Open Source really has great potential: a blog paired with a national (international?) radio broadcast/podcast, in which the stories develop from comments posted by readers in response to ideas and issues raised on the blog.
To imagine that your ideas and personal voice have some degree of impact in a communal publication is a powerful driver. As a professional academic and teacher, I sometimes feel disconnected from the community in which I work, especially when my students are often from affluent, privileged families. How do I find a way to speak to the entire community about the subjects I study and teach about (in my case, media studies, rhetoric, and communication)?
Open Source could potentially be one place to contribute my voice in this way. However, I worry about what media scholar Chris Anderson once pointed out to me, which is that NPR and PBS tend to be consumed by affluent, educated, and often privileged audiences, but not the rest of the country. To the extent that this is true, it seems problematic to launch a concept like Open Source there, because it may not generate the kind of ground-level response upon which a much more significant movement for community-shared programs could be built. On the other hand, PRI and NPR have the resources to commit to such projects--like radio "early adopters"--that can help Open Source to develop a non-profit model that communities could copy.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Konfabulator for Free
Slashdot brought me some good news today. Though I'll soon have a new laptop with 10.4 built in (which includes Dashboard), My home PC's are still happy I can re-install Konfabulator for free. Nice.
You Don't Have to Be a Liberal...
Krugman makes another helpful assessment of the current state of economic policy in the US. You really don't have to be a Liberal to see that a bone-skinny tax rate will ultimately cause a decline in basic public services (even if you take the money you just gave back to the rich and "spend" it on Medicare prescription drug benefits).
I'm not usually one to point the finger, but the Bush administration has to take the blame on this one. They need to recognize the way their grab for a few extra dollars for rich taxpayers is going to fundamentally hurt the rest of their constituents. True, they cannot be voted in again, so in some sense they have little to lose. But it seems that lately Bush has been slightly more willing to see different points of view. Perhaps he can do something about this before it becomes a devastating policy.
I'm not usually one to point the finger, but the Bush administration has to take the blame on this one. They need to recognize the way their grab for a few extra dollars for rich taxpayers is going to fundamentally hurt the rest of their constituents. True, they cannot be voted in again, so in some sense they have little to lose. But it seems that lately Bush has been slightly more willing to see different points of view. Perhaps he can do something about this before it becomes a devastating policy.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Social Bookmarking and Higher Ed
Flickrzen looks cool--a bloggger blog about flickr's "exceptional photographs, be that subject, technique, or rarity." Flickr itself is a great social spot for sharing photos. According to Diggnation, there has been a flickr page for the London bombings since the moment it happened.
The benefit of all of these "social bookmarking" sites--flickr, digg, even StumbleUpon (which is not a site per se, but an extension for Firefox) is that they put together the ubiquity of the internet with the data-processing powers of computers and the vast array of individual interests of individual users. What comes out are places where you can go to find out what others are interested in, share your own interests, and easily search for all of them.
Perhaps the most interesting place where this is happening right now is Wikipedia, a user-created web encyclopedia. What will be the status of education in a world where anything you want to know is available within a few keystrokes? Of course, as Kate pointed out to me today, the situation is not new: we've had libraries for centuries.
But libraries are organized by publishers' interests: what they think is appropriate to catalogue goes in, and the rest stays out. This is both good and bad for information circulation: on the one hand, society can filter out points of view that are considered fringe or simply wrong, but on the other, less well-known but otherwise valid and possibly even important perspectives are also filtered out.
In the future, we may need to re-tool our expectations of what higher education provides us, asking faculty to focus more on teaching the methods of information search, assessment, and re-packaging: in some ways, rhetoric. Aristotle considered rhetoric "the study of the available means of persuasion"; in a world where information is not guarded by elite gatekeepers but available to anyone with a web connection and a browser (cell phones are getting better at this all the time, by the way), our brightest need to know not so much specifics as the techniques for finding and discerning the best specific arguments out there and merging them in new ways for the good of all.
Good luck to all.
The benefit of all of these "social bookmarking" sites--flickr, digg, even StumbleUpon (which is not a site per se, but an extension for Firefox) is that they put together the ubiquity of the internet with the data-processing powers of computers and the vast array of individual interests of individual users. What comes out are places where you can go to find out what others are interested in, share your own interests, and easily search for all of them.
Perhaps the most interesting place where this is happening right now is Wikipedia, a user-created web encyclopedia. What will be the status of education in a world where anything you want to know is available within a few keystrokes? Of course, as Kate pointed out to me today, the situation is not new: we've had libraries for centuries.
But libraries are organized by publishers' interests: what they think is appropriate to catalogue goes in, and the rest stays out. This is both good and bad for information circulation: on the one hand, society can filter out points of view that are considered fringe or simply wrong, but on the other, less well-known but otherwise valid and possibly even important perspectives are also filtered out.
In the future, we may need to re-tool our expectations of what higher education provides us, asking faculty to focus more on teaching the methods of information search, assessment, and re-packaging: in some ways, rhetoric. Aristotle considered rhetoric "the study of the available means of persuasion"; in a world where information is not guarded by elite gatekeepers but available to anyone with a web connection and a browser (cell phones are getting better at this all the time, by the way), our brightest need to know not so much specifics as the techniques for finding and discerning the best specific arguments out there and merging them in new ways for the good of all.
Good luck to all.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Two layers of geek!
Diggnation is a podcast by Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht, both recently of The Screen Savers on TechTV. They are much better than the current folks on AOTS (which used to be TSS). The link I've given you is like geek stuff squared, because "DiggNation" is the podcast Kevin and Alex are doing about digg.com, a social bookmarking/technews site. I used to have a digg widget on Konfabulator before my free trial ran out (I am so ready for my new Mac laptop with Tiger and Dashboard!).
Anyway. This is nearly as geeky as it gets and yet still involves people interacting (that is, beyond this stage, geekiness becomes individual people alone in their homes). Good stuff.
Anyway. This is nearly as geeky as it gets and yet still involves people interacting (that is, beyond this stage, geekiness becomes individual people alone in their homes). Good stuff.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Something fun to try
The following is a "Google Hack"--so named by the author. Whatever we might choose to call this little app, its fun and tells you something about the way Google searches work in reality.
Update: It doesn't seem to be working beyond one new word. Try the "Google Talk" link below it to use if from the original site.
Google talk a
Google Hack by
Douwe Osinga
Update: It doesn't seem to be working beyond one new word. Try the "Google Talk" link below it to use if from the original site.
Google talk a
Google Hack by
Douwe Osinga
Stanley Fish, Constitutional Law, and Interpretation
Intentional Neglect: Ahh, yes. Authorial intent once again rearing its seductive head. Fish asks us to dismiss both "textualist" and contemporary applicative (word?) approaches to the Constitution in favor of an awareness that all "styles" are interpretive. We can interpret narrowly, seeking to know what the writers intended only, or more broadly, seeking to imagine what they would have meant if they knew what we know today. But outside of questioning the intent of the writers, the entire practice of judicial review has no meaning, according to Fish.
Perhaps the most helpful point he makes is that "activism" is an unhelpful term, since all judges must actively interpret the law. Precedent comes into it, but only defers a judgment--what judges do. This is something Fish does not address, possibly because of the way "judgment" sort of smacks of individual assessment, something we'd like to avoid if we can. But we cannot avoid it: all people make decisions based on experience and context: SCOTUS may make much more disciplined decisions because of their training, tradition, and background, but they still make them. We need to become much more aware of the role of judgment as a social glue that keeps us from stagnation.
Perhaps the most helpful point he makes is that "activism" is an unhelpful term, since all judges must actively interpret the law. Precedent comes into it, but only defers a judgment--what judges do. This is something Fish does not address, possibly because of the way "judgment" sort of smacks of individual assessment, something we'd like to avoid if we can. But we cannot avoid it: all people make decisions based on experience and context: SCOTUS may make much more disciplined decisions because of their training, tradition, and background, but they still make them. We need to become much more aware of the role of judgment as a social glue that keeps us from stagnation.
Monday, July 18, 2005
the HUMANITAS prize
the HUMANITAS prize appears to be a solid nod to powerful, humanitarian media production. I say appears because I haven't looked at much here except the list of previous winners, many of which I would say are excellent shows. Check it out and let me know whether its an accurate reference of good people making strong media, or its a kind of haughty, elitist promotion of "quality" television and film. You be the judge.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
A House Divided...
Check this out. It's a "map" of books linked to one another by purchasing histories at amazon.com. The point is how little shared knowledge/interpretation of the world there appears to be between those on the Left and those on the Right.
On a related note, The Daily Show (TDS) guest last night has written a book titled something like "100 People Who Are Destroying America". John Stewart was struggling to keep his composure, but he did admit that there are people on the Left doing this kind of bashing as well.
Wouldn't a book with the same title be fascinating for everyone if it was a sober, insightful look at 50 on the Left and 50 on the Right Who Are Keeping Dialog Thin and Harsh in America? I think I might actually want to read something like that? Whatever happened to idealism?
I'm here in Middlebury, Vermont at the Digital Gaming Seminar, and our host, Jason Mittell, suggested in a discussion about American politics that nobody believes the political process works anymore. The degree of cynicism is incredibly high. If this is true--and many believe it is--wouldn't it be best to just throw the whole system out and start over? Is inertia so powerful that, even though we believe it doesn't work, we'd rather keep it than try to make something better? Or are we so cynical that we believe nothing can be done?
On a related note, The Daily Show (TDS) guest last night has written a book titled something like "100 People Who Are Destroying America". John Stewart was struggling to keep his composure, but he did admit that there are people on the Left doing this kind of bashing as well.
Wouldn't a book with the same title be fascinating for everyone if it was a sober, insightful look at 50 on the Left and 50 on the Right Who Are Keeping Dialog Thin and Harsh in America? I think I might actually want to read something like that? Whatever happened to idealism?
I'm here in Middlebury, Vermont at the Digital Gaming Seminar, and our host, Jason Mittell, suggested in a discussion about American politics that nobody believes the political process works anymore. The degree of cynicism is incredibly high. If this is true--and many believe it is--wouldn't it be best to just throw the whole system out and start over? Is inertia so powerful that, even though we believe it doesn't work, we'd rather keep it than try to make something better? Or are we so cynical that we believe nothing can be done?
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Digital Gaming Seminar, Day 2
It's Day 2 of the Digital Gaming Seminar here in Middlebury, Vermont and we're having an interesting discussion led by Mia Consalvo of Ohio University about women and video game play. Utopian Entrepeneur is a book she recommends that tells the story of Brenda Laurel and her attempt to start the "girl games" movement (before Mattel's Barbie Fashion Designer crushed her Purple Moon company). Still: 43% of all game players are women. That's at least as good as the percentage of Notre Dame students....
Monday, July 11, 2005
Game Maker
It's day one of the Digital Gaming Seminar here at CET in Middlebury, VT. As part of the NITLE on-going Mellon grant, there are about 15 of us here from Liberal Arts colleges all across the country (and Northern Ireland!) gathered together for a week to talk about games. Right now (Monday afternoon), we're talking about whether there are tools out there to help build playable games that don't require a lot of programming knowledge. Game Maker is a potentially cool little program to help students start thinking about game design that I saw demo'd on AOTS a couple weeks ago.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Let's just get this straight...
This article from Right-thinking makes a lot of sense, arguing as it does (along with Andrew Sullivan, whose quote begins the piece) that free enterprise and greed push us to create better products, including medicines.
But I want to correct a perhaps apparently small but actually pretty significant point. "...all of these good intentions mean absolutely nothing without a free market framework to drive this development. Good intentions don’t develop artificial hearts, hundreds of millions of dollars does." In fact, hundreds of millions of dollars don't develop artificial hearts, either: raw materials put to use by innovative minds do. The money is ultimately the most insignificant means to an end in the entire process. It allows the flows of labor back and forth between communities and individuals, and that is a massively important social lubricant. But I don't think "greed" is the right way to describe how the money is being used properly--when its being used properly, and I don't think we can guarantee that it always is.
I really don't want to come down on the side opposed to capitalism. Paul Krugman's two recent pieces in the NYT on Ireland's success with capitalism is real, I believe. But over time, the raw processes of capitalism (one of which is the production and maintenance of greed) work like industrial strength cleanser: at first, they work extremely well to scrub away social build-up, but soon enough they begin to eat away at the underlying structures that hold everything together. Without a constant corrective, the forces of capitalism can destroy the most honest intentions at social justice.
As usual, striking a balance between purely capitalistic and socialist/goverment interventionist policies is surely the best course. Now we must determine what that precise balance is.
But I want to correct a perhaps apparently small but actually pretty significant point. "...all of these good intentions mean absolutely nothing without a free market framework to drive this development. Good intentions don’t develop artificial hearts, hundreds of millions of dollars does." In fact, hundreds of millions of dollars don't develop artificial hearts, either: raw materials put to use by innovative minds do. The money is ultimately the most insignificant means to an end in the entire process. It allows the flows of labor back and forth between communities and individuals, and that is a massively important social lubricant. But I don't think "greed" is the right way to describe how the money is being used properly--when its being used properly, and I don't think we can guarantee that it always is.
I really don't want to come down on the side opposed to capitalism. Paul Krugman's two recent pieces in the NYT on Ireland's success with capitalism is real, I believe. But over time, the raw processes of capitalism (one of which is the production and maintenance of greed) work like industrial strength cleanser: at first, they work extremely well to scrub away social build-up, but soon enough they begin to eat away at the underlying structures that hold everything together. Without a constant corrective, the forces of capitalism can destroy the most honest intentions at social justice.
As usual, striking a balance between purely capitalistic and socialist/goverment interventionist policies is surely the best course. Now we must determine what that precise balance is.
Judith Miller Goes to Jail
Judith Miller's refusal to reveal her source and her willingness to go to jail for it takes an immense act of courage. There can be no doubt she believes in the need for journalists to maintain an aura of confidentiality.
However, the abstract question of whether all journalists deserve such rights is much less clear to me. What is the point of even talking about "uncovering the truth" in any situation if we don't at least believe there is a possibility that someone with vital information will share it with a journalist who can report it? Any yet, to think that you should be able to keep your job working for someone who is a criminal or has done some terrible deed after you reveal them to a reporter is at the very least questionable. This is less an issue with government employees than private companies, also. A government supervisor can be replaced. In a company, your supervisor may be head of the company, so "replacing" her may be moot.
However, in the abstract, I would have to say that learning information necessary to make sound decisions of policy is thoroughly vital to the American demcratic enterprise.
However, the abstract question of whether all journalists deserve such rights is much less clear to me. What is the point of even talking about "uncovering the truth" in any situation if we don't at least believe there is a possibility that someone with vital information will share it with a journalist who can report it? Any yet, to think that you should be able to keep your job working for someone who is a criminal or has done some terrible deed after you reveal them to a reporter is at the very least questionable. This is less an issue with government employees than private companies, also. A government supervisor can be replaced. In a company, your supervisor may be head of the company, so "replacing" her may be moot.
However, in the abstract, I would have to say that learning information necessary to make sound decisions of policy is thoroughly vital to the American demcratic enterprise.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
One way to fill the empty "activist judge" bucket
This is an interesting way to assess this increasingly empty moniker. I'm not sure it accounts for all the possible ways a judge might be an activist, but it does reject the notion that its the left-leaning judges doing the activism. Also, wouldn't we have to take into account the makeup of the Congress in which they opposed legislation? A Democrat-heavy Congress would be more likely opposed by right-leaning judges, and vice versa. Its downright odd that the right-leaning judges in their survey opposed more legislation than the others since 1994, since they should be more likely to agree.
Also, I did not see the table of all the percentages in this article. Maybe print version only? If anyone knows, please leave a comment and I'll post the answer.
Also, I did not see the table of all the percentages in this article. Maybe print version only? If anyone knows, please leave a comment and I'll post the answer.
Maybe I'm Just Old Fashioned...
This article in the NYT suggests that "in the end, someone is going to lose money" on these high-risk mortgages. My guess is, it won't be the banks or investors who spot the money. I may be old-fashioned, but it just seems like a variable rate mortgage can't be worth the risk unless you've got lots of money to throw around. You've got to have money to make money, so they say. Unfortunately, that leaves most of us out in the cold.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
The Heterosexual Revolution - New York Times
Stephanie Coontz makes the excellent rhetorical move of recontextualizing the very question of whether homosexual couples' participation in marriage could ruin it. By drawing our attention to the long history of social changes to the institution of marriage, she strikes an reverberating chord. Sure--there will be those who want to dismiss the point, taking the "abomination" route (itself equally abominable). But this short piece fires another well-placed shot at the rapidly crumbing armor of anti-gay marriage activists.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Wiki on Ireliki?
Can we do with "iki" what others did with "izzle"? We're going to find out. This one is a WikiTravel article about "The British Isles," though their first entry denounces the use of that name to refer to Ireland. Seems more like laziness in naming than anything. But, there is some brief history here and some decent travel info. One day I'll take a class to Ireland, for sure.
NYT on O'Connor
I must admit I know little about SCOTUS history (that's Supreme Court Of The United States). However, an array of articles in the New York Times argues for the significant, even pivotal, role she has played in defining US Law over the past decade. This one is the most straightforward (you won't find me using the term objective much unless its in quotation marks).
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Friday, July 01, 2005
Guess-the-Google Fun
OK--K and I just spent half an hour trying to make it onto this Great Flash Game's top ten list! Guess the Google is sweeeet! What's mine say?! Dude! Check it out.
Open Books Project
Hey all. Ran across this site today. Open Source is an amazing movement, mostly among programmers (hence the mostly geeky tech and programmer books within), that combines the best of the American spirit of innovation and free expression with the interconnection and sharing possible via the internet.
These guys write code under a Free Documenation License, and then whenever anyone downloads their program, if you want to look at how the program was written, go right ahead. Want to change something to make it better, or faster, or sillier? Go right ahead. The source code is open to all.
What implications does this have for our notions of copyright--and our impressions of those who archaically wish to maintain copyright--and what we mean by freedom of expression? For me, this is exciting, but I'm worried that all the joe domers out there raised to believe that making a buck is the best thing a man can do with his life will be too afraid of the consequences to let it go very far. Let the geeks share their toys for free, but when it comes to my stuff, you'll have to pay. We'll see.
These guys write code under a Free Documenation License, and then whenever anyone downloads their program, if you want to look at how the program was written, go right ahead. Want to change something to make it better, or faster, or sillier? Go right ahead. The source code is open to all.
What implications does this have for our notions of copyright--and our impressions of those who archaically wish to maintain copyright--and what we mean by freedom of expression? For me, this is exciting, but I'm worried that all the joe domers out there raised to believe that making a buck is the best thing a man can do with his life will be too afraid of the consequences to let it go very far. Let the geeks share their toys for free, but when it comes to my stuff, you'll have to pay. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)