Towers: a new memorial for 9/11

Towers 1, made from stainless steel, seen here against the sky.

[ Edward Tufte's concept for the 9/11 memorial. I have to admit, I find it much more appealing than the present plans...

-k]

Ask E.T.: Towers: a new memorial for 9/11

[More Google Maps fun... for me anyway...

Check out my High School.

It's 7 buildings - the central, E-shaped main building and the two behind it and then two to either side (connected by glassed in walkways). The ones on the right side, by the field, are the gym and swimming pool, and on the left are the science and art wings. The little building towards the front where the arrow actually points isn't even part of the school, curiously. It's a library building that was part of an endowment (Carnegie, possibly?) a long long time ago. It was boarded up well before I started there in 92.

If you look close, you can see the KHS bushes on the front lawn... I find it strangely pleasant to think that those silly bushes can be seen from space. -k]

403 Broadway 12401 - Google Maps

This essay and the responses look like very interesting reading. Despite my creative editing here I think after a quick skim we actually address many of the concerns that he has with this kind of system.

[ Decius' commentary above seems accurate now that I've read the article.

Lanier is essentially discussing the value of authorship, of content *creation* and personal, individual intellect (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

Memestreams doesn't completely solve authorship in the sense that we still hide behind user id's and don't have to expose ourselves. However, those id's do, in a very real way, expose a personality, and the collected writings of any of the users here do undoubtedly comprise a body of authored work, amateur though it may be.

What I've said fails to be the case if the user treats memestreams purely as a link aggregator. To have a voice, per Lanier, you must speak.

There's a great deal of stimulation in the article, but I'll touch on a few points.

The first isn't directly tied to his thesis, but it seems that fairness ought to have implied a mention, at least. To me, among the greatest features of Wikipedia (and wiki's in general, i suppose) is how well they capitalize on the concept of linking. I have frequently found myself spending a substantial amount of time clicking through chains of entries out of pure curiosity. Obviously, the web itself is founded on this principle, but never seems to deliver quite satisfyingly. Thus, as an authoritative source, or even a voiced source, wikipedia may fail, but as a tool for intellectual stimulation, experimentation and inquiry, I think it succeeds brilliantly.

Secondly, Lanier briefly ties his conception of online collectivism to the state of our traditional media, outside the web. With these points I agree wholeheartedly. There is such a tremendous pressure to appear unbiased that nobody ends up saying much of anything. Or, worse, they hide behind a facade of egalitarianism while being quite clearly otherwise.

I'm not as worried about this situation as Lanier is. In fact, I have argued in the past that aggregation will produce wisdom. I have since softened on that view and Lanier presents a number of compelling arguments to counter my prior feelings. At least, we agree that aggregation can not mean anything without a vibrant body of producers.

Edge; DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism By Jaron Lanier

This is troubling to me.

Certainly, I have no compunction about calling web postings public. Anyone who wants to view them most certainly can. What I have a problem with is the assumption that certain behaviors in the private sphere are necessarily related to those in the professional sphere.

When your private life becomes relevant to your ability to get or stay employed, I think a dangerous level of conformity has been required of you. I'm against drug testing for this reason, among others. The only reason I find the practice even marginally concionable is that drugs are, in fact, illegal. Getting completely drunk and passing out on a saturday night isn't. Your opinion of what such an act says about a person may or may not be valid, but if they can pass out on saturday and still come in on monday and do their job, then I think that's the end of the conversation.

It sort of moot however, since the tools and the will are both available. I certainly don't think it should be illegal for employers to search public forums. The fact is that despite all the power the internet has to expose the *real* you and connect you to other people, the *real* you won't always work in the business world. There's a reason most of us act differently at the workplace than at the club. The extension of that is going to have to be that we don't discuss such things in public arenas, or that we anonymize ourselves. Unfortunate? Probably. Necessary? Also, probably.

[edit] It turns out that I have a pretty minimal google footprint. You can find out that i was affiliated with a group called SNAP at Vanderbilt, that i made a few posts on the ALE mailing list and that there are a number of people that probably aren't me, but have the same name. I found no results past the first page.

For Some, Online Persona Undermines a Resume - New York Times

If phone companies thought they could get away with it, you’d have this: “I’m sorry, all circuits to Domino’s Pizza are currently busy. Would you like to be connected to our preferred pizza provider instead?”

I think that states it pretty effectively. How much longer until AOL is redirecting sites to "preferred" providers?

[ agreed -k ]

Why the net _should_ be neutral

Americans still have some way to go to catch the Germans, but apparently nearly 4 out of 10 people think it's okay to talk on a cell phone in the bathroom. While that may seem like a lot, it's actually down from 62% in 2003, the last time the company did this survey.

This makes me want to bludgeon 4 out of 10 people with their cell phones until either a) they are incapable of speech, b) their phone is broken or c) they understand civility.

And, yeah, I understand that beating someone with a blunt object doesn't fall into the canonical definition of "civil", but they started it by forcing me to acknowledge their existence while in the bathroom -- the one time I prefer to believe that I am alone in the entire universe.

Techdirt: People Think Talking From The Toilet Is A Bunch Of Crap

The U.S. Congress on Wednesday sent President George W. Bush a bill to boost fines tenfold to $325,000 on broadcast television and radio stations that violate decency standards, a victory for conservative groups.

The legislation, which Bush is expected to sign, caps fines at $3 million for continuing violations. The House approved it by a 379 to 35 vote on Wednesday, while the Senate passed the measure by unanimous consent last month.

[ This is one of those things that both the Dems and Repubs get completely wrong. I can't fucking understand why this is considered such an important issue. It's just plain not. I think lying is 1000000 times more offensive than the word "fuck". Are we gonna fine people for lying?

What shite. -k]

UPDATE 1-US Congress sends Bush bill hiking indecency fines�|�Reuters.com

[ One of the things i like best about Gmaps is just cruising around in satellite mode and seeing what I can (and can't) see.

Like here, something really big on fire somewhere inside the Democratic Republic of Congo. It makes me wonder when the image was captured. What's burning? Why? Whose stories are tied up in this brief snapshot of time? We can clearly see a 15 mile long streamer of smoke, but know almost nothing about it. -k]

Google Maps is the Best (A Random Slice of Time)

We built and sail 1/144 scale Radio-Controlled Model Warships from WWI and WWII which are armed with Co2 powered cannon and armoured in thin balsa. These vessels engage each other in combat on ponds across Australia, endeavoring to punch holes in each others hull with their cannon until one of the vessels sinks or flees.

This is awesome and I want to do it.

Australian Battle group

Wife 1.0 is a great program, but very high-maintenance. Consider buying additional software to improve the performance of Wife 1.0. I recommend Flowers 3.1 and Diamonds 2K. Do not, under any circumstances, install Secretary with Short Skirt 3.3. This is not a supported application for Wife 1.0 and is likely to cause irreversible damage to the operating system.

yeah, it's silly and crude, but i'm hung over and dense this morning.

Girlfriend 6.0 vs. Wife 1.0