Year: 2006

Categories
Connecting

Where’s the touch screen

Very interesting takes on being both a technologist and a parent of a small child.

Karl writes of his baby daughter Emma:

Emma is now very, very aware of her surroundings. Her smile fills up my heart like nothing else. She’s shares it all the time now – when she recognizes faces, hears voices in the room, when Richelle or me baby talk, when she’s being changed, even when she catches a glance of Xena walking by.

Anne writes on taking her 3 year old to the dinosaur park:

I suppose if you were to take a three-year-old to dinosaur park on a blue-sky Denver day every day for the past, I don’t know, infinity days then you might have a different experience, because you’re not me. I bet you’d be bored, though, because someone who likes to read and write about technology is not necessarily someone who likes to take small humans to a playground multiple times a day.

I like other people’s children.

No, let me re-phrase that: I like other people’s children who live in other states.

Categories
Weblogging

Stretched thin

It was a bit of a surprise to read Russell Beattie’s closure of his weblog today. I have no doubt he’s closing it, too.

Of his future weblogging plans, Russell wrote:

Yep, after four years and almost 3,000 posts I’ve decided to close up the Notebook. There’s lots of reasons, but generally this is a continuation of the full-reset I started back in January. At first I was actually thinking about just transitioning to a more of a weekly blog where I write less frequently and was sort of cleaning everything up with that in mind. But then I just decided that I really needed a break, and that I’d really much rather start from scratch at another URL some other time when I’m ready to write again. Lot less pressure that way to do something new later on, and a lot easier to get out of the habit of posting daily now.

This is a sound idea: close down the weblog, and if you do decide to come back, start a new one at a different location. In fact, I’m not sure that most personal weblogs should remain for longer than a few years. We all change over time; some weblogs reflect change that flows along like a raft on a gentle river on a summer sunday afternoon–it’s nice. Others, though–rapids ahead! Ohmigod, it’s Niagra Falls! Whoa, someone go back and collect my teeth after that sudden switch.

In other words, we made spaghetti code of our weblog: leaving it all twisted, jumped, hacked, and pieced. When we do, do we clean it up? Or do we just walk away and start fresh? Can we start fresh?

When we move to a new town or job, we can use the experience as a way to ‘redefine’ who we are–to accentuate the good, drop the bad. To change naturally. Since people in the new locale have no expectations, the task was easier. Well, many of us have lived longer in our weblogs than we have our homes, worked with them longer than many of our jobs.

Even if we change our URLs, we still need that time away. It’s that expectation thing. I noticed when Mark Pilgrim returned, his URL and title remained the same, but the weblog is new. I like it–I’ll never be able to look at a bag of frozen peas in a man’s shopping cart in the same light ever again.

Food for thought. I need to get back to work. I hope you all liked the Fishies photos.

And good luck to Russell. I think he’s doing a good thing.

Categories
JavaScript RDF

We interrupt your regular thinking

I wrote a while back about putting RDF files out on Amazon’s S3 file storage. Why, I was asked. After all, I don’t have enough files, I have room on my server, and so on. Yup, I agreed. Other than S3 being nifty tech and wanting to be a cool kid, why would one want to use it?

One reason: it forces one to think differently about application development and data storage when you’re restricted to using web services rather than traditional file or database I/O to access the data.

Les Orchard wrote today about his S3 Wiki work:

One of the mind-bending concepts behind this whole thing for me is that both the documents and the authoring application are all resident on the S3 servers, loaded and run on the fly in a browser. The magic S3 lends is simple file I/O, taken for granted by applications in nearly every other development environment. Otherwise, JavaScript in a browser is a very capable system.

I agree that JavaScript in the browser is a very capable front end. Oh, I don’t agree with replacing Word with Ajax–why do we always see Office as the only killer app in the world and systems have to ‘replace’ it to be considered viable? But JavaScript in browsers, as we progress closer to true cross-browser compatibility, is a very powerful application development system.

However, the part that caught my interest specifically is what Les wrote about the data storage of his wiki application. He is spot on in that S3 changes how you think of I/O (Input/Output). It forces you to challenge your data storage assumptions–all the golden rules you’ve learned since you were knee high to a grasshopper. When you do, you get this sudden burst of ideas. It’s like biting into a SweeTarts candy–you’re not sure if you like the experience, but it sure gets your attention.

In my copious spare five minutes a week, I’m loading RDF into S3. I have an idea. It came to me in a burst. It made my face pucker.

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?