Friday, August 08, 2003
I was thrilled when I was able to register for the one course I really, really wanted to take this coming semester, but the coming schoolyear is now looking even better. I've been kind of upset of late that my cognitive science minor was probably going to extend my coursework by one semester, thus extending the amount of time until I complete my Ph.D. One of the required courses for the CogSci minor is "Philosophy of Cognitive Science," which is offered once every blue moon in the Philosophy Department. The professor who teaches this course is on phased retirement. An acceptable substitution for the philosophy course is a graduate seminar in Information and Decisions Sciences over at the Carlson School of Management. This four-credit class is offered only in the fall, and it just doesn't fit into my schedule for this coming semester. I already have a pretty full schedule, and the IDSC class is supposed to be very tough - a reading list longer than a comps reading list plus a heavy workload, including a final project as well as an exam that I have heard compared, again, to written comps. The lore surrounding this class is fairly intimidating. Supposedly only one person has ever completed all of the readings as assigned. Anyway, my plan has been to get all of my other requirements out of the way by the end of this year and to then (hopefully) begin reading for comps over the summer. During the fall of next year, I'd take the IDSC class, and that class only, and treat it as reading for an exam question in cognitive science. Unfortunate, but I didn't see any other way to actually get all of my coursework done, complete the minor, and maintain an acceptable (read: not overwhelming) course load.
For some reason, I decided last night to tentatively plan my schedule for the spring semester. There are two courses I have to take: a computer science course on artificial intelligence (also a scary requiremement for the CogSci minor which I might very well take pass/fail) and a Topics in Technology and Culture course taught by my advisor. I was perusing the catalog, trying to figure out if I wanted to take a third class or not, when I came across the listing for . . . Philosophy 8640 . . . Philosophy of the Cognitive Sciences. Unbelievable. Amazing. Of course, I still have to get all of this approved, but at least the plan is better, now!
other good news
Eric got a promotion. Whee! He's been promoted two grades, and now has the cool title of "Technologist." Unfortunately, this also means he's moving to second shift, so our relatively complementary schedules are a thing of the past as of Tuesday.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
This whole situation is nutty. Gary Coleman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Angelyne (of the billboards), Arianna Huffington, and Larry Flynt. Only in California!
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
I just finished watching "The Ring." I'm ok with horror/thriller movies (grew up on stuff like this and this), but watching this one right before bed probably wasn't the smartest of ideas.
(disclaimer: if you haven't seen the movie and want to without some plot points being spoiled, stop here. I hate it when people reveal things about movies I havne't seen. I had the secrets from "The Sixth Sense" and "Fight Club" told to me on the same night, before I'd seen either movie)
I liked this movie - it did scare me, and I confess to watching certain portions of it through my hands, but I have problems with some of the plot elements. Why, exactly, is the little girl evil, for example? There's not really a good back story for the kid, even though there is, somewhat, for the mother. A lot is left to be inferred. There's certainly something to be said for subtlety and for being able to lead an audience to a conclusion rather than explicitly revealing information, but there are some plot points that need to be foregrounded a bit more. Also annoying, unnecessary, and not explained well: people affected by the ring all make horses freak out - um, why? And why is it necessary?
The DVD version of the movie includes a short that adds more background information. What it did for me was create a bit more confusion. There are things that just don't jive: characters in the short contradict earlier statements by characters in the feature film, and it's implied that the girl, Samara, is "unnatural," abnormal, even evil - and concieved through questionable methods. Why does the doctor say Samara was supposedly adopted, while the group of people in the short specifically say that the parents went away and when they returned the woman was pregnant? The doctor also says that the girl was institutionalized and, for all she knew, was still in the same facility, while the group in the short contradict again, saying that the parents returned from their winter home wiithout the child one year: supposedly a fire had destroyed their winter home and had killed Samara, as well. These contradictions serve no point, as far as I can see.
I do want to watch the movie again, but with the subtitles on. We had them on for part of this run through, and there's a lot of whispering and barely-audible lines that are hard to distinguish from the soundtrack and background noises, but are subtitled. I want to go back and see if there are any more of these subtle, almost subliminal, lines.
I suppose that's enough analysis for the night. Sometimes I overdo it on the analysis: it is, after all, only a movie. And now, having reminded myself of that, I'm going to attempt to get some sleep.
--oh, p.s. - I'd like to see the movie on which this was based: is this a "Vanilla Sky" parallel: remake (with very few differences) the cool foriegn film for an American audience because we, as a nation, hate subtitles?
I want this! I'm thinking ahead somewhat, but I see this as an advantage, not a disadvantage.
. . . let's see if I can help out a little bit . . .
Lots of people end up here because I wrote a random post about drylighters. I love 'em. The Faber-Castell ones that are my favorite have been discontinued (well, they apparently still sell in Germany, but all US retailers have stopped carrying them). But Levenger has a similar (fancier) item, if you'd like to get your hands on one. Free advertising, but these things rock - erasable, won't show in photocopies, won't seep through thin paper, won't dry out after two weeks or leak all over your bag/briefcase, etc.
There are also apparently a number of fans of the automated gift shop who end up here. Some general info is here. If you're looking, it's apparently the Holiday Inn Minneapolis West that has the automated gift shop.
Finally, to the person searching on keywords "cannibal drymouth scientific" I say, um, good luck? I have no idea what this person could have been searching for. That they landed on a page in my archives is a fluke.
I don't totally agree with this piece, but the author does make some strong arguments against the RIAA. They've been taking quite a beating in the press lately. I wonder what their next move will be?
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Disturbing Auctions: Daily!: "Tootsie Pop Stick ~ Custom Licked 4U!
[ . . . ]
'... If You're My Winning Bidder, I'll keep count JUST FOR YOU!
And I'll mail you the stick afterwards, along with an official certificate, suitable for framing!'
... sweet Mother of God."
I guess people really will try and sell anything. This auction mght be worth tracking - will anyone bid on this??? Oh, check out the picture on the auction listing, too.
it is listed in the 'Everything Else > Weird Stuff > Totally Bizarre' auction category, at least (cross-listed in modern alternative/underground comics, which I do not get at all . . . ).
Now, tell me where the spin is supposedly coming from again?
Monday, August 04, 2003
But the most daunting obstacle to the recording industry's dogged efforts to rid the Internet of music piracy is a lawsuit that Pacific Bell Internet Services (also known as SBC Communications) filed against the RIAA last week.
It is carefully crafted to portray the RIAA and its contractors who scour P2P networks for infringers as out-of-control juggernauts who care precious little about due process, the rules of the federal court system, Americans' privacy rights and the U.S. Constitution.
You know what? SBC stands a decent chance of winning. If that happens, the case would deal a sore setback to the RIAA and make the dread subpoena process that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) created far less menacing.
McCullagh goes on to point out that SBC is using the same arguments that Verizon had previously deployed with very little success - but - SBC is also using other arguments, including finacial ones. SBC argues that "it and other Internet service providers 'must be compensated for the substantial costs incurred in complying with these subpoenas' and cites rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It says the recipient of a subponea must be 'reasonably compensated' for the work required to prepare a response." McCullagh says this financial blow will hit the RIAA where it counts. It certainly seems as if this could be a great deterrent: the more subpoenas the RIAA issues, the greater the compensation it may be required to dole out to the ISPs affected by large numbers of subpoenas. It certainly sounds as if SBC is on firmer footing than Verizon, but will these legal arguments fly?
I'm also quite pleased to see privacy some up as an important issue in this article: bulk subpoenas that have more or less been issued directly by the RIAA instead of a judicial authority are indeed a threat to the privacy of ISP subscribers. Hundreds, even thousands, of users may have their information turned over to the RIAA, and that volume of requests should frighten ISPs at least a little bit. Individual customer privacy is important, of course, but when one is speaking of the privacy concerns of thousands of users . . . well, given the choice between continuing service with a company that did not respect and value my privacy or obtaining new service with a company that did, I'd choose the new comapny, even if the service was more pricey or not as good. Time spent developing customer loyalty, as well as money thrown at marketing, advertising, and branding, might end up being completely wasted.
McCullagh closes with the following:
Sure, it's temping to beat up on the recording industry, but keep in mind that they're not the ones who enacted the DMCA back in 1998. Congress did. Elected representatives chose the interests of well-connected copyright holders over individual rights to privacy. The Senate approved the DMCA unanimously in October 1998, and the U.S. House of Representatives followed suit by a similar margin a few days later.
If the major record labels win their legal skirmish with SBC, and the DMCA remains intact, the fight will return to Capitol Hill. Let's hope the outcome will be different this time.
Too true, unfortunately. Histories of copyright law show that this state of affairs is really the status quo: the RIAA may not have directly enacted the DMCA, and Disney may not have directly enacted the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extention Act, but they might as well have. Copyright law has historically been negotiated by those in control of the most established media of the day. Newcomers, innovators, and the public have never been well-represented, either in the negotiation process or in the resulting laws.
Sunday, August 03, 2003
Now, arguing from a moral standpoint makes me a bit nervous, but I think the idea behind this quote is dead-on. Copyright owners have the law on their side - especially the large copyright holders that make up the content industry. But to consumers, the laws don't make sense, don't seem realistic or plausible, or, in some cases, just aren't known/understood. This setup is not a good one for anyone, really: all involved parties think they are doing the "right" thing. That's potentially dangerous, in my estimation. Of course, alternatives are being developed: p2p systems that are geared for the trading of legal MP3s only, as well as the Apple music store and other for-fee downloading systems. Ultimately, I'd like to see the free and legal p2p networks profit. This infoAnarchy article describes iRate Radio, an application that is supposed to serve free and legal MP3s and adapt to your tastes by using a rating system. Sounds promising, because the system facilitates the discovery of new (non-major-label) music, a problem with other p2p apps.
I have not had a chance to read through the whole report yet, but I'm interested in one of the sections listed in the table of contents: this section heading more or less states that file sharers are as numerous as downloaders. Now, this contradicts other reports I have read (there's an article, Free Riding on Gnutella, over at First Monday, for example, and I've seen the topic of freeloaders and superpeers all over message boards and other discussion spaces).
Saturday, August 02, 2003
Another find (and something I should have found before now): the Twin Cities Babelogue. via InterpretiveAlchemy.
Friday, August 01, 2003
Thursday, July 31, 2003
The San Jose Mercury News covers this issue in "Government issues second warning on Microsoft security flaw," an article posted Thursday. The Mercury News notes that 75% of computers connected to the internet use an affected version of Windows. With so many computers connected and affected, a virus could spread rapidly throughout the net and have devastating effects.
The irony of the situation is that these warnings or alerts about Windows are being issued by the Department of Homeland Security - and the Department has chosen Microsoft products to keep us all safe and sound. The situation would be hilarious if it weren't so scary.
Moral of the story? Pay attention to the update reminder on the task bar or check the MS site regularly. Alternate moral to the story? Use a non-Windows OS - switch to Mac or Linux.
1. What time do you wake up on weekday mornings?
These days? Around seven, seven thirty, because Eric's getting up that early to go to work. Ideally, I'd sleep until between nine and eleven. I am not a morning person.
2. Do you sleep in on the weekends? How late?
Usually, yes. Um, eleven? Sometimes noon? I'm not lazy . . . I just stay up late!
3. Aside from waking up, what is the first thing you do in the morning?
Put on water for French-press coffee or, these days (in an effort to reduce caffeine intake), tea.
4. How long does it take to get ready for your day?
Between an hour and an hour and a half. I move slow, and caffeine and a shower are necessary.
5. When possible, what is your favorite place to go for breakfast?
There's this place called the Stove in Mammoth Lakes, California. I used to go there with my dad - great place to have a hearty, warm breakfast before heading off for a day of skiing.In general, though, I'm partial to diner/greasy spoon type places.
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
ser·en·dip·i·ty [ sèrrən díppətee ] noun - gift for discovery: a natural gift for making useful discoveries by accident
Believe in it? I do! I've been bemoaning the fact that one of the classes I really wanted to take in the fall has been full since, oh, just after registration started. I *just happened* to check the course enrollment this morning and amazingly, there was one open seat, which is now mine! I also have one of the coolest schedules I have managed to arrange for myself in the entirety of my higher education: I have no classes, either to take or to teach, Monday or Friday. This will also make the back-to-back AoIR and Feminism(s) and Rhetoric(s) conferences a bit easier to manage.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Monday, July 28, 2003
Both the blog and the book sound very interesting. It is wonderful to see a nuanced approach to the "technology + spirituality" question. Hopefully there'll be some more posts soon: no updates here since June 12.
TIME.com: Downloader Dragnet -- Aug. 04, 2003: "An estimated 60 million Americans, more than the number of Bush voters in 2000, are using file-sharing networks on the Internet. Until last week it seemed like a safely anonymous pursuit. But then RIAA started subpoenaing colleges and Internet-service providers (ISPs) for the names and addresses of more than 950 computer owners "
The article goes on to point out that, for those who want their MP3 fix, Apple and buymusic.com will happily provide a more limited selection for a nominal fee, of course. And with differing approaches to copyright and intellectual property (buymusic, iTunes Music Storescroll to bottom of page) but with no threats of subpoenas or legal action. Where does fair use fit into all of this? Does it?
Of course, on the other side of the issue, are those working to develop the next-gen completely anonymous p2p apps. In the meantime, though, I guess we'd better be careful about what we have on our hard drives.
Friday, July 25, 2003
Would you be surprised to learn thatYouth spend more time on Web than TV? I'm not really all that surprised - nor am I blown away by the notion that the younger generation multitasks quite effectively while surfing. It is an interesting shift, but I think it was only a matter of time before it happened.
What, for some odd reason, popped into my mind while reading this article, though, was the Jim Carey movie, Cable Guy, and other tales, fictional and non, of kids being "raised" by the television. And, of course, the logical pattern for that to take: are today's toddlers going to be influenced by the net as much as previous tykes were by the tube? Or is it still more likely a parent would plop a kid down in front of Sesame Street or whatever variation of Barney is in circulation at the time?
I had a friend who grew up without television, and now I understand why parents might make that kind of choice. Eric and I did without T.V. for quite a while. But there's no way you could get me to raise kids in a house without a computer! It's unthinkable! And yet, computers and the internet have the potential to expose kids to waaay more "questionable" material. It's an interesting dilemma that we'll have to ponder later, as I must now shower and dress for a birthday party we're attending this evening. Should be a hoot!
Has anyone out there read Spindle's End by Robin McKinley? It's not a new book by any means, it's just the non-academic book I've read most recently. I love fairy tales, and especially enjoy McKinley's retellings - good tales that don't feature weak, limp princesses and conventional gender roles. Spindle's End is a retelling of Sleeping Beauty, and while I didn't enjoy it as much as some of her other fairytale novels, I think the book is a wonderful read. Practical fairies, a tomboy who's really a princess, and a whole host of friendly animals populate this novel. Good summer reading for those who like fantasy tinged with a bit of the sensible.
Well, there's one item off the summer reading list. I've still got whole stack staring at me, and it's almost August!
Thursday, July 24, 2003
33 days later . . .
I feel a bit silly at having to write two posts about my long absence from the blogosphere almost back-to-back. This has been an exhausting summer, for many reasons. I’ve been to D.C. twice since the end of May: once for my grandfather’s funeral, and once for a vacation (!) that I really needed, but which was also exceedingly emotionally draining in a way.
Even though I haven’t been writing here, necessarily, I have been writing more offline: journal entries, letters to my grandmother (who’s 90 and just returned home from a lengthy hospital stay), and so on. This is a kind of writing I don’t often indulge in. I enjoy blogging more than almost any other type of writing (except critical papers which, even with all the griping about how much I hate them at the end of the semester, I do really enjoy). I’m not sure why. Many bloggers have tackled the topics of privacy, disclosure and online versus offline identities. I think I am a more candid and open person online than I tend to be in real life, but in the last thirty-three days I have felt the need to write about things I don’t feel comfortable expressing on my blog. I think part of why I disappeared may have been because, if I sat down at the keyboard, there’s a chance I would have shared something that I might later have regretted sharing online. I still maintain that anything put in a blog post is fully public information. If it would upset me if a friend, family member, professor, colleague, or advisor read what I wrote, then it’s something better expressed in a more private forum than the ‘net.
Of course, I also think that I have the right to say whatever I want online, with very few exceptions grounded in the legal system: libel, violation of nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements, and so on – I can still say or write words that would constitute these things, but the consequences for these actions are a bit more clearly delineated by our legal system. I’m writing this thinking of a friend who was recently fired for blogging. Pretty unbelievable. The consequences of blogging from work or about work are certainly, in most cases anyway, are not clear-cut. This makes me realize that, even though the Internet is a common feature of our daily lives, in many situations we as a society have not formulated acceptable and accepted norms for online behavior and discussion. I think my friend’s blog is well-written and witty, and I don’t see a problem with content, nor do other bloggers. So what prompted the termination? What is it that bothered management so much but didn’t even show up as a blip on blogosphere radar? How is it that blogs and bloggers disrupt the line between private and public? Thoughts to ponder.