eBoy.
December 3, 2006 3:19 PM Subscribe
Is Flickr on there? I couldn't find it when I first looked.
posted by jonson at 3:28 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by jonson at 3:28 PM on December 3, 2006
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?
posted by TheNewWazoo at 3:30 PM on December 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
And seriously, we're obviously the most important people on the web2.0, which makes this the most important place, right?
posted by TheNewWazoo at 3:30 PM on December 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
two guys are "carryng" flickr on the sidewalk behind the truck with skype on it.
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:34 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:34 PM on December 3, 2006
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.
posted by Bugbread at 3:45 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 3:45 PM on December 3, 2006
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.
posted by fenriq at 3:45 PM on December 3, 2006
Still, its pretty neat. Looks like a videogame I could have some fun playing.
posted by fenriq at 3:45 PM on December 3, 2006
isopraxis: thanks for that. I haven't seen those fold-ins for quite some time.
posted by bob sarabia at 4:53 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 4:53 PM on December 3, 2006
Swirly purple logo top right?
posted by cillit bang at 5:04 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by cillit bang at 5:04 PM on December 3, 2006
People need to cut out this retarded "web 2.0" crap.
Seriously.
posted by nightchrome at 5:09 PM on December 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
Seriously.
posted by nightchrome at 5:09 PM on December 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
Also, this made me think of the Sims. So I was looking for something to be on fire somewhere.
posted by ninjew at 5:38 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by ninjew at 5:38 PM on December 3, 2006
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?
posted by dhartung at 6:31 PM on December 3, 2006
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?
posted by dhartung at 6:31 PM on December 3, 2006
heh, isn't that John Lennon in the lower right? also, no microsoft? :-)
posted by sineater at 6:34 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by sineater at 6:34 PM on December 3, 2006
Funny. I immediately picked out John Lennon too. Also, I think, Harrison next to him from the Abbey Road photo.
posted by vacapinta at 7:00 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by vacapinta at 7:00 PM on December 3, 2006
Well, if one wanted to get one billion hits on your website, I couldnt' think of a better way.
posted by empath at 7:02 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by empath at 7:02 PM on December 3, 2006
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.
posted by VulcanMike at 7:23 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by VulcanMike at 7:23 PM on December 3, 2006
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.
posted by furtive at 8:37 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by furtive at 8:37 PM on December 3, 2006
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?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:05 PM on December 3, 2006
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?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:05 PM on December 3, 2006
Maybe eboy only puts in logos for people/companies who pay him? Or that he uses himself?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:10 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 9:10 PM on December 3, 2006
Whose work is that not safe for?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:48 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:48 PM on December 3, 2006
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)
posted by ssmith at 10:09 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by ssmith at 10:09 PM on December 3, 2006
Reminds me of one of the cover designs for Patrick Neate's "City of Tiny Lights"
posted by JamesJD at 11:38 PM on December 3, 2006
posted by JamesJD at 11:38 PM on December 3, 2006
I don't understand the fascination with this guy's artwork.
posted by emelenjr at 6:43 AM on December 4, 2006
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.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:58 AM on December 4, 2006
Goddamn, but the US tends to be insane.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:58 AM on December 4, 2006
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.
posted by stumcg at 12:59 PM on December 4, 2006
Love their stuff - never gets old.
posted by stumcg at 12:59 PM on December 4, 2006
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.
posted by Bugbread at 4:36 PM on December 4, 2006
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.
posted by Bugbread at 4:36 PM on December 4, 2006
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.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:34 PM on December 4, 2006
If browsing an artsy site at work is okay, then IMO this picture must be okay. It's about as offensive as seafoam.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:34 PM on December 4, 2006
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.
posted by Bugbread at 12:54 AM on December 5, 2006
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.
posted by Bugbread at 12:54 AM on December 5, 2006
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.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:43 AM on December 5, 2006
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.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:43 AM on December 5, 2006
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.
posted by Bugbread at 6:43 PM on December 5, 2006
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.
posted by Bugbread at 6:43 PM on December 5, 2006
Wow.
What can I say, but that I think people are stupid.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:03 PM on December 5, 2006
What can I say, but that I think people are stupid.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:03 PM on December 5, 2006
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.
posted by Bugbread at 12:36 AM on December 6, 2006
We all think that. That's what people who use the internet do: think other people are stupid.
posted by Bugbread at 12:36 AM on December 6, 2006
« Older Protect our freedom | German animator Hans Fischerkoesen Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by isopraxis at 3:27 PM on December 3, 2006 [2 favorites]