[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] License plates and covers.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Dec 12 02:16:28 UTC 2003


On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> I *DO* believe the license place and holder harm the asthetics of some
> cars. At the same time, I understand that the we need to comply to
> continue to have the privledge to drive.

But you don't believe that the looks of a car should supercede the need
for a front plate?

Then you shouldn't be insulted... that is contradictory to the priorities
I labelled previously as fucked-up.

> I'm quoting both your paragraphs for this because I seem to be seeing a
> contradiction.

There's no contradiction.  You're just not putting two and two together.

> You state in the first paragraph that the plate is iding the driver,
> then in the second, you say you need the picture.

The plate is needed to identify the driver.  The plate, the vehicle
description, the photo and the vehicle registration database are all used
to identify the driver.

The picture is not sufficient... nor is the plate.

The plate doesn't identify the driver without further information.

> It's my opinion that all the plate does is id the car.
> The rest of the chain is required to id the driver, but the plate does
> NOT id the driver.

The plate doesn't ID the car without the database.  The plate alone
doesn't identify any thing but the plate.  You have to follow a chain to
link the plate to a person... you can use the registration database and a
description or photo of the vehicle to identify the registrar and the
title database to identify the owner or you can use a photo of the driver
and a photo or description of the car and the plate with the registration
database to identify the driver.

There's a chain no matter whom you would like to identify.

> > > Here's the rub. The 1% law requires 1% of the construction cost,
> > > even if the costs are 99% privately funded.
> >
> > Yay!
> >
> > Don't want to play by the public's rules, don't use the public's
> > money.
>
> Why not make it 1% of the public money in a given project?

Why not make it 1/1000%?

Well, that's not what the public wanted when they passed the law.  It
would be too little, in the public's opinion.

> > And you think that's a GOOD thing?  It's degrading to the whole fabric
> > of the neighborhood.  It's irresponsible building practice at the very
> > least.
>
> I'd rather follow the teaching of F.L.W. "Form follows function-that has
> been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a
> spiritual union"

So every building looks like a shoe factory... bauhaus style.

You get air ducts venting at street level that way.

While many functional things are beautiful, much beauty has no function
outside the aesthetic and cultural value it provides.

I really don't think you're qualified to make deep statements about
architectural design.  You have done no rigorous study.

If you want to read a layman's approach to rigorous architectural study,
pick up a copy of The Geography of Nowhere in which one man documents his
own journey into understanding why buildings look like they do and what
could make them better.

You don't need a degree, just a good mind and a whole lot of effort.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list