Categories
Writing

Missouri Review on writing current events

From the weblog of the Missouri Review on why most submissions related to current events are seldom accepted by the publication. The entire post is excellent, but one point in particular stood out:

Most writers can’t realize their ambitions because they are writing out of something like reflex, and according to a mistaken assumption that they understand more than they do about a headline event. Even the most perceptive among us are misled by the media, which intentionally creates a sense of intimacy about headline stories, in part by providing a variety of angles that will hook the broadest audience possible. I’m not saying that’s bad. It’s a fact. We’re lured by the intensive coverage into becoming voyeurs. […] But the sad thing about voyeurism is that it doesn’t generate understanding or true knowledge. Many of the submissions we receive about headline stories are well enough made and written, but thin on comprehension of the real, true event. The writers are earnest, but they mistake their media-taught familiarity with the visible surface for a deeper understanding of what lies beyond it.

Do read the entire post–it’s relevant to all writers.

Categories
Writing

Missouri Review on writing on current events

From the weblog of the Missouri Review on why most submissions related to current events are seldom accepted by the publication. The entire post is excellent, but one point in particular stood out:

Most writers can’t realize their ambitions because they are writing out of something like reflex, and according to a mistaken assumption that they understand more than they do about a headline event. Even the most perceptive among us are misled by the media, which intentionally creates a sense of intimacy about headline stories, in part by providing a variety of angles that will hook the broadest audience possible. I’m not saying that’s bad. It’s a fact. We’re lured by the intensive coverage into becoming voyeurs. […] But the sad thing about voyeurism is that it doesn’t generate understanding or true knowledge. Many of the submissions we receive about headline stories are well enough made and written, but thin on comprehension of the real, true event. The writers are earnest, but they mistake their media-taught familiarity with the visible surface for a deeper understanding of what lies beyond it.

Do read the entire post–it’s relevant to all writers.

Categories
JavaScript

Ajax security: FUD or fact?

from_future_import has a post stating that Fortify’s recent Ajax alarm is more FUD than fact. Money quote in this one:

And MOST importantly the exploit is only applicable to JSON that also happens to be valid JavaScript code.

Was it FUD or fact? A bit of both. The benefit of the paper is the fact that unlike other discussions on these issues, it was written in plain English, diagrammed, and not meant to be understood only by insiders. Perhaps if more Ajax developers would adopt the same approach to documenting issues, concerns, and examples, documents such as that given out by Fortify wouldn’t get the audience.

Or we could all use XML, only (she says as she ducks and runs…)

While I was in the neighborhood, I picked up a couple of other links in comments:

Practical CSRF and JSON Security
An ArsTechnica post on the original article.

(Thanks to Michael Bernstein for link)

Categories
Stuff

Badges

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The New York Times came out with an article on the recent ‘lack of civility’ events. Why is it that no matter what, David Weinberger and Robert Scoble end up in these?

Regardless, this was one of the more thoughtful and accurate articles, focusing more on the whole civility movement rather than issues related directly to any one person. The title was link bait, but then, the same could be said of this post and probably most other posts related to recent events.

I must say, though, that I have rarely had problems in my comments, and I’ve written quite strongly on topics. Additionally, I’ve seen as many vicious comments in men’s weblogs, as I’ve seen in women’s. I think the perceived ‘threat to all women’ supposedly inherent in weblogging has been exaggerated–not to our benefit, either.

According to the article, Tim O’Reilly and Jimmy Wales, of Wikipedia fame, have joined forces to bring about this newer, gentler atmosphere. Based on past actions of Mr. Wales, I wouldn’t bet on this necessarily having a positive effect.

My opinion of all of this was stated previously, and I won’t repeat it–not the least of which I write for Tim O’Reilly’s book company, and don’t want to tweak the hand, overmuch, that feeds me. However, I will repeat what I wrote in the comments to Tim’s post discussing these new initiatives:

You created badges.

You actually created badges.

I just can’t believe you created badges.

Yes, they actually created badges.

As for the so-called code of behavior, the only one I’ll comment on here is the following:

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we’ll tell them so (privately, if possible–see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.
If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn’t withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.

I’ll say this once: if any of you ever once consider privately contacting me, to tell me that what I have written is ‘offensive’ or that I should apologize to another person, run, run fast, away from my place, and don’t ever come back.

Yes, I am serious. No, I’m not joking. I do not write for children, here. I write for adults. If what I write offends, the person offended can tell me so to my face. If I feel they’re right, I’ll apologize. If not, I won’t. If you don’t like what I write, tell me in my comments or in your weblogs. Again, I may agree and apologize. Or, I may not, and won’t.

But I will not have some interfering busybody playing nursemaid for another in my space.

In addition, if a post or comment is serious enough for the police, it’s too serious to be retracted with an apology. The police have better things to do than babysit us.

Categories
Photography Places

And now, Missouri news

The Department of Natural Resources did come out with an update on the Johnson’s Shut-Ins restoration.

You don’t know how much damage was done to the park until you see these photos, especially of the river restoration. I thought it seemed extensive, and from comments at Black River News the plan didn’t have universal blessing. I do know that a concept of Johnson’s as “good as new” seems distant. Having to artificially create a natural river–perhaps after viewing these photos, folks might question the rebuild of the Taum Sauk reservoir a little more closely.

I know it will be beautiful again someday. That part of the Ozarks is still beautiful now. But it’s not the same.

Other news that broke my heart was hearing that the building owners are going to have to take down the Switzer Building. This is one of my all time favorite buildings. Did you eat red and black licorice while growing up in the States? Then you’ve had licorice made here in St. Lou. According to the St. Louis Today article, the building still smelled faintly like licorice–wouldn’t that have been something?

It’s lovely to walk across the road deck of the Eades Bridge (the world’s first steel bridge) next to the Switzer building, just before passing over the Mississippi. It’s a walk through time in this once pivotal transportation hub of the country.

Now I imagine the building will be replaced by something made of steel and glass, and progress marches on.

Some photos of both places in better days.

Johnson's observation deck

Switzer building from the site

Johnson's in winter

Switzer building, river side

Path to Johnson's observation deck