Shortcuts: 26th July

++ Spam King gets a (shit)load of it. Hehe! ++ RSS is really cool! ++ So is Konfabulator!

And we’re off to see the mountains

Every so often I get the opportunity to remind myself that there is a world beyond the view of my window. Being tied to the computer for the majority of my time (admittedly by choice) only makes is all the nicer to get out of the house for a while. It has been so long since I’ve been up to Katoomba and the surrounding areas that I’d forgotten how very nice it is there. Check out the photos: 01 02 03 04

Why Microsoft?

Apparently because advantages include “…a reduction in the costs associated with deployment, implementation, and maintenance, while providing for a more standard desktop environment. In addition, the [US Department of Homeland Security] says, the agreement provides it with a common E-mail app.”

What I wanna know is why they didn’t use SELinux, an enhanced security version of Linux the NSA is developing. I don’t think it’s a finished projct just yet, but it’s gotta be a whole lot better than XP. I can just imagine next week’s headlines: “Terrorist hacks Homeland Security”. Oh, the irony….

The gems from days gone by

1. Isn’t it amazing what you can find on the in-ter-net? It’s like this huge repository of everyone’s crap that get’s accumulated in vast databases belonging to companies that can’t just delete the lot of them purely because they offered free hosting for life etc etc. Take, for example, this little gem I tripped across from my own past.

2. A number of years ago, at school, I was in a band. We played a total of (err…) 3 gigs (I think), and we recorded a demo. We didn’t get very far, but that was mostly due to the fact that none of us were over 18, which makes pub gigs kinda hard, and none of us actually knew how to get a gig in the first place. We did have some good tunes though, and we did harbour dreams of being rich and successful so with the advent of the internet as a commercial product[1] we decided to put ourselves on the internet. So, I whacked up a website, hosted it on my ISP’s server and there you have it, instant web presence! Later (coinciding with the recording of our demo) we moved it to GeoCities and put up four of our tracks in RealAudio v2 format (oldschool!).

3. So.

4. Years passed and about 100,001 computer upgrades later, I was reunited with my old handiwork and 4 lost .ra files. Mind you, I hadn’t really missed them that much, and having found them didn’t bring a great joy one usually associate with finding lost personal objects. I felt great apprehension - what if they suck? It’s been a long time, who knows what it really sounds like? I could’ve been fooling myself for years. Wait - if I could find them by accident then other people can too! Oh-no!

5. Anyway, my capacity for histrionics exhausted itself and with a renewed curiosity I opened the file and listened. I was instantly catapulted back to when we recorded the demo, in living rooms and garages. I remembered when we wrote those songs, when we rehearsed them, when we played them live. I remebered the trepidation of playing original songs in front of other people. After one song I felt the overwhelming urge to create music, to write more songs, to perform them in front of perfect strangers. There’s a feeling of coming around full circle - I’ve always had more interests than hours in a day (or the money to pursue them), this serves to clarify what I really feel passionate about. Maybe we’ll do a reunion tour….

6. Curious? Have a listen for yourself: No1 901kb, No2 1mb, No3 756kb, No4 910kb

[1] Actually, the internet was still a geek’s domain, it wasn’t until a year or so later that it really took off. So yeah, I was a trendsetter!

This was originally posted on 6/1/03, and was one of the entries I managed to save from the meltdown. Told ya I was gonna recycle… :)

Bizarre, encounter two

I received this email sometime ago on an old email account that I check whenever I remember I had it:

From: Telstra BigPond accounts@bigpond.com Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:39 am To: Telstra BigPond member Subject: Sega DreamCast Console

Dear Customer, Sega DreamCast Console

You have been identified as an owner of a Sega DreamCast console with an in-built modem that was purchased between November 1999 and July 2001.  The DreamCast console can give you access to the Internet and web based email.

Sega ceased production of these consoles in July 2001 and since that time, the number of customers using the DreamCast consoles to access BigPond Internet and e-mail has declined to a virtually negligible level.

As a result, Telstra has decided to remove the dedicated servers that support email from your console on 1 July 2003.  Should you wish to access the Internet you can still do so via the in-built modem on your Sega DreamCast and closing the email servers will not affect the game playing features of your console.

Sega DreamCast console related technical support via the helpdesk will also cease after July 1, 2003.  All other BigPond related support would still be provided.

Thank you for being a BigPond DreamCast customer.  Please check on the bigpond.com website at http://www.bigpond.com to see what other BigPond products can support your needs.

Yours sincerely, The BigPond Team

I have never, ever seen a dreamcast that was out of it’s box. I obviously don’t own one, I’ve never played one. I think a mate of mine might’ve had one to use as a linux box. I wonder how they identified me as a dreamcast owner? More to the point, I wonder what else they’ve identified me as?

Bizarre

According to this article in New Scientist, the NRA is sponsoring a bill that will give gun manufactorers immunity from liability for any deaths or injuries caused by their products. While it’s not surprising that the NRA (proving once and for all, that to achieve something in politics you only have to organise a group of people to chuck a hissy fit at more or less the same time) would sponsor such a bill, it is surprising that it’s close to passing in Congress. But then again maybe it isn’t that surprising, considering the membership of the NRA. I thank every one of the higher Deities that there isn’t a similar organisation in Australia!

My favourite passage from that article would have to be this one: “Robert Ricker, a former lawyer for the NRA who has since testified in lawsuits against gun manufacturers, says that when the gun maker Smith & Wesson agreed with the Clinton administration to build safety devices into its weapons, the NRA led a boycott that nearly destroyed the company. The experience has made gun manufacturers wary of adding safety features to their weapons, he says.

Given that a whole lot of guns are stolen from homes across the US, and that those guns inevitably find it’s way into the hands of a criminal (discounting that receiving stolen goods is a crime and therefore anyone who has a stolen gun is a criminal), the NRA blockaded a measure that may prevent a person being killed in a crime of some sorts with a gun that was stolen from that very same person! All because the NRA, in it’s infinite wisdom, sees such laws “as the first step on the road towards limiting people’s right to own guns.”

Dying to protect one’s freedoms is a very noble cause, but isn’t this just a bit stupid?

Nomic

Came across an absolutely intriging concept just now - a game called Nomic. To quote it’s creator, Peter Suber: “Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed.”

Depending on the initial set of rules this could be a very short drinking game or a really long political battle - especially when you add in a money/reward angle like in BlogNomic. And it lends itself perfectly to a closed mailing list situation - or even better off something like yahoo groups so you even have an archive of all the posts. I really wanna give this a go now!

Anyone wanna play?

Generation of taboo breakers are a forgetful lot

1. From the treasure trove that is Miranda Devine, today’s herald:

2. “What a rebel. What an achievement to break a Hollywood taboo and film an erect penis. But what Clark and Greer and Moody and other aged taboo vandals refuse to see is that taboos, or immutable moral laws, were developed for the protection of the most vulnerable members of society.”

3. Taboos are “immutable moral laws”? Really? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “Taboo” is defined as: “banned on grounds of morality or taste [the subject is taboo]“

4. And according to Jeremy Butterfield, the editor of Collins Dictionary, when asked by The Telegraph in London (reprinted in the Herald) as to what gave taboos their “tabooness”: “It’s to do with the majority view that such and such a word is not acceptable. There can be new taboo words, not ones to do with body parts, but ones addressing race or sexuality.”

5. So, we’ve managed to isolate that taboos are words or actions deemed inappropriate by moral standards. But morals are decided by the “majority view”, so it’s reasonable to assume that the majority view would shift over time. After all the majority view not so long ago was that women shouldn’t be working, shouldn’t be allowed to vote, shouldn’t have the same rights as men. So under that view, it would be taboo for Miranda Devine to preach her moral values in the way she has done. Given that the shift towards a more liberal society has given her so much, does it not seem strange for her to preach the “immutable” moral laws?

6. Wonder what she’d be doing right now if those moral laws were so “immutable”.

Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger…

For instant emotion, just go here: http://www.ondragonswing.com/journal/gaggle/archives/002398.html

This thread shows what happens when someone proposes a new line of thought - in this case the thoughts of one Rob Salzman (who owns and maintains AboutItAll.com). He proposes that on September 11 this year interested parties produce a Photo Blog (a photo diary) of their day, dateline 11th of September, 2003, to make it a day of “affirmation and life”. Sounds like a reasonable suggestion - a celebration of life as a tribute and rememberance to those who lost their lives due to a horrible event.

Well, one would think so.

Not so according to the folks in the above thread. They don’t wanna “get over it” (their take on Salzman’s idea), they wanna “grind them into the dirt” and “piss on the people who demand understanding”. Reading through the comments made by several authors it becomes clear that a number of them are regulars - they know each other and are quite friendly to each other, perhaps united by their strong stance on any idea that doesn’t involve militaristic force. Maybe they are just opposed to any forward thinking humanistic ideas. Or perhaps Bush Jr’s brainwashing trick he developed after a weekend of binge drinking and coke snorting at university really does work.

Ok, enough with the jokes. This group of people seems to be oblivious to any sort of solution that didn’t involve a big human grinding machine. To quote one of the comment authors: “Some minds are so set in concrete that grinding them to dust, along with the bodies that contain them, is the only way to prevent harm to self! Those who deny that plain fact are blind, deaf, and dumb, or something similar.”

Maybe that person should re-evaluate who it is that’s blind, deaf and dumb. It’s not that they’ve got the facts wrong, it’s the interpretation of the facts that are the problem. Yes, Islamic fundamentalists are behind the attack on the World Trade Centre (and a little closer to home, Bali). Yes, the people in the Middle East are mostly Muslims (note: MOSTLY). Yes, people in the Middle East aren’t exactly fond of Americans. While all this may be true but it doesn’t mean the only solution is to wipe muslims off the face of the planet.

So, you have a bunch of people who will give up their lives to pursue their beliefs. That’s a fairly strong belief, don’t you think? Isn’t anyone curious about their motivation? Give youself time to think on this. What do you believe in enough to die for?

According to Sun Tzu, a major premise in the art of war is that “…all warfare is based on deception”. He believed that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”. He frowns upon the use of brute force, opting instead to decieve the enemy and trapping him, giving him no options but to surrender. This is in essence how the enemy is working - he is hiding, staying invisible, gathering his resources and striking at unobvious targets when we are not expecting it. We counter by blowing up huge tracts of land and cities and people, hoping we’d get a few of them along the way. Whilst we are doing this, we destroy innocent people’s homes, killing their relatives that may or may not have a hand in any terrorist attacks, and generally creating a climate where they can learn to hate the west. Hate our greed and consumerism. Hate our “freedoms”. Hate us so much that they are willing to die to kill us.

“They” hate “us” because they are told to hate “us”. “They” have been told of the evils of the “west” for as long as “they” remember, so what else would they know? Their minds are set in concrete, but that’s no reason to believe they can’t be freed from that concrete. Is it not time to show them that we are not the evil, capitalist monsters they so believe? It is certainly time for us to see that they are not the religious, intolerant terrorist they have been portrayed. We, too, have been told who to hate. We have been as blind as they have.

Now is the time to open up and accept these new ideas. Now is the time to remember that “they” are people too. The day the world is free from terrorism is the day when “they” become “us”.

The little “essay” that could

1. Tad less than half the required words, but a mark of 62.5%! Who would’ve thought? Did I deserve it? Find out for youself…

2. “If I were a young designer, I would be certain today that my trade is a very difficult one. For it has reached a major turning-point, and nobody quite knows how to bring the many different features of it’s physiognomy into focus, as part of a social situation the connotations of which are too fleeting.” Alessandro Mendini

3. Mendini�s statement with regards to young designers is a pertinent one. In the last century many people have thought, spoken and theorised on design, trying to solve it�s problem and shed light on it�s secrets. What is Design? What is a Designer? Who can be a Designer? Great minds have struggled with these elemental questions � how is a young designer supposed to cope?

4. One solution is just not to think about it. This works fine until, invariably, someone asks you �so, what do you do?� �I�m a Designer,� replies our Hero(ine). The look of confusion crosses the face of the uneducated layman who then asks the dreaded question, �what sort of design?�

5. What sort of design indeed. In such a situation it is reasonable to expect someone to answer by telling them their field of expertise, but that isn�t really answering the question. The question that was asked, wasn�t really the question that should be asked. In a perfect world, everyone would understand that design is just design. Because in that perfect world, there is a perfect definition of design.

6. We should be so lucky. In our imperfect world, we have but a few conflicting ideas, all of which changes depending on one�s point of view. Thomas Hauffe puts design as being �between art�and industry� [1]. Victor Papanek, on the other hand, said, �Design is basic to all human activity. Any attempt to separate design, to make it a thing-by-itself, works counter to the fact that design is the primary underlying matrix of life.� [2]

7. The wide variation between these two views serves to illustrate the difficulties in defining design. While they are not polar opposites, they are nonetheless quite different. Hauffe has design placed on a scale, where one end is pure aesthetics and the other pure functionality, and the challenge is to find the balance in between. His conception of design stems from it�s history, noting that because of the increased division of labour as a result of the industrial revolution (the beginnings of the factory line etc) the first draft of a project and it�s actual production no longer lay at the hand of the same person, and thus creating the basic requirement for the profession of a designer. It is also multifaceted; the field of design has now grown to the point where there are a number of focal points or areas where one might specialise.

8. Papanek differs from Hauffe in that Papanek believes there should not be the profession of design because design is apart of human life. �Design is composing an epic poem, executing a mural �reorganising a desk drawer, educating a child. (It is) the conscious and intuitive effort to impose meaningful order.�[3]

9. So, what is a designer? Hauffe says a professional, Papanek asserts everyone can be, and Mendini believes it to be a tradesperson. Who�s right? Perhaps they are all correct, depending one�s perception. As Hauffe states, ��in principle, anyone who plans and makes something can call him or herself a designer.�[4] On the other hand there are many musicians in the world, but only a select few would call themselves “Professional Musicians”. The most widely held view is that a designer is a professional, just as an architect or a doctor is a professional. While this may be the case, Greg Votolato notes in the introduction of American design in the 20th Century that in the last 25 or so years there has been enormous interest in the field of design and such a simplistic definition is not enough. There is a genuine need for an enquiry into why people design.

10. Votolato proposes that a possible partial definition of design could be that �fun is one of the basic objectives of play; and play can be defined as the exercise of imagination and experiment for personal pleasure.� Votolato draws parallels between children gaining pleasure and satisfaction from making buildings with toys and adults gaining pleasure from planning a new garden lay out, arguing that whilst the end product is important, there is still satisfaction to be gained from the process of planning a creation. In many ways this mirrors the �professional�s� way of working; we all accept that the act of �designing� is really the process of research and planning, not the final outcome. From this perspective Papanek appears to be �more correct� in his assertion that everyone has the innate ability to be a designer.

11. Perhaps Mendini�s idea of design being a trade provides a compromise between the two. While the idea that design is in the same vein as carpentry and plumbing may offend some people�s sensibilities, the idea does have some merit. A trade invokes the feeling of intimacy, a smaller studio where the designers are more �hands on� and craftsperson-like in their work, much like how the Bauhaus was set up originally.

12. Taking a step back and looking at the discussion so far, it�s easy to see that nothing has been resolved. One wonders whether it can ever be resolved � over the course of history the way designers have worked and the output have changed so much that perhaps if we did find that elusive definition things will have changed already, rendering it useless. Perhaps we should instead look at what power we hold in the world, and what we can do with it. Maybe this is the major turning point Mendini was talking about � reconciling design�s many areas and specialties under one name and concentrate doing what we do best. Designing.

[1] Hauffe, Design: A Concise Dictionary, p8 [2] Papanek, quoted from Votolato, American Design in the 20th Century, p7 [3] Papanek, quoted from Votolato, American Design in the 20th Century, p7 [4] Hauffe, Design: A Concise Dictionary, p13

Bibliography Hauffe, Thomas. �What is Design?� Design: A Concise Dictionary. London: Laurence King, 1998, pp7-19. Votolato, Gregory. �What was Design? Who is a Designer?� American Design in the Twentieth Century. Manchester, Manchester Uni Press, 1998. MacDonald, Edward. �The Education of Young Design.� Eye 12, 1994.