Steven Johnson's background
on
Emergence
·
· Score: 1
I read this book when it first came out and I've been working on a review of it myself. I figured it was an ideal candidate for a review on/. given Steven Johnson's (the author) multiple referrences to/. in the book. It is interesting to note Johnson's background in the context of site many Slashdotters used everyday. Johnson was a founder of now dead community generated content sites Feed Magazine and Plastic, which are very similar to/. in the way they are generated an community maintained. Plastic even uses Slash as its base. I found the sections pertaining to how sites like these work to be very insightful and they'd probably be of interest to anyone who's ever wondered why/. works as well as it does.
Additionally, our reviewer leaves out the parallels between biological emergent systems (slime molds, termites, etc.) and computer systems. Johnson gives an entirely new deconstruction of the 'pacemaker' or 'queen ant' theory in both computer and life systems. Altogether, I think the book is worth the 3 hours it takes to read.
Dean Kamen's newest patent...
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Dean Kamen should really go for a patent on Methods of Influencing and Abusing the Media using Respected Businessmen and Venture Capitalists now that he knows the trade so well. He should have to pay for every keystroke, every packet transmitted, every second of mobile phone time, etc. that was wasted on hype...
I must admit, this is a pretty nifty application of existing technology (notice I didn't say "invention"), but I'm not really sure how anyone hopes this will ever be legal. On the streets of my home (New York City) a Segway rider wouldn't be allowed on the sidewalks, just like bicycles. And I don't care how stable it is - if a Segway rider got hit by a taxi going 40mph, he would still die.
New transportation mechanisms have always been met with huge hurdles to adoption. Most of them don't make it through the institutional barriers put up by the automobile manufacturers and oil companies. Even John Doerr and Steve Jobs (for all their arrogance) don't throw around the kind of influence it would take to "build cities around this invention". I can see only a few reasonable applications:
Local transportation where bicycles are already widely used.
Bicycle messengers in major cities.
Transportation for children already within walking distance of schools.
Neighborhood mail delivery.
Anywhere Razor(tm) scooters are used now.
I'm sure it's useless, but I'll say it anyway - I hope the media learned its lesson this time!
This seems like a fantastic idea for Nintendo. Rather than placing all their bets on their ability to produce enough hardware, market to a large enough population, get it in front of enough eyeballs, etc., they're spreading the liability of this kind of venture out.
Imagine if Sony had done the same thing with the PS2 last year. They might have been able to meat christmas production demands, rather than creating an artificial shortage.
Nintendo is banking on licensees sharing in the impact of the GameCube's success or failure.
I'm out in New York City and I installed XP yesterday to check it out. It didn't have any problems connecting with my Road Runner service. Road Runner seems to be the most popular broadband ISP service in this city since Verizon DSL has had so many problems with their rollout and customer support. I wonder what would happen if Road Runner decided to block XP altogether? It's a bit of a double standard for AOL/Time-Warner, thoght, because both they and Microsoft seem to be locked in a battle to control 'gatekeeper' authority to the internet; to continue convincing the masses that somehow their 'internet' is better than their competitors'.
It's been tossed around on/. before, but while the giants like AOL and MSN are duking it out for control, is there any room for the little guy to show that there is value in connecting without a gatekeeper and using ISPs that don't put a veil over the internet? I'm sick to death of hearing "AOL 7.0 is SO easy!", "I love it when an Instant Message (tm) pops up!", and "Goodbye stamps!", every time there's a commercial break on CNN. What can we do to show the non-tech-saavy American that they are being duped?
The idea that Time could have use facial recognition software is probably not that far off in the future. Currently, the challenge of archiving used and shot images is inherently inadequate because of the human element. Their classification is based on subjective analysis (probably of flunkies, as you stated), rather than the real content of the image.
In response to your suggestion that photographers carry around wearable computers, I think that's missing my point a little. I agree that storage will become a non-issue in the very near future. The 1GB IBM Microdrive I use in my Canon D30 will be replaced in a few years by something the same size, with at least 10x the capacity. It's the fact that photographers want to represent their best work to the world, and if given the opportunity to remove "bad" images from the ones that will cross the editing desk, they will. I've shot for many years and worked with countless other photojournalists, and we all seem to have one thing in common: we're perfectionists.
I think one of the real challenges going forward is to preserve the photographer/editor relationship (as a decoupled one), while giving photographers the most advanced tools to execute their art.
The long-term issue caused by the movement to digital cameras by the journalism world (especially fast turnaround publications like daily newspapers) is not storage or archiving. These are inconveniences that will be settled with the advancement of technology and time. While CaseyB might be able to get a few more images on his consumer digital than a professional journalist using a Nikon D1H, I agree that these are not the important issues.
The real change that digital cameras have brought to journalism has nothing to do with what's inside the camera, but what's on the outside: the preview window. Before digital cameras (and scanners in the situation of photographers that processed film on-site and then transmitted), most photojournalists didn't see the results of their shooting until it appeared in the paper the next day. Because his images were being recorded into a 'black box' the photographer was always forward thinking - trying to get the best image from the subject in front of him. Giving the photographer the power to see what they had just produced suddenly put the photographer in the editing chair, and gave him the power to judge whether an image was newsworthy. With a push of the 'trash can' button, the image was lost forever.
Shooting and editing are fundamentally different challenges. I've been in both shoes before and they require very different skill sets and motivations. Editors are responsible for representing the intent of the story, as well as trying to find the best image. Because these tasks aren't mutually exclusive, an image that the photographer might have considered unusable (because it was slightly out of focus, poorly composed, underexposed, etc.), could be the perfect choice if it does a good job of 'telling the story' despite its flaws. So, while it is true that 'infinite' storage in the future will elimintate the need for the photographer to delete any images, it won't get rid of the photographer's new role as pre-editor.
Probably my favorite example of a situation where shooting on film created an unexpected timeless image was shot by Dirck Halstead, a veteran Time photographer. He shot the famous Monica Lewinsky hugging Bill Clinton photograph. At the time he shot the image, Monica was an unknown intern that happened to receive a warm hug from Bill at an event on the White House lawn. There were a lot of photographers present, but Dirck was one of the only ones shooting film. When the scandal broke a few months later, Dirck had the feeling that he had seen her face before, so Time hired a researcher to dig in his archives and find the image. The image was found, and Dirck was the only one that got the shot despite their being many other photographers there -- other photographers, all shooting digital. Many of them probably shot that image, but who would save an image of the President hugging an unknown person?
I think it's a tragedy that this article doesn't mention many of the PARC folks like Bill Verplank who were integral to the creation of the GUI. There are some interesting tidbits from the past in this article, but it's terribly underinformed to call itself a 'history'.
I had a similar problem and I bought the Intel D815EEAL desktop board. It's got 5 PCI slots 1 4X AGP slot, onboard LAN, sound, and video. I got an OrangeMicro board that has both firewire and U2W SCSI on it to save a slot. I'm using the Belkin USB for data collection.
I'm running RedHat 7.1 (2.4.2) and I was able to get everything working well very easily.
Slashdot Mirror
I read this book when it first came out and I've been working on a review of it myself. I figured it was an ideal candidate for a review on /. given Steven Johnson's (the author) multiple referrences to /. in the book. It is interesting to note Johnson's background in the context of site many Slashdotters used everyday. Johnson was a founder of now dead community generated content sites Feed Magazine and Plastic, which are very similar to /. in the way they are generated an community maintained. Plastic even uses Slash as its base. I found the sections pertaining to how sites like these work to be very insightful and they'd probably be of interest to anyone who's ever wondered why /. works as well as it does.
Additionally, our reviewer leaves out the parallels between biological emergent systems (slime molds, termites, etc.) and computer systems. Johnson gives an entirely new deconstruction of the 'pacemaker' or 'queen ant' theory in both computer and life systems. Altogether, I think the book is worth the 3 hours it takes to read.
Dean Kamen should really go for a patent on Methods of Influencing and Abusing the Media using Respected Businessmen and Venture Capitalists now that he knows the trade so well. He should have to pay for every keystroke, every packet transmitted, every second of mobile phone time, etc. that was wasted on hype...
I must admit, this is a pretty nifty application of existing technology (notice I didn't say "invention"), but I'm not really sure how anyone hopes this will ever be legal. On the streets of my home (New York City) a Segway rider wouldn't be allowed on the sidewalks, just like bicycles. And I don't care how stable it is - if a Segway rider got hit by a taxi going 40mph, he would still die.
New transportation mechanisms have always been met with huge hurdles to adoption. Most of them don't make it through the institutional barriers put up by the automobile manufacturers and oil companies. Even John Doerr and Steve Jobs (for all their arrogance) don't throw around the kind of influence it would take to "build cities around this invention". I can see only a few reasonable applications:
I'm sure it's useless, but I'll say it anyway - I hope the media learned its lesson this time!
Sometimes I get a little fixated on meat products. By the way, how hard would it be to add a spell checker to /.?
"Bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good."
Mmmmmm...This seems like a fantastic idea for Nintendo. Rather than placing all their bets on their ability to produce enough hardware, market to a large enough population, get it in front of enough eyeballs, etc., they're spreading the liability of this kind of venture out.
Imagine if Sony had done the same thing with the PS2 last year. They might have been able to meat christmas production demands, rather than creating an artificial shortage.
Nintendo is banking on licensees sharing in the impact of the GameCube's success or failure.
I'm out in New York City and I installed XP yesterday to check it out. It didn't have any problems connecting with my Road Runner service. Road Runner seems to be the most popular broadband ISP service in this city since Verizon DSL has had so many problems with their rollout and customer support. I wonder what would happen if Road Runner decided to block XP altogether? It's a bit of a double standard for AOL/Time-Warner, thoght, because both they and Microsoft seem to be locked in a battle to control 'gatekeeper' authority to the internet; to continue convincing the masses that somehow their 'internet' is better than their competitors'. /. before, but while the giants like AOL and MSN are duking it out for control, is there any room for the little guy to show that there is value in connecting without a gatekeeper and using ISPs that don't put a veil over the internet? I'm sick to death of hearing "AOL 7.0 is SO easy!", "I love it when an Instant Message (tm) pops up!", and "Goodbye stamps!", every time there's a commercial break on CNN. What can we do to show the non-tech-saavy American that they are being duped?
It's been tossed around on
The idea that Time could have use facial recognition software is probably not that far off in the future. Currently, the challenge of archiving used and shot images is inherently inadequate because of the human element. Their classification is based on subjective analysis (probably of flunkies, as you stated), rather than the real content of the image.
In response to your suggestion that photographers carry around wearable computers, I think that's missing my point a little. I agree that storage will become a non-issue in the very near future. The 1GB IBM Microdrive I use in my Canon D30 will be replaced in a few years by something the same size, with at least 10x the capacity. It's the fact that photographers want to represent their best work to the world, and if given the opportunity to remove "bad" images from the ones that will cross the editing desk, they will. I've shot for many years and worked with countless other photojournalists, and we all seem to have one thing in common: we're perfectionists.
I think one of the real challenges going forward is to preserve the photographer/editor relationship (as a decoupled one), while giving photographers the most advanced tools to execute their art.
The long-term issue caused by the movement to digital cameras by the journalism world (especially fast turnaround publications like daily newspapers) is not storage or archiving. These are inconveniences that will be settled with the advancement of technology and time. While CaseyB might be able to get a few more images on his consumer digital than a professional journalist using a Nikon D1H, I agree that these are not the important issues.
The real change that digital cameras have brought to journalism has nothing to do with what's inside the camera, but what's on the outside: the preview window. Before digital cameras (and scanners in the situation of photographers that processed film on-site and then transmitted), most photojournalists didn't see the results of their shooting until it appeared in the paper the next day. Because his images were being recorded into a 'black box' the photographer was always forward thinking - trying to get the best image from the subject in front of him. Giving the photographer the power to see what they had just produced suddenly put the photographer in the editing chair, and gave him the power to judge whether an image was newsworthy. With a push of the 'trash can' button, the image was lost forever.
Shooting and editing are fundamentally different challenges. I've been in both shoes before and they require very different skill sets and motivations. Editors are responsible for representing the intent of the story, as well as trying to find the best image. Because these tasks aren't mutually exclusive, an image that the photographer might have considered unusable (because it was slightly out of focus, poorly composed, underexposed, etc.), could be the perfect choice if it does a good job of 'telling the story' despite its flaws. So, while it is true that 'infinite' storage in the future will elimintate the need for the photographer to delete any images, it won't get rid of the photographer's new role as pre-editor.
Probably my favorite example of a situation where shooting on film created an unexpected timeless image was shot by Dirck Halstead, a veteran Time photographer. He shot the famous Monica Lewinsky hugging Bill Clinton photograph. At the time he shot the image, Monica was an unknown intern that happened to receive a warm hug from Bill at an event on the White House lawn. There were a lot of photographers present, but Dirck was one of the only ones shooting film. When the scandal broke a few months later, Dirck had the feeling that he had seen her face before, so Time hired a researcher to dig in his archives and find the image. The image was found, and Dirck was the only one that got the shot despite their being many other photographers there -- other photographers, all shooting digital. Many of them probably shot that image, but who would save an image of the President hugging an unknown person?
I think it's a tragedy that this article doesn't mention many of the PARC folks like Bill Verplank who were integral to the creation of the GUI. There are some interesting tidbits from the past in this article, but it's terribly underinformed to call itself a 'history'.
I had a similar problem and I bought the Intel D815EEAL desktop board. It's got 5 PCI slots 1 4X AGP slot, onboard LAN, sound, and video. I got an OrangeMicro board that has both firewire and U2W SCSI on it to save a slot. I'm using the Belkin USB for data collection.
I'm running RedHat 7.1 (2.4.2) and I was able to get everything working well very easily.