|
|
|
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Distribution of Influence Ross Mayfield's blogged an excellent essay on distribution of influence, neofunctionalism, and emergent pluralism. [Link] Emergent Pluralism arises when groups form at a low cost. MoveOn is an early example of an influencing group that leverages low cost communication and collaboration. As the cost for forming issue groups falls, expect similar groups and coalitions to form around otherwise less fundable issues. Issue groups will influence decision makers by voicing opinion (in blogspace, mass media, direct appeals, activism) and as constituencies (aggregated to lobby, mobilized to vote or petition). Political leaders and lobbying organizations that develop interfaces to engage these issue groups and are responsive stand to benefit by being better informed than through pure polling and gaining constituents.Discuss Distribution of Influence Justin at Stanford Justin Hall is a Stanford Fellow! Congratulations, Justin! [Link] Wednesday, February 26, 2003 David the Scribe The Austin Weblogger Meetups are getting better and better, or should I say stranger and stranger? Whatever ... David Nunez is taking notes and names, and he's blogged about the latest. Pretty hilarious... Chip abuses his Sim family, named Clones, by helping them burn down their backyard; I paraphrase, "They are so stupid, that I figured if I gave them a BBQ, then it was only a matter of time before disaster." They are evil. They drown their neighbors in a 2x2 swimming pool. Then they are haunted by the ghosts of their dead friends and never get to sleep. Chip giggled and giggled as he talked about his Sims.Discuss David the Scribe Usable Software Specifications From Boxes and Arrows: Brian Krause offers guidelines for creating usable specs and requirements. His approach is sane: keep it relatively simple, use the right level of detail, don't be so technical that non-tech readers are alienated. "By abandoning the traditional idea of a spec in favor of a usable spec, you can deliver something that's fun to show off, easy to understand, and confidence-inspiring." [Link] Tuesday, February 25, 2003 Computer Made from DNA and Enzymes Israeli scientists have created a computer from DNA and enzymes. The computer is fueled by a DNA molecule. [Link] Think of DNA as software, and enzymes as hardware. Put them together in a test tube. The way in which these molecules undergo chemical reactions with each other allows simple operations to be performed as a byproduct of the reactions. The scientists tell the devices what to do by controlling the composition of the DNA software molecules. It's a completely different approach to pushing electrons around a dry circuit in a conventional computer.Discuss Computer Made from DNA and Enzymes Monday, February 24, 2003 FOUR count them FOUR Hours in AUSTIN! It's Austin Blog Day and the relevant bloggable is "what to do with four free hours in Austin." I wouldn't know what four free hours is like, personally, but I suppose I can imagine what I would do with 'em. Among others I would hang out at Zilker Botanical Garden, a favorite stomping round for all my years in Austin. Zilker Park is Austin's answer to New York's Central Park, and my favorite part of Zilker is the Botanical Garden, and my favorite part of that scene is the Isamu Taniguchi Oriental Garden, where I've been known to sit for hours feeling the wind and watching the wisteria grow. This is not what you would expect from an aging cyberpunk but there you are. I could give four free hours to the garden quite readily, and (in season) to the Rose Garden, or the new prehistoric garden. On the other hand... give me four hours at night and I could spend it somewhere like The Continental Club or the even funkier Saxon Pub. (Then again, I might just spend four hours at home, snooooozing.) Sunday, February 23, 2003 BBC Rant: Google and Blogs Clueless rant about Google and blogs by "technology consultant" Bill Thompson, published by BBC News. [Link] Why clueless? BlogsHe says that "Blogging is not journalism," in fact "is as far from journalism as it is possible to get, with unsubstantiated rumour, prejudice and gossip masquerading as informed opinion." He goes on to say that journalism requires editors, fact-checkers, etc.This suggests that writers and journalists (many of whom blog) are incomplete as such, without fact-checkers and editors on board. A trained and sometimes-practicing journalist myself, I appreciate the value of good editors and fact checkers, but I wouldn't say that blogging is not journalism just because, when I'm blogging, I'm working without those particular nets. It's more accurate to say that blogs are, or can be, journalism – but it's raw journalism, and should be evaluated with that in mind. We look at context and reputation to decide the real value of the unedited, unchecked text. And what about "official" journalism? Is it a better source of truth than the universe of weblogs? I think not: we've all seen media-generated inaccuracies and distortions over the years, and stories where a journalist's or publisher's bias is evident. And as we all know, a few media conglomerates are monopolizing the "legitimate" media channels. Those of us who have exposed ourselves to the multiplicity of perspectives offered by bloggers (even before they had that name) feel that we have a better sense of what's true, because we view reality from many possible angles. And Thompson does acknowledge "the value that comes from having the unmediated opinions and experiences of millions of people available online." "It refuses to say why it wants this information or to admit whether it makes it available to the US Government for tracking purposes." If Thompson's a technology consultant, you'd think he would know to check Google's Privacy Policy, which says "we will release specific personal information about you if required to do so in order to comply with any valid legal process such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, or court order." Besides which, though Google may collect information about your use of the system, it's stored anonymously, in aggregate, for the most part. Most Google users never provide names or demographic information. It's common to use aggregate data in a number of ways, and to market or transfer aggregate data. Because the data is anonymous, not tied to a specific identity, this isn't much of an issue. He also mentions Google's search methodology, which is a trade secret, though Google does disclose some information about one part of the algorithm, called page ranking. Thompson says "If Google decides it does not like you then you can be dropped from the index." Google excluded sites, but not because they "don't like" the site. The reasons are more complex, as you would expect. Google spokesman Nate Tyler told CNet "We carefully consider any credible complaint on a case-by-case basis and take necessary action when needed. This is not pre-emptive--we only react to requests that come to us...to avoid legal liability, we remove sites from Google search results pages that may conflict with local laws." If you want to read a thoughtful analysis of the issue of Google's power, read CNet's "The Google Gods" by Stefanie Olsen. Olsen discusses real issues, like support advantages for Google's paid advertisers. Friday, February 21, 2003 Rolling with the punches. Got this from Jeff today: Have you been fooling around with your blog design again? It no longer fits on a 800x600 screenI admit it. I screw around with my design all the time, as well as a few others that I handle pro bono. I might've actually become a designer if I had been able to draw a straight line... I mean, I'm drawn to it, and this is where I can play. This was the second time in two weeks, though, that I'd discovered a bug with my web page design. In this case it was an 800 x 600 thing, and I didn't test at that res. Bad form: always test outside your own tiny envelope - we know that as technolojazzmeisters, but we get lazy with our own stuff. The problem a couple of weeks ago was with the fonts - in my blog items, the display was something like .5 point type in IE, though Mozilla didn't present a problem. I had used ems to specify font size. Somehow it wasn't working. The problem today was a too-wide table at 800 x 600, and I tried everything, but it wouldn't repair. Then I noticed the "cosmic snot" image I had linked, and realized it was pushing the measure of the center column. A reminder that the web wasn't built for design precision. The point I want to make here, though, is that you feel free to email me if the site looks crappy, and I'll work on it. And someday I might get good at this! But I'm not holding my breath. Give Peace a Chance! Photos from war protests around the world. [Link] Thursday, February 20, 2003 Viridian Note 00362: The Mood at Davos Bruce Sterling quotes Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Laurie Garrett on the gloomy mood at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. You think you're depressed: world economic leaders see a clueless and uncooperative U.S. administration feeding world-stability to a shredder, while economies topple and war becomes a way of life. Meanwhile U.S. leaders say privately that the war in Iraq is just one more step toward "global cleansing." [Link] If the U.S. unilaterally goes to war, and it is anything short of a quick surgical strike (lasting less than 30 days), the economists were all predicting extreme economic gloom: falling dollar value, rising spot market oil prices, the Fed pushing interest rates down towards zero with resulting increase in national debt, severe trouble in all countries whose currency is guaranteed against the dollar (which is just about everybody except the EU), a near cessation of all development and humanitarian programs for poor countries. Very few economists or ministers of finance predicted the world getting out of that economic funk for minimally five-10 years, once the downward spiral ensues.Discuss The Mood at Davos |
 |
