Sunday, July 01, 2007
Bridal Registry
We attended my step-sister's wedding yesterday. Lovely outdoor affair at a golf course, very quick service - "Do you? Do you? You may kiss the bride."
Prior to the wedding, we checked out the happy couple's bridal registry at Target. Very convenient to be able to look it up online. The online list that comes up shows which items have been filled, or purchased, and which are left to buy. That cuts down on repeat gifts. The happy couple also has a chance to pick what they want, which means that things will match their decor. "But we wanted lime green, not day-glo pink!" So then, the bridal registry seems like a good thing, however . . . the ability to see the entire list, fulfilled or not, online certainly cuts down on the surprise of the happy couple while opening those gifts.
My lovin' spouseful and I registered for dishes - at the insistence of my family - and that was it. No one in my family bought those dishes; my lovin' spouseful's parents bought us one set, and everyone else surprised us. It was delightful to open our gifts because of the surprise factor. I suppose that historically wedding gifts have not always had a suprise factor, though. Think about dowries. They were used by the bride's family to purchase a husband. In order to figure out whether the bride-to-be was a good deal dowry-wise, the bride's family had to reveal what that dowry was. Fifteen cows, thirty-two sheep, handmade linens, some prime acreage, etc. etc. "Hey, throw in a dozen quart jars of your mother's canned tomatoes, and we've got ourselves a deal."
Still and all, I like the suprise factor, which we were able to conjure for my step-sister's wedding by viewing the registry online yesterday and popping into Target to purchase the gift just a couple of hours before the wedding. The bride and groom certainly were far too busy thinking of other things yesterday to bother with their registry.
Good luck and many wishes for a long and happy marriage to them both.
Prior to the wedding, we checked out the happy couple's bridal registry at Target. Very convenient to be able to look it up online. The online list that comes up shows which items have been filled, or purchased, and which are left to buy. That cuts down on repeat gifts. The happy couple also has a chance to pick what they want, which means that things will match their decor. "But we wanted lime green, not day-glo pink!" So then, the bridal registry seems like a good thing, however . . . the ability to see the entire list, fulfilled or not, online certainly cuts down on the surprise of the happy couple while opening those gifts.
My lovin' spouseful and I registered for dishes - at the insistence of my family - and that was it. No one in my family bought those dishes; my lovin' spouseful's parents bought us one set, and everyone else surprised us. It was delightful to open our gifts because of the surprise factor. I suppose that historically wedding gifts have not always had a suprise factor, though. Think about dowries. They were used by the bride's family to purchase a husband. In order to figure out whether the bride-to-be was a good deal dowry-wise, the bride's family had to reveal what that dowry was. Fifteen cows, thirty-two sheep, handmade linens, some prime acreage, etc. etc. "Hey, throw in a dozen quart jars of your mother's canned tomatoes, and we've got ourselves a deal."
Still and all, I like the suprise factor, which we were able to conjure for my step-sister's wedding by viewing the registry online yesterday and popping into Target to purchase the gift just a couple of hours before the wedding. The bride and groom certainly were far too busy thinking of other things yesterday to bother with their registry.
Good luck and many wishes for a long and happy marriage to them both.
Labels: bridal registry, dishes, dowry, family, gifts, husband, internet, surprise, target, wedding
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Stumbleupon & Writing
Do you ever get bored with the internet? I do. It's all stuff all the time. Overwhelming really. So overwhelming, in fact, that I tend to get into ruts and look at the same sorts of things all the time. When the itch of boredom gets to me, I start flailing around looking for new blogs or aggregation sites to read. While checking out Pi's blog, I stumbled upon Stumbleupon and did a wee bit of a search. When I don't know what topic to search, I default to Dave Matthews Band, just to see who else has this interest. If this doesn't net me anything interesting, and it often doesn't, I look for writing sites. Stumbleupon had a nice selection of those, which I present to you here:
There's an essay by Kurt Vonnegut on How to Write with Style . . .
Paul Brians' Common Errors in English, which links to a page of errors for reference (lay & lie are always tripping me up) . . .
One Sentence: True stories, told in one sentence (you can submit your own) . . .
and One Word, which is a site that gives you a word and you have 60 seconds to write about it. Good for shutting off the critic and getting down to the business of writing.
There's an essay by Kurt Vonnegut on How to Write with Style . . .
Paul Brians' Common Errors in English, which links to a page of errors for reference (lay & lie are always tripping me up) . . .
One Sentence: True stories, told in one sentence (you can submit your own) . . .
and One Word, which is a site that gives you a word and you have 60 seconds to write about it. Good for shutting off the critic and getting down to the business of writing.
Labels: dave matthews band, english, internet, kurt vonnegut, paul brians, pi, stumbleupon, writing
Monday, May 07, 2007
Books That Make You Mad
Ever read a book that makes you mad? I've recently read two that have raised my ire, but for different reasons.
The first was "Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything" by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams. In the interest of full disclosure, I did not finish reading this book because it made me so mad. First, I slogged through the intro, which seemed to be a repetition of stuff I'd already read elsewhere, i.e. the Internet is making us collaborate more; everyone needs to become more transparent, blah, blah, blah. To be fair, I figured that the book had to start somewhere and had to assume that many readers would be new to its ideas, so I kept going. After the authors launched into how great the current generation is, how so much more creative it is than previous generations, I put the book down. This notion of comparing generations and how great one is in relation to another boils my blood. I wanted to scream, "Who do you think invented the internet and everything that led up to it? Don't you think that was just as creative as what the current generation is doing with new tech tools?" Honestly, I simply can't abide by these judgemental attitudes. It's why I can't stand the term "Greatest Generation" in reference to Depression/WWII folks, or the term "slackers" in reference to Gen-Xers. I don't mind an analysis of generations based upon shared experiences, or short-hand, non-judgemental names, such as Boomers or Millennials, just don't slay entire generations with negative assessments. If anyone has read this book and had a different opinion, please share. Maybe I'll give it another shot.
The second book that made me mad was Nicholson Baker's "Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper." Working in a museum as I do, I have an incredible fondness for bound volumes of our local newspapers. Leafing through these books, which date back to 1892, is pure joy. Baker's book shows how, with the Library of Congress at the helm, libraries have wholesale ditched their collections of bound volumes of newspapers in favor of microfilming. (Round two is here with the current push toward digitization.) In order to easily microfilm these newspapers, the bindings have to be removed. Libraries, including the Library of Congress (LOC), submitted entire runs of our nation's newspapers to this disbinding. Once this was done, the libraries, finding space ever at a premium, decided to sell or destroy the disbound newspapers, rather than box and store the originals. The Library of Congress has even done this with books. All of this should make us furious. The Library of Congress is supposed to be saving the nation's history, not gutting it for the latest fad in reproduction. Their claim has always been that microfilm is a suitable substitute for newspapers that are crumbling to dust. It is not, for numerous reasons laid out in Baker's book, and the vast majority of newspapers are not crumbling to dust. Trust me, I know. I can still use the 1892 newspaper. It's a bit more delicate than later editions, but still very readable and hardly crumbling to dust or anything else.
The Library of Congress has a requirement that authors must submit a hardcopy of their books when they register for copyright. If the LOC is merely going to slice and film, I'd be tempted as an author to send them a little note with my registration, saying that I'm not going to waste money on giving them a hardcopy being as how they don't want it anyway, and offer to provide a digital copy.
Baker's book is excellent in that it makes me mad in an appropriate, how-can-I-change-the-system way. It goes into all sorts of details about the construction of paper (Did you know that mummy wrappings were used at one time in U.S. paper production?), the chemistry of paper, the political and financial maneuverings of certain high-level LOC officials, and raises questions about what we deem important enough to save. Obviously, I highly recommend this book. It will make you mad and it should.
The first was "Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything" by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams. In the interest of full disclosure, I did not finish reading this book because it made me so mad. First, I slogged through the intro, which seemed to be a repetition of stuff I'd already read elsewhere, i.e. the Internet is making us collaborate more; everyone needs to become more transparent, blah, blah, blah. To be fair, I figured that the book had to start somewhere and had to assume that many readers would be new to its ideas, so I kept going. After the authors launched into how great the current generation is, how so much more creative it is than previous generations, I put the book down. This notion of comparing generations and how great one is in relation to another boils my blood. I wanted to scream, "Who do you think invented the internet and everything that led up to it? Don't you think that was just as creative as what the current generation is doing with new tech tools?" Honestly, I simply can't abide by these judgemental attitudes. It's why I can't stand the term "Greatest Generation" in reference to Depression/WWII folks, or the term "slackers" in reference to Gen-Xers. I don't mind an analysis of generations based upon shared experiences, or short-hand, non-judgemental names, such as Boomers or Millennials, just don't slay entire generations with negative assessments. If anyone has read this book and had a different opinion, please share. Maybe I'll give it another shot.
The second book that made me mad was Nicholson Baker's "Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper." Working in a museum as I do, I have an incredible fondness for bound volumes of our local newspapers. Leafing through these books, which date back to 1892, is pure joy. Baker's book shows how, with the Library of Congress at the helm, libraries have wholesale ditched their collections of bound volumes of newspapers in favor of microfilming. (Round two is here with the current push toward digitization.) In order to easily microfilm these newspapers, the bindings have to be removed. Libraries, including the Library of Congress (LOC), submitted entire runs of our nation's newspapers to this disbinding. Once this was done, the libraries, finding space ever at a premium, decided to sell or destroy the disbound newspapers, rather than box and store the originals. The Library of Congress has even done this with books. All of this should make us furious. The Library of Congress is supposed to be saving the nation's history, not gutting it for the latest fad in reproduction. Their claim has always been that microfilm is a suitable substitute for newspapers that are crumbling to dust. It is not, for numerous reasons laid out in Baker's book, and the vast majority of newspapers are not crumbling to dust. Trust me, I know. I can still use the 1892 newspaper. It's a bit more delicate than later editions, but still very readable and hardly crumbling to dust or anything else.
The Library of Congress has a requirement that authors must submit a hardcopy of their books when they register for copyright. If the LOC is merely going to slice and film, I'd be tempted as an author to send them a little note with my registration, saying that I'm not going to waste money on giving them a hardcopy being as how they don't want it anyway, and offer to provide a digital copy.
Baker's book is excellent in that it makes me mad in an appropriate, how-can-I-change-the-system way. It goes into all sorts of details about the construction of paper (Did you know that mummy wrappings were used at one time in U.S. paper production?), the chemistry of paper, the political and financial maneuverings of certain high-level LOC officials, and raises questions about what we deem important enough to save. Obviously, I highly recommend this book. It will make you mad and it should.
Labels: anger, authors, books, copyright, generations, internet, library of congress, newspaper, nicholson baker, paper, reading, wikinomics
Friday, April 06, 2007
Leaving Passwords to Heirs
If you inhabit the online world, you've probably accumulated a few user names and passwords to your various accounts - email, blogs, news aggregators, online stores, etc. We've all been told not to leave these things laying around, make sure they're secure. So, what happens to these things when you die? I have a gmail account in which I keep quite a bit of past personal correspondence. That's a personal archive, akin to written letters of the past. If I were to keep my user name and password to myself, this personal correspondence would be lost when I die. My suggestion? Keep your user names and passwords secure, of course, but come up with a way to give this information to your heirs upon your death. Be sure to choose someone you trust. After all, Google's not going to be providing anyone with paper copies of their emails any time soon.
Labels: april fool's, archive, blog, email, google, heirs, internet, letters, passwords
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Radical Transparency
This month's Wired Magazine centers around the theme of Radical Transparency. This is the notion that companies need to be open about their inner workings in order to build trust among their customers and vendors. Radical Transparency is also about managing a company's image on the web, because if the company isn't going to talk about itself in an honest way, warts and all, someone else on the internet will be talking about the company and it likely won't be nice at all.
Now, if we're all trying to achieve Radical Transparency, how far do we go with it? Wired says to let it all hang out, yet doing so may lead to results that are unintended, like those experienced by Kathy Sierra. I would love to see Wired do an issue on ways we can protect ourselves in this era of Radical Transparency.
Now, if we're all trying to achieve Radical Transparency, how far do we go with it? Wired says to let it all hang out, yet doing so may lead to results that are unintended, like those experienced by Kathy Sierra. I would love to see Wired do an issue on ways we can protect ourselves in this era of Radical Transparency.
Labels: business, internet, kathy sierra, radical transparency, safety, wired
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Miscreants
I was reading through my blog feeds last night and happened to find a post on Seth Godin's blog about Kathy Sierra, who has the Creating Passionate Users blog. His post linked to hers and gave readers fair warning that what they would find would not be pleasant. Not only was it not pleasant, it was downright scary. Kathy has been receiving death threats through her blog. Her post, which is not for the faint-hearted, makes me shudder at the thought that there are people out there who are so vile that they would do such things. Not only are these miscreants vile, they are cowardly too, as they do this under the veil of anonymity. The whole incident has been so upsetting to Kathy that she is hiding out at home and is not sure she will ever blog again.
Here's where I have to take a deep breath. You see, the handful of evil ones inhabiting the internet are mucking things up for the rest of us and it's making me afraid. As a writer, I want to take credit for my words, using my own name, not an avatar. I want to be able to write openly, without pussy-footing around things. Yet, if I do so, I may become a target for sickos. On some level I've always been conscious of this. I won't name my husband or children or pinpoint my exact location. I was thinking about posting a photo, but at this point, I'm not going to be using a head shot. (Most likely it'll be a shot of my feet.) The internet may feel like a vaporous world, but what happens here is as real as anything else.
For the above reasons, soon I'll be switching off the feature that allows readers to leave anonymous posts. I may also turn on comment moderation. Sorry about that for all of you faithful commenters. It very much feels like caving in, which I hate to do, but a girl's got to be careful.
As for Kathy Sierra, I very much hope the people who did this to her will be caught and that she'll get up the courage to blog again. I wonder if there are any support groups for those who've received death threats? How did Salman Rushdie and the Dixie Chicks get through this?
For my readers who have their own blogs, how do you decide how much personal information to reveal online?
Here's where I have to take a deep breath. You see, the handful of evil ones inhabiting the internet are mucking things up for the rest of us and it's making me afraid. As a writer, I want to take credit for my words, using my own name, not an avatar. I want to be able to write openly, without pussy-footing around things. Yet, if I do so, I may become a target for sickos. On some level I've always been conscious of this. I won't name my husband or children or pinpoint my exact location. I was thinking about posting a photo, but at this point, I'm not going to be using a head shot. (Most likely it'll be a shot of my feet.) The internet may feel like a vaporous world, but what happens here is as real as anything else.
For the above reasons, soon I'll be switching off the feature that allows readers to leave anonymous posts. I may also turn on comment moderation. Sorry about that for all of you faithful commenters. It very much feels like caving in, which I hate to do, but a girl's got to be careful.
As for Kathy Sierra, I very much hope the people who did this to her will be caught and that she'll get up the courage to blog again. I wonder if there are any support groups for those who've received death threats? How did Salman Rushdie and the Dixie Chicks get through this?
For my readers who have their own blogs, how do you decide how much personal information to reveal online?
Labels: blog, death threats, dixie chicks, evil, fear, internet, kathy sierra, salman rushdie, security, seth godin
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Collaborating Holograms
The other day, my brother was bemoaning the fact that the internet is not three-dimensional. Isn't this what real people and real life are for? Of course, this isn't what he meant - I don't think. I suppose he wants pictures to pop out like holograms. Sort of the Princess Leia effect as she delivers her message asking for assistance to save her planet.
My frustration with the internet and Web 2.0 is that a lot of commenting goes on, but what does it lead to in the real world? Does it change anything? Or we all full of a lot of hot air? Maybe we need holograms that can collaborate.
My frustration with the internet and Web 2.0 is that a lot of commenting goes on, but what does it lead to in the real world? Does it change anything? Or we all full of a lot of hot air? Maybe we need holograms that can collaborate.
Labels: brother, collaborate, hologram, internet, princess leia, real people
Thursday, February 01, 2007
News Aggregators
For those of you in the know about blogging and news aggregators, feel free to skip this post. For those of you still getting your feet wet on all this blogging stuff (and I know there are a few of you), I wanted to send you a friendly post that explains how I keep track of the blogs I like. You know how the newspaper or a news show puts together a bunch of stories that they present to you? Well, the internet has a way for you to do this with blogs. There are websites that serve as news aggregators. With a news aggregator, you sign up for the blogs you like as you find them and the aggregator will let you know when there are new posts to the blogs on your list. This is very convenient for those blogs that aren't updated regularly. Aggregators also make it easy to scan through many blogs and posts quickly, just like scanning the headlines of a newspaper. The news aggregator I use is Bloglines, but there are many, many more out there. Here's one list of them, along with the Wikipedia definition of a news aggregator. Happy blog surfing!
Labels: blog, bloglines, internet, news, news aggregator
Friday, January 26, 2007
Who's on the Other Side?
This whole Web 2.0 is the wildest ride. Through my blogging and reading of other people's blogs, I've become acquainted with a handful of new folks that I wouldn't have met any other way. I've also emailed (using the old Web 1.0 technology) people that I have yet to meet. It makes me intensely curious. Who are these people on the Other Side? One could write a story about such things, using the imagination to conjure all sorts of characters on the Other Side (even conjuring the look & feel of that Other Side). I just know that, when I get a response to an email or a comment on the blog, the Other Side is populated with sentient beings.
Labels: blog, imagination, internet, other side, people, story
Monday, November 20, 2006
FtTP - TV + The Internet
I'm still making my way through the latest Wired Magazine and read an article on YouTube last night, plus one on the creation of lonelygirl15.
As the internet grows more and more social, I'm thinking that maybe these little personal screens we sit in front of are not big enough. Here's what happens in my house: "Mom, come here. Look at this video on YouTube." ... "Mom, come see these cute iPod covers online." ... "Mom, check out this game I'm playing. I've wracked up X number of gold pieces. Now I can buy that cloaking device I want." ... "Honey, check out what I wrote for StoryChat. Here's where the thread starts." I've seen as many as five kids huddled around the fifteen-inch screen I'm currently sitting at.
Juxtapose this with the current trend in personal home theaters wherein the homeowner has a screen large enough to be viewed across a football field. And the techie pundits claim television is dying? I think it's on the verge of a rebirth, but its genetics will come from the internet, pulling directly from success stories such as YouTube and lonelygirl15.
My internet provider and cable company are one in the same. How big a leap would it be to broadcast the internet on TV? My brother used to have WebTV, so it's been done before. Why not have a switching device on the TV that allows it to broadcast either cable or the internet? Why not create easy-to-hold controlling devices - cheap enough for everyone in the family to have - so that watching the internet & selecting a variety of sites can become an even bigger social phenomenon? Imagine the group collaborations, or perhaps the shopping parties, people can have if we wed the internet to a bigger screen.
Someone somewhere is surely already working on this . . . .
As the internet grows more and more social, I'm thinking that maybe these little personal screens we sit in front of are not big enough. Here's what happens in my house: "Mom, come here. Look at this video on YouTube." ... "Mom, come see these cute iPod covers online." ... "Mom, check out this game I'm playing. I've wracked up X number of gold pieces. Now I can buy that cloaking device I want." ... "Honey, check out what I wrote for StoryChat. Here's where the thread starts." I've seen as many as five kids huddled around the fifteen-inch screen I'm currently sitting at.
Juxtapose this with the current trend in personal home theaters wherein the homeowner has a screen large enough to be viewed across a football field. And the techie pundits claim television is dying? I think it's on the verge of a rebirth, but its genetics will come from the internet, pulling directly from success stories such as YouTube and lonelygirl15.
My internet provider and cable company are one in the same. How big a leap would it be to broadcast the internet on TV? My brother used to have WebTV, so it's been done before. Why not have a switching device on the TV that allows it to broadcast either cable or the internet? Why not create easy-to-hold controlling devices - cheap enough for everyone in the family to have - so that watching the internet & selecting a variety of sites can become an even bigger social phenomenon? Imagine the group collaborations, or perhaps the shopping parties, people can have if we wed the internet to a bigger screen.
Someone somewhere is surely already working on this . . . .
Labels: FtTP, husband, internet, kids, technology, tv, wired, youtube
