Have I posted enough today? I don't know what happened; today has been media-rich after a long dry spell.

Anyway, you also may be interested to know that in the last few days I've added some new stuff here and here; these are all things that have made an appearance here on my LJ in the past year or so, but I've given them a bit of editing and a "real" home.

I expect the low-comprehension hate mail to start flowing once the knee-jerk apologists finally read my Burning Man rant from last year.

Tags: ,

20 Responses:

  1. zeppo says:

    I can't get to the burning man rant!

      • zeppo says:

        Your friend should BUST them for not sending her a copy of the contract she signed.
        That is against all sort of corporate laws.
        I will never go to Burning man for all the reasons you listed and more.
        I was under the impression that the property that burningman was held on was government owned land that they rent - is that not the case?

        • jwz says:

          That is the case.

        • rzr_grl says:

          Aw man, there is no way that "bust" is gonna go anywhere.

          "You never sent me a copy!"
          "Yes we did."
          (lawyer) "Thank you, that will be $3000."

          Highly annoying, yes; but even I, the strict idealist, have sense enough not to bother. I also had sense enough not to bother sending them my images either, so there's that.

          • dzm6 says:

            I've always interpreted the clause about sending in images as something along the lines of "Images that required special access" (e.g. "inner ring" photos). I provide high resolution copies to BMorg of photos that they gave me a pass to get. Photos that didn't require a pass I submit low-res copies of to their web site (mostly 'cause I like the idea of a wider audience seeing them).

            The BMorg has always been respectful of my image copyrights. They ask my permission before using the images in any printed material, they provide full credit, etc. Strangely enough, they've never used any image of mine that fell into the "required a pass" category.

  2. harryh says:

    Some friends of mine and I had a similar problem at burningman this year. We had been working on a large scale art installation for many months. We had been approached early in the process by some people who wanted to make a documentary of the whole ordeal. We eagerly agreed, as we had been so busy actually building the thing we were sorely lacking in documentation.

    Everything was proceeding merrily until burningman actually began. The guys filming the project were presented with a contract demanding that burningman have final editorial control over the film. To the filmmaker this was (rightfully) unacceptable. Burningman wouldn't even tell him ahead of time what it might want cut. All they would say was that "anything detrimental to the image of burningmang" would be unacceptable. This could turn out to be something as small as someone drinking a beer and then using a power tool (rendering much of the footage he had unusable in any truthful form).

    It wasn't even a money issue. All the people who were actually being filmed were 100% ok with the filmmaker, it was just the burningman hierarchy that was causing the problem. The guys ended up getting a "for personal use only" pass just so they could get the footage (on the theory that they'll argue about the details of the actual film they make later), but it is currently unclear what will happen with the project.

    The whole ordeal was incredibly annoying.

    All this being said, I think that the issues involving the lawsuit you mentioned are somewhat different. I am pretty sure that many of the people who were filmed for that movie did not agree to the process. In my mind this makes puts burningman in the right. They are correct to protect the privacy of the festival's participants.

    • jwz says:

      While there is no doubt that the Girls Gone Wild people are total creeps, it's absurd for anyone to claim that there's any reasonable expectation of privacy at an open-air campground of 30,000 people. If you don't want people to see your tits, keep your damned shirt on.

      • harryh says:

        But that's just it. I don't think it's absurd. One of the core ideas of the festival is that it should be possible for people to escape "normal" society for a while and not have to worry about things like being filmed without your consent. I feel quite certain that the organizers and the vast majority of the people who attend burningman would agree with this statement. That's one of the main reasons that the event takes place in such a remote and harsh environment. It (rightfully) takes a lot of work to escape mainstream society.

        Sure, it's a very difficult thing to actually accomplish, but I don't fault burningman llc at all for making the attempt.

        I do agree that it is somewhat troubling when they go overboard though. It is clearly a challenging balancing act.

      • denshi says:

        I think it has less to do with individal tits and more to do with the whole temporary society. They would lose the critical mass of trust/connection/participation if there is too much voyeurism. Recall how much the vibe changes when the weekend crowd comes in: how much worse can that get before there is no worthwhile interaction to speak of out there?

        That said, yeah, they shouldn't weasel around the language of media control.

        And yes, center camp cafe should be torched. There is a frightful feeling around that place, particularly the last few days.

        Do you go to any smaller burns?

        • jwz says:

          Do you go to any smaller burns?

          No; I usually don't hear about them, and when I do it's hard to get motivated.

          • denshi says:

            I get a lot out of the Austin-local Burn, Flipside; about a thousand people this year made for a much more intimate crowd than Burning Man. OTOH, I hear that there are 4-5 major events in the Bay area each year, and I imagine they might become rather less involving.

  3. ivorjawa says:

    Do you do those random links in your gruntles by hand, or do you have some script that does it automatically?

  4. nugget says:

    You can fix the 404 on the dadadodo page to point to a revised edition.

  5. fo0bar says:

    I was going to post something about burning man, but lost interest. Suffice it to say, I agree with you 100%, but the antics of the Org are one of the selling points for me continuing to go. They're great to make fun of.

    Every time I read nscp dorm, it exhausts me. It also makes me think of my last 2 jobs, which were the same experiences, but without the press attention.

    "Okay, BART closes at midnight, and it's.... umm, 1:30. Okay, in that case I have 30 minutes to go and get drunk, come back and start coding again."

  6. 33mhz says:

    Semi-unrelated to the actual post, I noticed that on your page on Java, you talk about Java's lack of assertions. You may no longer care and/or already know, but if you're interested, the 1.4.1 (I think) release of Java added assertions.

  7. jcurious says:

    don't care enough to actualy try to search for the actual agreement at the moment

  8. jautero says:

    There is pretty obvious explanation for the hypocrisy. If you are running spontaneous group-hug theme park, you pretty much have to lie that you are not a theme park.

  9. fo0bar says:

    Oh, and RE: ID3v2 via CDDB... ugh. I worked with the ID3v2 people in the early days, and it made my head spin. "Okay, these 3 bits do this, unless they're preceeded by 9 bits of all 0s, in which case you must seek forward 145.3 bytes, slap your ass and sing a song."

    Not to mention a case of "kithen sinkism" that would make even the Mozilla people roll their eyes. And the fact that non-backwards-compatible changes were made to the spec in MINOR versions.