Comments on: eBoy.

eBoy.

delmoi — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:19:51 -0800

Web 2.0 pixel poster. From the shop of kickass pixel artist eboy (blog, with one nsfw image)

By: isopraxis

isopraxis — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:27:36 -0800

These make me want to fold them in to see the hidden picture and message.

By: jonson

jonson — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:28:02 -0800

Is Flickr on there? I couldn't find it when I first looked.

By: isopraxis

isopraxis — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:29:30 -0800

like this

By: TheNewWazoo

TheNewWazoo — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:30:12 -0800

I don't see MeFi, either. And seriously, we're obviously the most important people on the web2.0, which makes this the most important place, right?

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:34:14 -0800

two guys are "carryng" flickr on the sidewalk behind the truck with skype on it.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:45:02 -0800

I have the Berlin one framed on the living room wall; we got it for free from my wife's former boss, but the frame cost a stupid amount of money.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:45:45 -0800

If this were truly Web 2.0 then wouldn't all of the logos be clickable? Still, its pretty neat. Looks like a videogame I could have some fun playing.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:45:51 -0800

It's a pretty big poster, too.

By: jonson

jonson — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:41:02 -0800

Ah - thanks drjimmy11

By: bob sarabia

bob sarabia — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 16:53:01 -0800

isopraxis: thanks for that. I haven't seen those fold-ins for quite some time.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:04:59 -0800

Swirly purple logo top right?

By: nightchrome

nightchrome — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:09:18 -0800

People need to cut out this retarded "web 2.0" crap. Seriously.

By: ninjew

ninjew — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:35:27 -0800

We're on Web3.0 now. Get with the times, people.

By: ninjew

ninjew — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:38:35 -0800

Also, this made me think of the Sims. So I was looking for something to be on fire somewhere.

By: melkozek

melkozek — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:19:48 -0800

Did anyone find Waldo?

By: dhartung

dhartung — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:31:45 -0800

I don't see MeFi, either. In case you hadn't noticed, MeFi is actively Web 2.0 hostile. What would qualify us to be in the poster? Collaboratively filtered snark?

By: sineater

sineater — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:34:23 -0800

heh, isn't that John Lennon in the lower right? also, no microsoft? :-)

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:00:34 -0800

Funny. I immediately picked out John Lennon too. Also, I think, Harrison next to him from the Abbey Road photo.

By: empath

empath — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:02:32 -0800

Well, if one wanted to get one billion hits on your website, I couldnt' think of a better way.

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:23:13 -0800

Aren't we like Web 1.8? I must say, given the spread of companies up there, that 2.0 is a bit... subtle, revolution-wise.

By: furtive

furtive — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 20:37:29 -0800

I've had a copy of the Berlin one on the side of my fridge for ages. I think it came as an insert in Vice magazine once. I never thought much of it but I've always been surprised by the positive feedback it elicits. Can't say I'm very much interested in Web2.0 brands though, although I could be kicking myself 40 years from now when Digg owns the New York Times.

By: Artifice_Eternity

Artifice_Eternity — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:05:20 -0800

MeFi is actively Web 2.0 hostile We have tagging! That's Web 2.0. I think. What was NSFW on the poster? Or was that just a trick to get people to study it closely for ten minutes?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:10:27 -0800

Maybe eboy only puts in logos for people/companies who pay him? Or that he uses himself?

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:27:22 -0800

A robot is strangling what looks like an anthropomorphic mouseman near the iPods getting photographed.

By: Artifice_Eternity

Artifice_Eternity — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:48:36 -0800

Whose work is that not safe for?

By: ssmith

ssmith — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:09:11 -0800

It's the link to the eboy blog (that at the time this was posted has one post that's NSFW). (that link is also NSFW, obviously)

By: JamesJD

JamesJD — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:38:04 -0800

Reminds me of one of the cover designs for Patrick Neate's "City of Tiny Lights"

By: emelenjr

emelenjr — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 06:43:46 -0800

~~Simpsons~~ Sim City did it! Sim City did it! I don't understand the fascination with this guy's artwork.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 08:58:46 -0800

How can a vector image of the top half of a female be "not safe"? What kind of fascist weirdos do people work for that would make the accidental (or, hell, even deliberate) viewing of that link a punishable offense? And why on earth would anyone put up with that kind of work environment? Goddamn, but the US tends to be insane.

By: stumcg

stumcg — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:59:36 -0800

eBoy is 4 boys actually. Steffen Sauerteig, Svend Smital, Kai Vermehr (all based in Berlin) and Peter Stemmler (in New York). Love their stuff - never gets old.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:36:41 -0800

five fresh fish writes "How can a vector image of the top half of a female be 'not safe'?" Most employers don't make a distinction between whether an image is made with vectors (which, by the way, this one wasn't. This was made with individual pixels. Vector art is pretty much the exact opposite of drawing with pixels), but based on the subject matter of the image. five fresh fish writes "What kind of fascist weirdos do people work for that would make the accidental (or, hell, even deliberate) viewing of that link a punishable offense?" What "kind"? I dunno, you have to be a little bit more explicit. You mean "what industries"? "What size companies"? "Incorporated, limited, LLC, NPO"? five fresh fish writes "And why on earth would anyone put up with that kind of work environment?" Because if you just do simple things like looking at tits at home instead of at work, you get paid a decent amount of money to do work you enjoy with people you enjoy working with. I suppose we could all just refuse to work at places that don't allow tit-viewing, but most of us would then be stuck trying to find work from an incredibly small pool of jobs, or working for peanuts, or working at jobs we hate, or working with people we hate. Basically, my suspicion is that we work at jobs whose advantages greatly outstrip their drawbacks, and for most of us, the inability to look at tits is just not a huge drawback. So implying that we should all quit jobs where we think the advantages outweigh the drawbacks just because you don't particularly like the drawbacks is...bizarre. five fresh fish writes "Goddamn, but the US tends to be insane." Not just the US.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:34:26 -0800

I understand a ban on all non-work-related web browsing. The picture "foamyone.png" is tagged as a vector image, and is the "unsafe" image. It is the upper bust, side profile, of a woman. It's cheesy-assed 1950s velvet art. A comic book cover. Leisure Suit Larry. If browsing an artsy site at work is okay, then IMO this picture must be okay. It's about as offensive as seafoam.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:54:55 -0800

Whoa, you're right about the vectors. I apologize. I saw it earlier, but remembered it as being pixel instead of vector based, hence my response. Sorry about that. Regarding the browsing art/browsing nipples thing, my company has a problem with nipple displays because of possible sexual harrassment lawsuits, which don't result from people looking at cityscapes or drawings of dinosaurs or the like. Hence, browsing arty stuff is OK, but not if it includes anything that depicts the naked human form, whether it be sexual or asexual, because it could result in a lawsuit. Most companies just take the "you're not supposed to browse anything at work" line, so I'm happy mine says "Look, there are a few things we don't want you to browse for legal reasons, but we don't care about the rest, so if you are on break / on a night shift with no outages / on a weekend day shift with no outages, you can go ahead and browse the net, as long as you avoid these categories." You may find that horrible and draconian and evil, and wonder why I work for fascists like that. I personally think it's pretty reasonable.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:43:37 -0800

And so, with a reasonable policy such as that, you're telling me they'd can your ass if a weblog of pixel art happens to contain a single side-profile image of a semi-nekkid woman? I can see a policy stating "don't go looking at porn while you're at work." I can see a policy stating "don't go googling images of nekkid women at work." I see no sense in a policy that would put you out on the street because some artsy weblog happens to have a picture with nipples in it.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:43:28 -0800

five fresh fish : "And so, with a reasonable policy such as that, you're telling me they'd can your ass if a weblog of pixel art happens to contain a single side-profile image of a semi-nekkid woman?" Nope. They'd give me a little lecture (probably very, very little). They're scared of getting sued, of course, but they're not totally irrational about it. If I were browsing porn, sure, maybe get fired. If I kept "accidentally" stumbling across nipple pics day-in-day-out, then they'd probably give me a big, big lecture, and basically say "Yes, browsing the net is allowed, but you apparently completely suck at avoiding not-work-safe stuff, so, for you, no more internet access". If my boss looks over my shoulder and sees a single nipple on a clearly otherwise-SFW page, I'll just get the tiny lecture. Some people use "NSFW" to mean "Not Safe For Work, in that if you view it at work, you will no longer work there". Some people use "NSFW" to mean "If you view this at many workplaces, which otherwise allow web surfing (after all, if all pages are disallowed, you don't need a NSFW tag), you have some chance of some sort of negative repercussion, whose severity will vary based on the particular policies of your company". I use it to mean the second, so, for me, the nipple is NSFW, but I don't think my company is draconian.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:03:34 -0800

Wow. What can I say, but that I think people are stupid.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:36:57 -0800

five fresh fish : "What can I say, but that I think people are stupid." We all think that. That's what people who use the internet do: think other people are stupid.