Categories
Diversity Weblogging

Reductio

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Update

This post was a mistake. Not the Specks, or linking Catarina, but Adam Green has left me cold…especially when referring to chick blogs. Mr. Green, we’ll also link back when you’re being a dork, too.

 

My original link to Mr. Green was not because he said ’something nice’. I don’t particularly consider, ‘you go, girl’, to be all that complimentary, myself. It was because there was a point I wanted to make, in that diverse discussions are more interesting than ones that consist of similar people saying similar things.

 

However, the point was lost among all the references to ‘girl’, ‘chick’, and hints of our warm, nurturing side (as compared to, as Seth in comments pointed out, the guys and their rough and tumble shoot ‘em up sides).

 

Mr. Green, here’s a note from my warm, nurturing side: leave the outmoded phrases and stereotyping at home with your bell bottoms and polyester disco suit. It is woman or women or even, preferred, weblogger–not girl, and not chick. Was that warm and nurturing enough for you, Mr. Green?

 

(Hopefully we can also cut off the use of ‘blogher’ to differentiate women (those warm nurturing women) webloggers from the men (those tough, aggressive men) webloggers at the pass before this becomes too widespread in usage. Not unless we want to start referring to the male webloggers as ‘bloghims’.)

Adam Green writes on two snapshots of the copyright/RSS discussion on Tech Memeorandum:

One reason why much of the heat has dissipated, and the battle has morphed into a search for a middle ground may be that women have entered the discussion. While this started with the men riding out to shoot up the cattle rustlers, the womenfolk are now asking questions and looking for answers.

 

Is this sexist generalization? Perhaps, but based on the two Tech Memorandum snapshots I’d much rather read a discussion dominated by Shelley Powers, Susan MernitDenise Howell and Jeneane Sessum, than Mike Rundle and Om Malik. No offense meant guys.

Adam has discovered something really amazing: if a dialog is extended to a diverse audience, it ends up being a lot more interesting. In this case, women joined the discussion and the dynamics of the discussion changed.

We women have gotten men to link to us now and again; the next step is to get them to actually talk with us. Hopefully, eventually they’ll reach the same epiphany that Adam has.

I’ve adopted a term I discovered from Catarina Fake to describe the phenomena of linking to women webloggers, while reserving debate primarily to the menfolk: chicking the women. Catarina has been reading a biography of Martha Stewart and found that the author had gone out of his way to trash Stewart, without acknowledging all of her rather impressive accomplishments. The only really positive voice in the book had this to say on Stewart’s interaction with Time Warner about a television show:

Sheingold came to sense something else about the way Martha’s colleagues handled her at Time: There was a slight but unmistakable–and ever-present–tone of condescension in their words, as if the members of the Time Inc’s boys club wanted her to know that they still regarded her as nothing more than the fashion model she once had been, instead of the business executive she’d become.

 

In time, Sheingold invented a word for what they were doing to her. He didn’t share the word with anybody, but it popped into his head every time he heard them belittling and dismissing her, in that certain way that would make Martha’s jaw set and her face go cold. …’Chick-ing’ her.

Jaw set…face cold…I hear that.

Speaking of cold, after this discussion about RSS the following represents the chances of me ever providing full feeds again.

 

Categories
Internet Legal, Laws, and Regs Weblogging

That old copyright song

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

My cable connection started working without problems yesterday, just in time for me to attempt to connect using DSL later today. I’ve also been attempting to take photos of the bald eagles wintering in our area, but have run into interesting complications, which I’ll write about later.

In the meantime, thanks to Halley Suitt for pointing out this rather amazing sleight of hand trick from John Palfrey at Harvard on copyright law, RSS feeds, and his new enterprise, Top Ten Sources.

Mr. Palfrey, the Berkman Center at Harvard holding the copyright of RSS is completely beside the issue, and only serves to obfuscate the discussion–as does raising the specter of the Big Bad Media companies. In addition, I’m very confident that I hold the copyright on my writing regardless of the medium in which I publish the writing, unless I grant that copyright to another. The fact that what I write appears in a RSS feed does not change how copyright laws work. No matter how much you wave the Web 2.0 wand, it does not change copyright law.

People who provide syndication feeds do so in the assumption that the feeds will be picked up in personal aggregators. A personal aggregator is nothing more than what amounts to a ‘reader’ for the content. Whether you read my content in your personal aggregator or via a web browser (point being moot since I only publish partial feeds), does not violate the copyright law because you’re not re-publishing or copying that material in its entirety. The personal aggregator becomes nothing more than a variation of a web browser.

To the techs out there: am I right, or am I wrong? Isn’t a personal aggregator, whether web-based or desktop-based, nothing more than a variation on a browser, in that it renders web-based material for an individual’s personal consumption?

However, re-publishing the content in its entirety for mass consumption without permission is a violation of copyright law. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. In addition, at least in the US, copyright is granted automatically on a work and one does NOT need to re-publish copyright information in one’s feed, unless one wants to. Now, people can and should include Creative Commons licenses that allow one to re-publish content if they don’t care that this happens. But if they do, and no commercial re-publication is allowed, this means that sites such as Top Ten Sources cannot re-publish the material if the site is run as a commercial for-profit enterprise.

To the legal beagles out there–point blank: am I right? Or am I wrong? No, ‘gentlemen of the court’ niceties; no A-list deference; no but it’s Harvard obfuscation; no Web 2.0 bullshit. As clearly and precisely as possible: am I right, or am I wrong?

Categories
Internet

Glowing in the Dark

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Today has been spent trying to achieve a glow of health in both my cat and my connectivity.

I took Zoë to the specialist located in the other side of town. Come Monday, she will be admitted to a special NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) sanctioned room, get a shot of radioactive iodine in the butt, and then have to spend four days until she ‘cools’ down enough to come home. We will, then, of course, keep her 3 feet away from us at all times for two weeks–not letting her sleep with us, only cuddling a couple of minutes at a time. Of course.

I also spent a considerable amount of time today trying to get the SBC DSL modem/wireless router working. After talking with two very knowledgeable help people, we got the three lights glowing a nice steady green, a working ethernet connection (which is quite fast), but, unfortunately, determined that my modem does not have wireless. They are sending me a new one. In the meantime, when my Charter fails, I can turn on the ethernet portion of the DSL.

Between cat and connectivity I have not accomplished much this week and am behind in my work. I don’t mind the cat–Zoë already worked her magic on the new vet, who agrees with me that she is an adorable little princess. But I can’t cuddle my cable or DSL modem and neither has a soft furry neck to scritch, so I do regret the time expended on both of them.

Categories
Critters outdoors Photography

In praise of lurking

3 Quarks Daily pointed to a BBC News article on deer antlers.

Yesterday, when out walking I came upon a group of deer, including a young male who was using fallen trees to break off parts of his antlers. Luckily, this time I had a camera and could get pictures–including the male who alternated aggressive behavior toward the does, with insecure wariness of me.

deer6

The males with their antlers and full, proud stances may make for better photos, but I hold the quiet, shy does in my heart. Their soft, sweet eyes and careful curiosity has accompanied me on many a trek through Powder Valley. Sometimes when I walk at dusk, I can feel them all around me, hidden in the shadows. Yesterday, though, for whatever reason, when I stopped and held very still, they entered and crossed the road around me–appearing back-lit by the setting sun, in a display of beauty and grace.

deer5

I have found if you wear sunglasses, deer will approach you more closely than if wearing clear lenses or no glasses at all. I think it’s because they can’t see your eyes, and they translate this into not seeing them. I have had deer, wild deer, approach within feet of me when wearing sunglasses.

My favorite interaction, though, is when the deer will remain in the bushes and when you look at them, they’ll hide their faces quickly behind a tree. They think they’re hiding from you because they can’t see you, but their entire bodies are out in the open: torso, legs, and especially, white tail. If you wait just a minute, they’ll peek back and when they see you still looking at them, back their head disappears behind the tree again.

It is humorous and endearing, but also a little sad.

deer3

I can empathize with the deer; to be in the woods and thickets and looking out, knowing, or think we know that we’re not seen.

My desk at home is in front of a set of screened, double windows on a second floor on a hill overlooking a large section of our housing complex. Sometimes during the day after I’ve had my shower, I’ll sit in my chair at my computer, naked, water falling from my wet hair, slipping down my back and across my breasts.

I’ll watch cars drive by, the mailman on his rounds, and people walking their dogs or going to the laundry room, and know they can’t see me sitting here, in my chair, in the shadows.

Of course, at night or very early morning, before the sun has risen, I can be sitting in front of my window with the lights on and be just as back-lit as the deer yesterday. When I start to get undressed for bed, I look over my shoulder just to make sure both windows are tightly covered. Even when I see they are, I undress and slip into bed quickly–not quite trusting the shadows I cast against the blinds. The only time I’ll open them at night is during a thunderstorm, when I can open the curtain and lay in bed, watching the light flashing against the rain blurred window.

deer2

Writing is a little like being the deer hiding in the woods, or sitting naked in front a window on the second floor of a house on a hill. We may think we’re in control, and that we’re exposing just as much or as little as we choose. However, sometimes curtains open a crack, or the light falls just right and our shadows give us away.

There is something to be said for taking time to lurk–to pull back deeply into the dark and watch, rather than be watched. To be still, and just listen. To appreciate others dance in the sun.

deer4

Categories
Critters Media

Tinhat time

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I spent the morning taking my cat into the vet. Poor baby has a thyroid gone awack and will either need pills, radioactive iodine, or surgery. At the vet’s she tried to burrow into my arms, hiding her head inside my coat and shaking. Right now she knows I feel guilty, so she’s asking for yet another treat.

This afternoon, since my internet connection was funky, and the day was nice, I decided to visit the Butterfly House. I’ll write on this later, with photos, but will say now that the trip was enchanting, and I hope my camera’s delicate electronics have survived the humidity.

Catching up on reading tonight, Scott Reynen mentions a flooflah about iTunes and a new mini-store feature. I was reminded to check for software updates, and there it was, in among updates for Quicktime, the OS, and so on. I immediately downloaded the update so I could see for myself Apple’s dastardly doings.

Once updated, since I’m still on a Jelly Roll, urh, roll, I double clicked one of his songs. In the bottom of the song list page, another frame displayed other albums by Morton, a listing of music others bought in addition to Morton, and links to a Morton biography. I’m not surprised at the list of albums I can buy–iTunes is first and foremost a music store. I am pleasantly surprised, though, by the link to the Morton biography.

Okay, so I’ve seen the feature. Now, what’s the uproar?

The Ziff-Davis boys compare the MiniStore to Microsoft’s Passport. (I would have made a comment on this at the site, but you have to register first, and I was too tired, and to uninterested to fill in all those fields.)

Rob Griffiths at MacWorld wrote the following about data being transmitted when a song is double-clicked:

In order to do this, the music store must obviously know what you’re listening to. It learns this information via a packet of information sent each time you play a song via a double-click. This data is sent without your explicit permission, and as far as I can tell, there are no Apple privacy policies that cover that transfer of information. It’s also unclear exactly what data is being sent. (Is it just song and title? Or does it include your Apple music store ID, which would tie the song info directly to your personal data?) And although Apple now assures us that the data is not collected, that information is not made clear to users when they begin using iTunes.

However, this isn’t about the MiniStore itself. It’s about Apple’s attitude in rolling this change out to the millions of iTunes users, without as much as a peep about what’s going on behind the scenes.

Oh my Aunt Matilda’s bunions. Consider with me, if you please, a scenario:

You open iTunes. You double click a song. While the song is playing, additional information about the song, singer, other albums you can buy, and so on is displayed. You bring your hands to your cheeks in astonishment.

“Oh my gawd!”, you cry out. “How could iTunes know what I was going to be playing next?!”

You then call out to your significant other, who is currently fetching toast out of the plugged-in toaster with a fork, “Jimmy Joe! Jimmy Joe! You’re never gonna believe this one, sugah! This here iTunes read my mind, honey bug!”

At that point, having been saved from certain death, Jimmy Joe enters into your room, looks at the screen, scratches his belly in puzzlement and replies, “Sweet lips, I do believe you’re rauuught about that there iToones. It read your durn mind.”

A sudden thought dawns on Jimmy Joe, causing him to exclaim (as well as fart), “You know, the same thing happened to me the other day! I was out getting my email at gmail when I realized, golly, the ads looked familiar. I was writing about chain saws, and lo and behold, the ads were about chain saws.”

“No!”, you exclaim.

“I wouldn’t lie to you sweet cheeks. And come to think on it, when I wrote about the new Dukes of Hazard movie, the ads were about the Dukes of Hazard.”

You look at each other in wonder. You then wrap your arms around Jimmy Joe, exclaiming, “Honey bunch, you know what this all means?” Jimmy Joe shakes his head no. “We’re psychic!”

I wasn’t going to write on all this sort of stuff this this year, but the temptation was too strong. There was a little pulse that kept beating, “do it do it do it”. But you already knew I wouldn’t be able to stay away from the lists didn’t you? Yes you did. And you know what that means, don’t you…

Why honey bunch, you must be psychic!