cover photo



blog archive

main site

artwork

bio






Schwarz



View current page
...more recent posts

ballad of fat elvis


[link] [1 comment]

740 Park


[link] [add a comment]

ref sony root-kit

EFF has confirmed the presence of XCP on the following titles (each has a data session, easily read on a Macintosh, that includes a file called "VERSION.DAT" that announces what version of XCP it is using). If you have one of these CDs, and you have a Windows PC (Macs are totally immune, as usual), you may have caught the XCP bug.

[link] [4 comments]

The crux of the debate is this: When you buy a song, an album, or a movie, are you buying the content only in the form it comes in? If you purchase a song from Apple's iTunes store, should you be able to play it on any hardware you want? Not according to Apple, which bundles each download with a "digital rights management" scheme called FairPlay. When you pay 99 cents for the latest Sheryl Crow hit, it's stored on your hard drive as an encrypted file. Every time you play it on your computer with iTunes or on your iPod, it is unlocked with a random encryption key supplied by Apple. FairPlay allows you to load a song on up to five computers and an unlimited number of iPods and burn as many CDs as you please. But you can't e-mail a song to a friend, you can't distribute it over the Web, and you can't play it on anything but iTunes or an iPod.

[link] [add a comment]

Debra Burlingame doesn’t live in New York [City], and her brother didn’t die there. Her agenda is based on emotion and the righteous rage of loss. She is not considering the life of New Yorkers, but the loss of life surrounding her. Pataki and Clinton are both looking at 2008 presidential bids, their conservative rhetoric are pre-campaign insurances that they can ride the neo-conservative wave to the White House. Again, there is no consideration for the people of New York or the cultural future of Manhattan. What Pataki, Clinton and Burlingame are responsible for through their shortsighted opportunism is cultural death in Lower Manhattan.

[link] [add a comment]

The controversy promises to erupt on Thursday at 7 p.m. at the New York Public Library's Celeste Bartos Forum, when the debate will be joined by members of the guild, the publishers' association and Google. Also in the fray will be Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School, Chris Anderson, editor in chief of Wired Magazine, and Paul LeClerc and David Ferriero from the library (which is participating in Google Print).

But as I argued in a version of this column in The International Herald Tribune last month, contention is commonplace during eras of technological change. When Defoe and Addison were demanding consideration in London 300 years ago, the right to "copy" or publish any book was held not by the author but by members of London's Stationers' Company - booksellers and printers - who held a monopoly on that right in perpetuity. That seemed reasonable during the century after the introduction of the printing press and the considerable expenses needed to print, distribute and sell a book to the small literate public.

But by the beginning of the 18th century, printing was becoming less expensive, international and provincial publishers were offering competition, literacy increased and authors grew in public stature. So over the next half-century, British laws limited the control of the Stationers and expanded the rights of authors, while also putting time limits on all forms of control, creating what became the public domain.

Then came another wave of technological change: the industrial revolution. And similar controversies erupted. Inventions were once relatively immune from copying because of the craft they required; execution could seem more difficult than coming up with the idea. Once manufacturing was mechanized, though, the idea itself could become vulnerable, leading to both increased governmental control and increased industrial espionage. Britain prohibited the export of machinery while the fledgling United States welcomed insiders with information from there.

[link] [add a comment]

In the '50s Kurtzman's MAD magazine was Lenny Bruce for kids. As a comic book it was the comics inside out, all id, and going too fast for kids to catch, especially around the edges of the panels. Nine- and twelve-year-olds picking their way through the 1954 Dragnet parody "Dragged Net" weren't going to connect the question that Sgt. Joe Friday continually asked his partner Ed Saturday—"How's your mom, Ed?"—with Oedipus, and there was no Oedipus Rex payoff. That wasn't the point.

The point was "How's your mom, Ed?" as absolute non sequitur. What in the world did it mean? The phrase turned every already-crowded, hysterical page into a mystery, put a hole in it. There was the suggestion that there was more going on in the comics you read and the TV shows you watched than you would ever know.

[link] [add a comment]

Someone has stolen one of my buildings! That was the panicked reaction of Beverly Moss Spatt, then the chairwoman of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, after the cast-iron facades of a building by James Bogardus were spirited away from a downtown lot in 1974. The 1849 facades, supposedly protected by official landmark status, had been disassembled and stored for eventual relocation at another site. But thieves broke into the lot and sold most of them off as scrap metal.

Three decades later, Ms. Spatt, now retired, is one of the people fighting to save 2 Columbus Circle, a 1965 building by Edward Durell Stone, in one of the biggest preservation uproars in a generation. But this time it is the commission itself that seems to have been hijacked.

Once considered the most powerful agency of its kind, the commission has lost the confidence of many mainstream preservationists by repeatedly refusing to hold a public hearing on the building's fate. At the urging of those preservation advocates, a city councilman, Bill Perkins, has introduced a bill that could force the commission to hold public hearings on potential landmarks. The implication is that the commission cannot always be trusted to protect the public interest.

[link] [add a comment]

One of the Crescent City's most notable New Urbanism proponents is Pres Kabacoff, chief operating officer of Historic Restoration Inc., a development company principally known for converting unused industrial dinosaurs, such as the American Can Co. and the Federal Fiber Mills buildings, into apartment hives, with coffee shops, restaurants, dry cleaners, wine shops, workout centers, swimming pools and other on-site yuppie amenities -- a sort of old urban/New Urban synthesis.

But Kabacoff's post-Katrina vision includes more than inner-city conversions. His dreams run to a series of 10-acre, freshly built, densely populated New Urban enclaves between downtown New Orleans and Armstrong airport -- each of them a bit like one of his more controversial accomplishments: the conversion of the old St. Thomas public housing site into River Garden apartments, a mixed-income development replete with its own Wal-Mart Supercenter and, one day, a nursing home.
times-picayune
[link] [1 comment]

MoOM


[link] [add a comment]

cargo culture


[link] [add a comment]

surf movie tonight


[link] [add a comment]