study_in_gray2x2
study_in_gray3x2
The recent proliferation of high level computer programming languages
has made it possible for non-expert users to write interesting
programs without getting bogged down in technical specifics. In
particular, the availability of libraries and API’s that provide
high-level, user-oriented data primitives like pixels and video frames
are very interesting because they allow users to approach visual tasks
without having to understand how the computer internally represents
visual data.
This series of images was born out of an interest in the repetition of
very simple actions on an inhuman scale, and as a study in the nature
of discrete verus continuous media. A 3-panel by 3-panel digital
print measuring about 2 1⁄2’ square was displayed as the only ugly and
conceptual work in the 2004 staff art show at Cornell University.
The script used to generate the
images is GPL’ed. It should run on any system with Perl and
PerlMagick available. The images in the _study_ingray series are
released into the public domain.
It has been brought to my attention that 5 out of 5 otherwise
intelligent and well-informed people have almost no clue what the
Federal Register is. It’s where the action is in the Federal
Government. If you have a question about a proposed law, an executive
order by the president, a new FDA rule, or a recent change in FCC
policy… the answer is in the Federal Register. But really none of
that is important. The only thing you need to know about the Federal
Register is that Ralph and I share a foodnote on page 12149 of Volume
67.
In 2002 my comments on the proposed settlement in the antitrust case
against Microsoft were cited in the Federal Register. I must be famous
or something.
In late 2001 and early 2002, the Department of Justice collected over
30,000 comments on the proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust
case, including one from me. Apparently someone actually read it,
because it was one of 107 comments cited in the DOJ’s reponse filed
with the Federal Register on March 18th, 2002.
Here’s my footnote, #139 (shared with Ralph Nader and the legal teams
from AOL, Real, and Red Hat):
RealNetworks 24-25; AAI 25-34; SBC 91-100; Harris 4; Bast 2-3;
Thomas 2-3; Red Hat 11-13, 16-18, 22-23; Alexander 2; KDE 13-14; CFA
88-89, 93-95; CompTIA 5; PFF 19; ProComp 55-60; Pantin 4-7; Palm
14-15; CCIA 85-87, and Stiglitz & Furman 31-32; AOL 34-38; AOL, Klain
2-3; Nader/Love 1-6; Maddux Paras. 2-4; Sen. Kohl 4; Lococo 1.
We are cited in support of this earth-shattering statement:
Commentors express several concerns about Section III.A.
See for yourself, browse the pdf’s from the Federal Register:
- My Comments start at the
end of the first page of this pdf.
- The DOJ Response is like a
120 pages total or something. It’s big and it’s divided into 3
parts. Part 1 is linked above.
- DOJ Reponse Part 2 has my
citing, search for Lococo
- DOJ Response Part 3, has
the list of all comments cited, where you can verify that Nader is
the Ralph Nader and that I am 53rd in the alphabetical list of
comments cited.
- The DOJ Website
where you can get all the skinny on the Microsoft antitrust case,
including the final judgement (which did not address the
shortcomings noted in the DOJ Response).
So when politics get you down… remember, democracy means that you
too can have your objections noted in the Federal Register before
being completely disregarded in the final decision.
Update, 3/7/06: Here aren’t some photos of the trip I took down to
New York to go to Uncle Jim’s wedding reception. I took them
down. Contact me if you really want to see them.
Yes, but why does the chicken cross the road, huh, if not for love?
Oh, I don’t know.
–Pinky and The Brain