Challenges of the week give artists the opportunity to create new and fantastic art based on a weekly theme set by the challenge moderators. They are also a great place to develop core skills.
Being featured on ConceptArt.org can get your artwork viewed by millions of artists a month including big industry leaders.
|Color and Light||1.1||Do Assignment|
|Color and Light||1.2||Do Assignment||1.3 | 1.4|
|Illusion of Space and Atmosphere||1||Do Assignment|
|Personal Art||1.1||Do Assignment|
Alex Jones reads conspiracy's in his alphabet soup.
woho! I'd pay for a Conceptart.org 'internet channel' =D sorry I can't take this so seriously as I heard this back in 99 or so when I first started to use a computer.
Last edited by Dile_; August 7th, 2008 at 04:59 AM.
If anything were to happen to stifle free speech and use of the internet, I think it would be pretty unfortunate. To me it is a lot like the Public Broadcasting Service, only it is run by the actual "public" and not partial to media sponsorship.
The most valuable aspect of the current situation is that it does not require the traditional profit motive inherent in creating media. People of all levels of knowledge and experience can easily blog and make videos to add to the public discourse. It breaks up the traditional "echo chamber" of the major media and should push the mainstream into a higher level of discourse, instead of being treated as a threat.
china cant even stop the free internet...keep that in mind.
LEVEL UP! - ConceptArt.Org online workshops 50% off registration right now!
This was top story on Digg.com today: Internet censorship and the iPatriot Act.
http://www.yff365.com/profiles/blog/...logPost%3A5863Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.
Lessig also revealed that he had learned, during a dinner with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an “i-Patriot Act” if you will, and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.
Don't be worried, though; any kind of censorship would require the collusion of at least a few entities which would be a conspiracy and thus impossible.
Plus, the Internet is too decentralized for censorship to be possible. Or is it?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1126072153.htmLoss Of Major Hub Cities Could Cripple Internet, Study Suggests
"The Internet functions much like our air traffic system," said Tony Grubesic, who co-authored the study as a doctoral student in geography at Ohio State. "If weather stops or delays traffic in a major airport hub, like Chicago's O'Hare, air passengers throughout the country may feel the effects – even if they are not traveling to Chicago. The same is true of the Internet hubs. They can affect Internet traffic through much of the country."
But that decentralized network is expensive to build and maintain, Grubesic said. As the Internet has become commercialized, the major network providers have moved toward a "hub-and-spoke" model that funnels Internet connections through major hub cities.
That story is 6 years old, btw.
What a shock his link lead right back to Alex Jones.
If you haven't noticed by actually reading real news its pretty clear that ISP's that tamper with how you receive data through their network is a huge no no.
Comcast being the most recent example. FCC actually doing something right, ya I know its kind of shocking.
What does Alex Jones have to do with this? Are you suggesting Mr. Lessig never made the statements the article alleges? If that is the case, you may wish to watch the video further down the page.
It's too bad we can't actually address issues instead of quibbling over what is and is not "real news."
And if you don't remember, before 9/11, unwarranted wiretapping was also a "huge no-no." Hence the significance of this alleged conversation with Clarke about the i9/11 and the iPatriot Act. (god I hate that fucking meme)
Wouldn't think this would require explaining.
The video isn't even in its entirety. Right at the point where he goes in to the "i9/11" you can see it jump, so who knows what context hes even speaking in.
It was never a "huge no no" to wire tape, in fact its been pretty common practice since the 60's. The patriot act just legitimized it.
Comcast is under fire right now, for violating the principle of net neutrality. Or rather, the results of the case against Comcast will determine whether or not the concept of net neutrality will continue to supported under US law.
You just have no idea whatsoever about what you're talking about, do you? Why did Congress need to pass H.R.6304 to grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that had allowed network access to the NSA if doing so was not a "no no?"
For someone who's so quick to suggest I watch the "real news," you don't have a very good grasp of what's going on in the world.
Why? To make it legit, didn't I just say that?
Its old hat CIA has wiretapped everyone from John lennon to its own senators.
You seem to be using the word "legit" to mean "generally known." That's not what it means. It has always been a no-no to illegally spy on citizens of the United States; thus the allowance of unwarranted network access to the NSA by the telecoms was illegal and in need of a bill to grant them retroactive immunity from lawsuits. Likewise censorship of the Internet by ISPs would be a no-no, at least until an i9/11 incident and the passage of an i/PATRIOT act, which is the point of the article I posted.
And be careful about what you call old hat; you're straying dangerously close to Alex Jones territory.
But any way you slice it, you're not presenting any sensible argument against why Internet censorship is any less feasible than unwarranted wiretapping. What does it matter what the FCC rules when whatever the present status quo is becomes legit by default?
Last edited by Atlantis; August 6th, 2008 at 11:22 PM.
While we're talking censorship..
#1 Story of 2007 - Project Censored --- Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
And a short blurb on censorship..
WHAT IS MODERN CENSORSHIP?
At Project Censored, we examine the coverage of news and information important to the maintenance of a healthy and functioning democracy. We define Modern Censorship as the subtle yet constant and sophisticated manipulation of reality in our mass media outlets. On a daily basis, censorship refers to the intentional non-inclusion of a news story – or piece of a news story – based on anything other than a desire to tell the truth. Such manipulation can take the form of political pressure (from government officials and powerful individuals), economic pressure (from advertisers and funders), and legal pressure (the threat of lawsuits from deep-pocket individuals, corporations, and institutions).
Last edited by Mike Frank; August 7th, 2008 at 02:05 PM.
You sure have some amazing ability to read between the line. CIA getting the OK to wiretap its own civilians completely unfathomable, but complete censorship of the internet through global conspiracy completely real.
Apples to Oranges much? Restricting information to the masses(if not the world) is a tad different then covertly spying on a single person.
honestly there is nothing we can do, get used to it.
What's unfathomable is that you could pack such incredible ignorance into one post. "CIA getting the OK to wiretap its own citizens?" What?You sure have some amazing ability to read between the line. CIA getting the OK to wiretap its own civilians completely unfathomable, but complete censorship of the internet through global conspiracy completely real.
Apples to Oranges much? Restricting information to the masses(if not the world) is a tad different then covertly spying on a single person.
I don't even know why I'm arguing this with you. I suppose being basically told you're an insane conspiracy theorist loses its sting when you realize that it's coming from someone with no understanding of the issues.
But to answer your question, no, there is no difference between the government breaking the law to spy on citizens and the government breaking the law to censor Internet traffic. Both are transgressions of the law, whether or not they attempt to justify them with 9/11 or i9/11 events. And no matter what bills they pass to retroactively grant themselves immunity to legal action, such actions are still illegal.
Further, the CIA cannot 'get the ok' to spy on 'its own citizens.' The Constitution never specifically guarantees privacy in so many words, but the Supreme Court has always interpreted the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments as guarantees of privacy or suggestive of that right. And we are not the citizens of the CIA or of any other branch of the government; they are public servants who have sworn an oath to uphold the laws that they are breaking by spying on us. It's not legal, it's not ok, and to say it's old-hat and imply that it doesn't really matter is incredibly asinine.
So we have Lawrence Lessig, who is on the board of Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundations, and the Software Freedom Law Center saying that Richard Clarke told him that there is going to be an i9/11 event with the subsequent passage of an iPATRIOT act to 'radically rework law pertaining to the Internet,' and you're content to tell me that such is impossible, there's no way to know what context he meant that in, and that I should go watch "real news." Again, unbelievable.
old hat = unoriginal, spying on your on civilains is not new as I said before its happen since the 60's, I NEVER remarked on the legality of it. That was all your tangent.
Read what I actually say and stop ranting on what you think I mean.
I know what old-hat means and I know what legitimate means.
Last edited by Atlantis; August 7th, 2008 at 10:18 PM.
There is one big difference. Spying on a person is easy, censoring internet traffic is extremely difficult. Like Jason said, China has tried, along with a number of other countries, but anyone willing can and will get around any system they've put in place. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not, it's simply not feasible. The other difference is that you can spy on someone covertly, but there's no way to censor the internet without people noticing. At least not anything worth censoring. It wouldn't take long for people to notice if Youtube suddenly wasn't available anywhere in the country. If you can't censor Youtube, what's the point? Anything worth censoring can be said just as easily in a Youtube video.
Yet Youtube is censored; you won't find any porn, for instance (not like I would know, ahem).
And I've never lived in China, but I would think transgressing their filters would take more technical know-how than the average surfer has.
My point was not about the difficulty of Internet censorship vs. unwarranted wiretapping; obviously the former is vastly more complicated. No argument there, but I think it's rather naive to suggest that the Internet will always be free and open outside of China just because it is now, or that the state of affairs in regard to feasibility of filtering will always be as it may be now. When the founder of Creative Commons comes out and says that an iPATRIOT act is ready and waiting, that worries me. But I do hope you're right and it's an unfounded fear.
this technology is made buy man therefore there will be a way around it.
i'm in china now. i downloaded one program (hotspot shield) that hides the isp or whatever (you see, i don't know) for me. now i can see e v e r y t h i n g. well, almost.
Last edited by tensai; August 8th, 2008 at 10:18 PM.
check the Tensai Tokyo Sketch Thread (Sketchbook)
check the Tensai Cityscapes Thread (Finally Finished)
Originally Posted by strych9ineFuck backgrounds, who needs em.
A lot of money has been invested by the high speed internet providers like Comcast and Verizon. They are looking for a ROI. It's always all about money. I am sure the larger businesses like Walmart and Target complain about losing money to smaller online businesses.
Take for example collectible action figures. They used to be only local hobby speciality shops that carried statues, figures, resin kits, ect for very high prices. Now people can search online through Google and find the best price possible for any item in just minutes. Now, with just a small loan, anyone can start up a collectible action figure online store and compete with larger stores by getting discounts as being a dealer. It definitely changes the way the game is played, but it always comes back to money. The big companies always want to be on top and they don't want competition.
Another example of what I am trying to get across about large companies trying to get rid of competition, is from where I used to work. A product costs so much more for a larger company to do rather than an individual or small company because of all the expenses they have to accommodate for. I used to help publish, design and print magazines. I worked for a company for over 10 years doing this. I built up a lot of contacts both with clients as well as professionals used in the process of making magazines - writers, photographers, printers, salespeople, ect. Once I started making noise about going freelance I was attacked on every level - personal life, discrediting me, work place harassment - all kinds of stuff. The truth was that I could produce a high end, professional product, bid it out for less and make more profit than the company I worked for. I was a real threat to them. I never took any of their clients, but noise got out that I was doing projects on the side and thinking of leaving to do freelance is when the "squeeze" came on. I eventually quit. Even after I quit, I was still attacked.
The point I am trying to make is this: Large companies want to keep the money coming in to "them" and no one else. This is why I believe, unfortunately this new definition of internet will happen. I personally like the internet just the way it is, but the one with the gold makes the rules.
My greatest fear of having a more specialized internet service is that the providers will carry out their threat of providing packages that limit where you can visit and charge you extra for visiting "non" participating sites. With that kind of stigma, smaller sites not wanting to pay "extortion" fees, will most likely die out due to lack of traffic. It might even become the case that they will not even show up in search engine results.
hehe ye I know, the guy is kinda wierd, though he really bleaves in this, and have posted many videos on the subject, he really wanna help, he and hes gang are pretty edjucated on the subject to, and in my opinion thats what matters, and serriusly, its not like youve ever tryed to be funny one time and serious another, its not like u have to pick and then stick with it.
im sorry if im trying to defend the guy, its just that i Like him and i think hes funny too lol.
Thats not censorship, that is policy. Its simply not a service they want to provide. Anyone who makes an account on youtube for uploading vids had to agree with this policy.Yet Youtube is censored; you won't find any porn, for instance (not like I would know, ahem).
"Master storytellers never explain. They do the hard, painfully creative thing-- they dramatize"