| |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> All right. You have this artist friend. She paints things. She invites
> you and fifty other people over for a housewarming party. Great party,
> lots of fun, lots of neat things going on. She's got a couple of her
> latest paintings up on display, even.
>
> Now there's this guy there, he gets kind of sauced, and he wanders into
> your friend's studio where she works on new ideas. He flips on the light,
> puts down his drink, and sees a bunch of white sheets covering what
> obviously are stretched canvases -- works in progress. Biting his finger,
> he shuts the door to the studio (remaining inside), and lifts each of the
> sheets to get a sneak peek at the works in progress. Turns out they're
> actually pretty much completed, and scheduled to be put on exhibit in a
> few weeks. But he sneaks some good hard peeks, and he remembers what he
> sees.
I don't see how this corresponds.
1. She didn't invite people over specifically to see her paintings, she
invited them to housewarming which happened to display a few paintings.
On the other hand, the entire purpose of Lego's web site is to serve
documents.
2. The studio is a distinctly different environment from where the rest of
the part is. He has to flip on a light, etc. By contrast, there is no
technical distinction between URLs which happen to have links to them,
and those which don't. If the "studio" images were on port 81, or on a
different host, then this _might_ apply.
Puts down his drink? Bites his finger? Shuts the door? Lifts the sheets?
None of this is required to view something at a URL, regardless of
whether there's a link to it.
3. This guy seems to think he's doing something wrong. When I'm looking at
images served from a public web server, I'm doing it guilt-free. What's
the difference? Well, the things in point 1 & 2 are apparently obvious to
him. And I think they'd be obvious to anyone above a certain very basic
level of knowledge of social norms. By the same token, the concept that
there might be something wrong with looking at an image to which there
isn't a readily-obvious hyperlink is ludicrous to (I think I'm safe in
saying this) a vast majority of those with a basic level of knowledge of
the World Wide Web.
> Now, what's the analysis of that?
[analysis questions snipped because given the above, I don't think they're
relevant.]
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
