Categories
Just Shelley Photography

In celebration of Earth Day 2006

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Hold on. Hold on. Stop the break. I almost forgot to post my traditional Earth Day offering of photos. This Earth Day I’m featuring photos from the Show Me Mobile Aquarium; the large semi-truck size fishtank filled with native Missouri fishies currently on display as part of the Earth Day offerings at Powder Valley Conservation Center.

There’s a new self-portrait at the end of the post.

This year the tank had something different: an inner tank with goldfish. I figured that the goldfish might be food for the other fishies. The longnose gar were particularly interested in them.

I was interested in the longnose gar; fascinating creatures, who would follow me as I moved around. It could be they hoped for food, but I think it might have been the camera lens. It did look something like their own eyes. Perhaps they thought I was the Great Gar–god supreme of long nosed fishes.

After all, did I not make little fishies fall out of frustrating see through cave?

The corner of the goldfish tank had an aerator, which the goldfish would swim into and through. As I was looking about, I noticed that one goldfish was on the other side of the goldfish enclosure, frantically trying to get back into the enclosure. There was a bit of water weed next to the inner tank, and in it I noticed two other goldfish hiding. The poor fish were getting caught up in the aerator and then pushed over and out of the inner tank into the outer.

The Great Gar provides.

The gas prices are rising and rumor has it they’ll top out over 3.00 a gallon and not go back down. I wouldn’t mind–perhaps now people will give up their monster trucks and tank-size gas guzzling SUVs. But the money forms an almost obscene amount of profit for oil companies, and I do tire of this.

If the money went into cleaning up the air and water, I would be more positive.

Last week I pulled up next to this huge, shiny and chromed black truck at the light. Two guys were in it, looking cool. I was so tempted to lean out and ask them if they’ve had to haul any pigs to market lately, but didn’t. Someday I won’t have to say it, and the guys won’t look cool in a truck too big for most people’s needs.

When I finish my project and book, I’ll have to think about how I’ll handle my end of work travel treat. I had originally planned on driving, from east coast to west. Now I’m thinking it would be better, and cheaper, to take a train or some such thing. Especially since even with a sleeper, it might be less expensive.

But I like driving, and traveling by car. I think we’ll need to look at different ways of road trippin’ in the future. Perhaps a ride share trip planner with others of like mind.

However, I also like my solitude when I travel. Me in the car with my music, discovering something new around each corner; following my own whim of which road to take. I have seen the most amazing things in my travels. Some folks crowd into a church, close their eyes, and pray for miracles. They don’t understand.

It’s a beautiful day today, but no drives as I have work I need to do this weekend. And the car is in the mechanics again. A different mechanic. They spent four hours looking for the squeak and couldn’t find it. They only charged us 20.00. Good new mechanic (Dobbs on LaClede and Watson in St. Louis).

We moved the deadline of the book up in preparation of an earlier publication date. Since we’re far enough along, I’m comfortable releasing the title for the book without fear of The Jinx. The book is Learning JavaScript. It’s a good all around introduction to all aspects of JavaScript: the basics of the language, the browser and document object models, Ajax/AJAX and DHTML, and all the nifty tools and libraries–how to use and how to create one’s own.

It’s not a reference book; I leave that to O’Reilly’s excellent Definitive books. It’s how you (yes, you) can quickly and comfortably get up to speed with JavaScript/ECMAScript.

I’ve returned to the same writing style and format that I used with Developing ASP Components, and that book did very well, so I’m confident this one should do nicely.

Lots of people unhappy about this opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, but the writing is good and some of the points are valid. The Shiny Happy People will like it. I loved the following:

I don’t think the blogosphere is breeding cannibals. But it looks to me as if the world of blogs may be filling up with people who for the previous 200 millennia of human existence kept their weird thoughts more or less to themselves. Now, they don’t have to. They’ve got the Web. Now they can share.

Best post and comment section on this weblog:

Dear Jerry and matt: what you guys need is a blog. You are two people, right?

Let me share more of my thoughts with you. Stop me when I get to the part with, …I liked to be tied up when….

Speaking of intimacy, I have a question for you straight guys: are you as comfortable chatting with the women online as you are the guys? Or do you sometimes think to yourself that a woman might be getting interested in you, and does this make you more reticent?

Are you more comfortable with a woman friend when one or the both of you is attached to another? There’s a significant difference in age? In geography? What makes a woman ’safe’ for you?

How about you ladies: what makes a man safe for you?

(Adjust questions accordingly if you’re gay.)

Just as an FYI, though many of you are sexy as hell, I’m *not interested romantically in anyone I’ve met through weblogging. I hope no one’s heart is broken by this. I also hope no one is feeling too relieved.

Now that this is out of the way, we can all be friends. Just being friends isn’t rated highly enough. I suppose it doesn’t sell books or movies. Or Hallmark cards.

This probably makes me sound like a sad person, but I get more excited at seeing a marvelous new bird, a wondrous new mountain range, walking by the ocean or on a new trail in the woods, traveling, having a giggle or ramble with friends, working for a cause, reading a really great piece of writing, seeing or even trying to create, a special photograph, tasting something new, a good movie, and even creating an amazing work of technology then I do at the thought of going on a ‘date’.

Of course, any of the above with someone who complements the moment is okay (no, dammit spell check leave it alone); even nice. But my joy in the experience is not diminished by lack of companion.

That’s it–I’m officially one of those. I’ll have to start carrying bags made out of straw and make the pilgrimage to Mexico.

Earth Day, 2006. Yes, I liked the Wall Street Journal article earlier. This one however, is based on missing statistic, overinflated biased recordings, self serving data in order to promote you all buying more more more, so that companies in the world can make profits off your eventual misery. Supposedly the reason for all the scientific concern being expressed now about global warming is because those who speak ‘truth’ (i.e. against the concern) are intimidated into silence. I have only one thing to say to the author: may your children and your grandchildren grow to adulthood and live long in just the kind of life you want to give them.

Do you all realize that if we make one change in our lives, we can make a significant impact on the environment? Yes, if we drive a car with better gas mileage, walk more, take a bike more, recycle, and use environmentally friendly products, we can make a difference.

Did you know one of the most romantic dates you can go on is go for a walk? Take along a basket with a little bread, cheese, wine, and fresh apples. Cloth napkins, and real plates say ‘class’.

Sure you have time. Don’t tell me you don’t have time. It only takes 10 minutes to make an egg sandwich for breakfast–you don’t have to throw another piece of plastic (and the container it comes in) into the microwave.

Sexy isn’t clothes, you don’t need 100 pairs of shoes, and the woman or man that can get by wearing last year’s clothes this year and next and and next and next and maybe even the next is the woman or man who has learned how to spit downwind instead of up.

The economy won’t go belly up if you don’t overspend this year.

Apple will recycle your old Apple products safely. Many schools and non-profits will take your old computer equipment (as long as it works). Linux will run on PCs that are years and years old.

If you download music, there’s less plastic used for CDs. If you buy a new computer every 4 years, instead of the average of 3, you save money and there’s less motherboards and old casings in landfills.

Buying produce in larger containers and re-packaging into your own reusable containers at home is cheaper and more earth-friendly than buying in small containers.

If you buy that, you’ll have to dust it. If you buy that, it will break. If you buy that, you’ll have payments. If you buy that, no one will fall in love with you.

Except if you buy my book when it comes out. If you buy it, I’ll love you. And you’ll be able to get it digitally. Digital books are pro-environment.

Digital photography is pro-environment.

And no tree was harmed–or acts of cannibalism committed–in the making of this weblog.

*And my heart belongs to Johnny Depp.

Categories
Social Media

Pedia again

danah boyd is going through Wikipedia deletion pains. The comments on her Articles for Deletion page and Discussion page have been very interesting reading.

Marshall Kirkpatrick has been pointing out my own entry on women in Wikipedia, but my preferred post on that particular event was Yo Sock Puppets; much of the discussion about Wikipedia occurred in the later post.

One of the most fascinating elements to come out of the discussion on danah’s entry has to do with her name: danah is legally ‘danah boyd’. She was born ‘danah michele mattas’–different last name, but same use of lowercase; she uses danah boyd for all of her own work. However, the Wikipedia editors won’t allow her entry to reflect the case on her name–insisting that since the publications that reference her name give her name as “Danah Boyd”, the Wikipedia entry must do the same. Why? Because, to quote a Wikipedia editor:

Unfortunately, you seem to have a misconception of how Wikipedia works. I strongly recommend reading the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. In a nutshell: Wikipedia is not for placing “the truth”, it is for placing summaries of information that is already published in other credible news sources. If you can’t convince the NY Times, NPR, USA Today, and Fox News to lowercase your name, that makes a really tough case to argue on Wikipedia, since the policy here is to only incorporate information after it’s been published elsewhere. If, however, you *can* convince the major media outlets to print it differently in future press, then that will make a stronger case to get the Wikipedia article adapted to match. Or in other words, don’t sweat it for an immediate change — take the long view.

(emph. mine)

The point of the editor is that because of danah’s appearance in these publications as Danah Boyd, most lookups on her name would occur because of this case. Those who know danah as ‘danah’, most likely wouldn’t be looking up her name. Still, I would assume that Wikipedia would accept danah’s verification of the accuracy of her name, and that the tool is intelligent enough to manage differing case when performing a lookup on her name.

What’s more relevant to a discussion on Wikipedia at large is the direct admission that Wikipedia is not the place for ‘truth’. This, to me, is an extremely honest and important statement to make. I would hope the statement is pasted all over Wikipedia, because this is the ‘truth’ of Wikipedia, of any encyclopedia: what’s contained is less a matter of philosophical truth than verifiable source. Where Wikipedia editors are making a mistake is treating danah’s work as it appears in non-mainstream publications such as the ACM or her own birth certificate as less ‘worthy’ than those that appear in Fox.

The editor then responds with confrontations in this regard with a recommendation to danah to get the publications to use the proper case, which would then make a better argument for correcting the case in Wikipedia. My goodness–what an intransigent viewpoint, and almost bizarre recommendation.

At first glance, the editor’s comments are baffling, in the extreme. I think what’s happening with Wikipedia, though, is that given the lack of early structure for the online site, the editors have, over time, formulated rules of their own. As happens in cases such as these, they then maintain a far more rigid adherence to said rules then if there had been a structure in place in the beginning. As time passes, Wikipedia becomes less a tribute to fact and more a tribute to process.

This doesn’t mean that Wikipedia doesn’t have value–I still use it to look up information, though I don’t consider it the definitive authority on a topic. As the editors would say, only a fool would rely solely on what’s written in Wikipedia. Still, at what point does the rigid adherence to process outweigh the usefulness of the data? In other words: what is Wikipedia’s tipping point? And has it been reached?

Categories
People

Human heat sinks

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Kathy Sierra has a post complimenting Robert Scoble on his decision to stay away from the negatives. One paragraph is:

The notion of “Happy People” was tossed around in the Robert-Lost-His-Mind posts as something ridiculous at best, dangerous at worst. One blogger equated “happy people” with “vacuous”. The idea seems to be that “happy people” implies those who are oblivious to the realities of life, in a fantasy of their own creation, and without the ability to think critically. The science, however, suggests just the opposite.

She then goes into a discussion on the neuroscience of happy versus not people and myths of happiness and happy people and so on. We have to assume that her use of the term ‘vacuous’ is in reference to my post–it’s not a common word. I gather she believes my post must not be ‘happy’ enough in order to link–which, indirectly, makes a statement about my ‘value’ to the discussion. For all the mention of the Dali Lama and the power of positive thinking, this is an antagonistic action.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with much of this discussion: the words don’t necessarily match the actions. A person can use a great number of high sounding, very positive words, all the while committing a negative act. Conversely, a person can use any number of negative words, or what can be perceived to be a negative tone, in the hopes of accomplishing a positive event.

We’re basing all of this on ‘words’, not intents. Doing this penalizes those who speak bluntly, while the less blunt, or less direct, end up being shiny all over. Where are the plain speakers? Where is the writing that unabashedly accepts the consequences for the intent behind the words?

Robert Scoble may talk about wanting to filter out those critical of him, and that don’t add to the ‘value’ to the conversation. What is value? When you spend time reading a person’s writing, you’ve already given them ‘value’ because you’ve given them your time. Anything negative you say in response to the writing has to be balanced against the fact that you gave of your time. I value time–it would have to be almighty negative for it to tip the scales against.

Robert and Kathy mention ‘happy’. What is happy? Is it a state of mind, or a coy turn of phrase? I have seen a person walk into a room and eviscerate another, leaving them with no dignity, no respect, all the while smiling and using the sweetest of terms. Is the perpetrator then a ‘happy’ person? They have all the markings of one.

Forget the neuroscience and new age blather: what is happy? If both Kathy and Robert are going to define how people must behave to be part of their circle and have value, then I think we’re entitled to ask them to define, in their own terms, ‘happy’. This way, we can then use this measurement with the only people that matter: Robert and Kathy.

You know what a truly happy person is to me? In the context of this environment, and discussion? It’s a person where you could say anything in their comments, and it just flows off their back, like water off a duck. The Dali Lama that Kathy mentions. They may not like the words, they may be saddened, especially if the person saying the words is a friend–they may even moderate the comment; but their happiness could not be impacted by such an ephemeral event. Fortunately, most of us just aren’t the Dalia Lama–aren’t that happy. It’s a good thing, too, because the Dali Lama’s strength isn’t in his own lack of anger, but his ability to generate outraged anger in others.

But this isn’t about anger, and this isn’t comment moderation. If this was about comment moderation, this discussion wouldn’t be happening. Comment moderation is an old topic–do what you want, end of story. This is about defining whether another person is contributing value, and basing this value on some artificial criteria labeled euphemistically ‘happy’. And what is happy? What is happy behavior in weblogging? Is it the words, or the intent of the words that determines ‘happy’?

I’d rather someone who speaks frequently, bluntly, intent plain to see in their phrases–face to face with those who they would criticize. The words may be negative, but the intent is not to slyly undermine or slay with innuendo–no whispers hidden in honeyed words. No, the intent matches the words. One can then engage, or not; but at a minimum, one is given that option.

The person who speaks softly, all bright yellows and sunshine glee, all the while they look out at you from the corners of their eyes–to all appearances, they are happy. Oh, look at them! They are so happy! Yet they can take your energy more quickly than the harshest critic, leaving you frustrated, and discouraged.

They are human heat sinks.

Both Kathy and Robert have a habit of indirectly referencing what others write without directly letting their readers know the source. To all intents and purposes, they’re moderating the discussion, not just their comments. More importantly, they use ‘good’ words, but it has a negative intent. They may say they do this because they don’t want to engage the negative people. If this is so, then why do they continue to engage the negative people?

Enough time and energy spent on this discussion. More than enough.

Jeneane who is rather blunt in her writing had this to say in comments at Kathy’s:

So, let’s get real: Moderate for spam, anonymous, and annoying commenters, and take the heat for whom you delete.

Puffing it up as some grand step toward a better life is just a little bit unbelievable.

Okay, I’m off to meditate.

Categories
Weblogging

Eat the red couch

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

You know the nice thing about being a woman in weblogging, especially if you frequent the ‘weblogging as topic’ or technology lists, is that no one listens to you anyway, so you can damn well say what you want. The guys, on the other hand, take it all way too seriously because they’re listened to–well, if they’ve learned how to ‘pump the tire’, so to speak, they are–and they want to go down as someone wise, with it, and prescient.

I read in Dave Rogers weblog his quote from Shel Israel’s take on what Nick Carr had to say on innocent fraud:

The other thought is that maybe you should reflect on just quitting your blog. You don’t like the blogosphere. You certainly don’t seem to like those of us who are dedicating lives and energy to its promotion, and–don’t be offended by this Nick–we really won’t miss you a whole lot if you just sit down and shut up.

Now, I could respond in depth, like I’ve responded elsewhere this week, hopefully with something learned sounding and impressive but then I thought: why waste my time? Why not just have some fun, and say whatever the hell I want and we’ll all have a giggle, which is probably a lot better use of our time anyway.

So, here’s a brain teaser: what sentences can you derive from the following words: Shel Israel, blog evangelist, naked conversationist, tells Nick Carr to sit down shut up.

Here’s my first:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

Pretty good, eh? I have more. For instance, here’s one that’s a nod for Mr. Seth FinkLEStein, in honor of him being subscribed (”OHMIGOD I’m subscribed!”) by Mr. Israel, blog evangelist:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

I know, am I hot or what?

Nick Douglas, in comments, threatens to wag these boys’ valley because this whole thing is SO ONE DAY OLD. Since he’s been so damn good this week, with this and this, and oh god, I loved this, I have one just for him:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

I know, my Mom said I had a cunning way with words.

La Shawn Barber manages to convert ANY topic into an anti-liberal rant, usually sprinkled equally with comments of faith and the virtues of a Darwinian philosophy of survival of the pricks. This, is especially for her:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

You’re applauding, aren’t you? I can hear you. You love it, don’t you? You want more. Well…

Ethan, long time masochistic follower of the Bb Gun, also wrote on the whole innocent fraud thing. Being as he’s not attending Mike Arrington’s party tonight (”What? Why not? Everyone who is anyone will be there. Well, maybe not people in North Dakota. And Nick Douglas. And probably not Nick Carr.”) because he just attended FugIT, deserves one of his own:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

Stop it! Stop it! You’re making me blush! A girl can handle only so many compliments. OK, OK, one or two more.

Lance, you’re A-List. And Shel?

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

Kent Newsome author of the shot heard round, well, the block tracks much of this including a comment by Hugh MacLeod, who has been mean again. Bad, bad, Hugh. If you don’t stop, we’re going to make you drink that wine you keep hawking.

Newsome points to (and writes some damn fine comments in) the original post that seems to have started this latest, where the author tells Seth to stop wallowing in his disillusionment. Survival of the pricks, indeed.

Kent, this one is just for you:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

I better stop now, or you’re going to hurt yourself, laughing at my brilliant and witty sentence reconstructions. Time for you to have fun. Feel free to drop your gems in the comments; or in the pond, wrapped around a rock, if you prefer. Whatever you do, don’t sit down, and don’t shut up.

Have a happy weekend. Do something real.

Categories
Diversity History

What a wonderful treat

Monthly I get a fresh batch of downloads at eMusic. I don’t have the largest plan–the most I can download is 20 at a time. Usually this is enough for an album with maybe a few experimental downloads from unfamiliar groups. I think it will be years before I manage all the jazz downloads I want.

Last weekend when I went looking, I found an incredible collection: the complete works for Ella Fitzgerald when she was recording with the Decca label. The British label JSP is re-releasing a mix, and it includes probably some of her finest singing.

I’m not sure which is my favorite; probably “Baby, it’s Cold Outside”, with Louie Jordan. No, perhaps it’s “Black Coffee”. I can’t tell — it’s one good song after another. And quality, too. No scratches, good faithful reproductions.

I listened to it last weekend while I walked, and lost myself in another era–my favorite era. I softshoed past the cardinal, the titmouse, and the robins, while they looked on in seeming interest. No one else was about, of course. I’m only insane when I’m alone.

I would give anything to have been born in the 1920’s. Yes, there was the Depression, but whether it was because of the Depression or despite it, this was a time rich with exploration and strength–even for women. Especially for women.

Back in the 1920’s, 30’s, 40’s, a strong woman was someone to be looked up to and admired. Jean Harlow, Joan Crawford, Katherine Hepburn, Virginia Woolf, Elizabeth Taylor, Eleanor Roosevelt. You could be a feminist without having to carefully explain to the guys around you that it really didn’t mean you wanted to emasculate them. These women were honorary man feminists according to Lenore Levine. I don’t particularly agree with this designation, but I do like her description of today’s Nicey-Poo feminism:

Nicey-Poo Feminists have taken the sensible idea that women should be supportive of other women, and distorted it almost out of recognition. That is, Nicey-Poo Feminists believe that feminism means never saying anything controversial (at least in their own circles), and never saying anything about another woman that isn’t nice.

Nicey-Poo Feminism has been promoted by the new new Ms. (post-1990). This magazine is afraid to print anything which any segment of their audience might find offensive. After all, if they actually said anything mischievous or funny, their circulation might increase. (A fate they seem determined to avoid at all costs.)

The clothing of that long ago time reflected the personalities of the women. Many of the suits were tailored, severe, with padded shoulders and angular lines. The women who wore them seemed unbending in their resolve–determined and capable. Yet the gowns were fragile and light, and flowed behind the woman as she glided with exquisite grace and femininity across the dance floor. And the hats–I can only wish for a hat with a net dropping down to teasingly cover half my face; me peeping out through the netting in a move both coy and bold–we just can’t do this today. Butt cracks peeking out from pants too low is not the same.

During this time, women fought for and won the vote, admission to college, and demanded entry in fields normally restricted to the men. These were not quiet women, willing to demurely wait for someone else to pave the way. But they weren’t all of a kind–they couldn’t be classified as ‘feminist’ and ‘mother’, because many were both. And more. What extraordinary set of events happened to make women into what we were during this time? And what can we do now, to re-capture it?

If I was born in the 1920’s, I would have been in my late teens and early 20’s during World War II. I would like to think I would have volunteered to serve–as a pilot, surveyor, or radio person. Who knows? Maybe I would have been Rosie the Riveter.

Anyway, these were my thoughts while listening to Ella. It’s a rare collection of songs that can completely repaint your world.