(via betac)
I found this at White Stag. It’s an Autocad tablet. Those are tool palettes and drawing space.
↓ 6 Mar 2010
The new issue of Cabinet is fantastic.
Long-live expensive print.
(via kmikeym)
dump.fm
code: RHIZOME
While the internet is a physical body of wires and chips, the web is a shared non-physical realm of experience that requires many aspects of spiritual faith to interact with. We post and commune on a plane of information that we cannot touch or see. We tend to wander the web in private, confronting the massive database alone each day. We are inclined to use the web for the satisfaction of our emotional and intellectual needs rather than for our physical needs. We make pilgrimage to the same web sites at regular and repeated intervals, paying homage to them by contributing or partaking, and then we move on to our other daily needs like eating and sleeping. But all the while, we have faith that this plane of information we have become so dependent on is tangible enough to provide a worthwhile connectedness. For many of us, the web has become almost sacred, its ritual use is the embodiment of our spiritual needs. So I suppose that my conclusion is this: surfing the web can be a fulfilling spiritual experience and a direct interaction with a transcendent reality.
You may have heard people using a misleading term “Intellectual Property”. This term, as you can see, is biased. It makes an assumption that whatever it is you are talking about, the way to treat it is as a kind of property, which is one among many alternatives. This term “Intellectual Property” pre-judges the most basic question in whatever area you are dealing with. This is not conducive to clear and open minded thinking.
↓ 4 Mar 2010
Today Chrysler declared bankruptcy and an old man was caught stealing food at the dollar store.
Same day, I met Zach Rose
What!
↓ 3 Mar 2010
Why does HTML need a hierarchical structure? Why not give every element a unique ID and have higher level tools for managing ontology/behavior/appearance all together?
Immediately after the first Finder prototype, I wrote a second which was much more recognizable as the ancestor to the Finder that shipped. This prototype was a nonfunctional prototype that did not actually read the disk, but instead, read a text file that described a hierarchy of files within folders that would be displayed in windows. Our filesystem at the time did not have the concept of directories, so I had to fake it with the proof-of-concept prototype.
—
Folklore.org: Macintosh Stories: The Grand Unified Model (2) - The Finder
Hey, that’s what I do.
↓ 2 Mar 2010
