the scene in "Terminator 3 (search)" that showed
a female robot's head in the toilet. That's what she's saying to our
friends in the media that are here with us today. What do you want to
say to that?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I don't know why she picked that scene. I have no
idea. But the fact of the matter is it was a compliment, because in
"Terminator," we always had powerful women. In the first "Terminator"
and in the second one, it was Linda Hamilton who played always the
powerful woman that succeeded.

HANNITY: Right.

SCHWARZENEGGER: And in "Terminator 3," the female terminator was the
most powerful character in the whole movie. So, therefore, in
"Terminator 4," it will continue the trend. So, it actually was a
compliment. If she takes it the wrong way, it's not my fault.

HANNITY: OK. All right.

(APPLAUSE)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98352,00.html

========

http://www.algonet.se/~ricste/relax.mov