« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »

April 28, 2005

voo ja day with U2

One day at the flaky college I attended for the first two years out of high school, I was "studying" pop music with a flock of other students. We were informed that the primary role of pop music was nostalgia. This immediately got my dander up because it implies that the music has no inherent worth, that it is disposable other than the projections we bring to it. In other words, I felt my taste had been insulted. What I didn't know then was at that time, I was still in the throes of experiencing the things I would be nostalgic for later. So my reaction to the concept of nostalgia was purely theoretical, I had not experienced the time travel through decades that can be triggered by a certain smell or song. I had not experienced how powerful and affirming that dynamic is. Now, rather than feeling pity for those who rally around these nostalgic bands like there was nothing new under the sun since college, I feel empathy. Was your experience as strong as mine? Was your experience as personal? This connects me to others who look back on their lives through these triggers, and is another dimension to nostalgia's power. In other words, I'm all for it.

The interesting thing about U2 in concert is obviously, as members of the band they are people as different from who they were in 1983 as I was. They are in the position of being U2, in that bookmarked iconic way we refer to in our own memories, as well as in the position of being themselves which is, like all of us, dynamic and unpredictable. One description I heard once of successful fashion - as in clothing fashion trends - was as a designer, you had to provide enough of the familiar to let your customer identify with the piece, and yet also add the right quantity of unfamiliar in order to push your customer's boundaries and allow them to frame their life wearing this new article of clothing as a life where new things can happen. Too much of the old, or too much of the new, and your items will remain on the rack. Every new U2 album must proceed in this context, where we all crave the familiar, and yet want something new to happen, just not too new please. It's not that we're conservative, it's that the dynamic of nostalgia is just too personal, too powerful, and in many ways we treasure it more than current life experience. These are the golden handcuffs of pop music, shaken and shrugged off by artists like Beck who completes albums off the path that we know he will be returning to.

The reason why we spend $100 a ticket and more for a dinosaur concert like U2 is few other bands can use music to replay our personal history in one concert. It's an intensely personal experience, and yes, perhaps the music does not always merit the reaction, but it's as close to "this is your life" as it gets.

But back to the band. The reason I'm not titling this blog post "deja vu" is that the band has moved on. The actual band U2 is not hanging out, dwelling on the 80s and wondering how to use their music as a more powerful reflection mechanism for their audience. In many ways, the band has moved into the future, and performances of their new work is like seeing a message from a future time, princess-leia style, which acknowledges that this is the time, right now, that we will feel nostalgia for later. Instead of "help me obie-wan kenobi, you're my only hope," we have the posture of mic stand tilted, the singer's hand grabbing the base of the mic, his leg triangulating down and chugging away. The message is, and I paraphrase, "This is a pivotal time for us. We are able now to make a crucial choice. History will judge us based on what we choose to do about the poverty and disease in Africa."

Dang, his crystal ball is good.

So now we have the band laying out our past, through the inevitable feeling of nostalgia, as well as laying out our future of being accountable to our choices. Talk about moving on. And yet, in the concert, I look around at all the fans, wondering if they possibly have a similar personal experience. During that long drought between 1981 (I was 11) and 1992 or so when U2 did not perform in Seattle/Tacoma even once, did these other fans seriously consider "running away" to nearby Vancouver or Portland in order to see them? Even at 11 I could see how flawed my plan was, that no lie would cover up for the missing time, and then there was the matter of the $15 ticket (Canadian) for the concert itself. The day came and went and I remained stranded down here, only hearing about the "good show" as it came to be defined and redefined by this band, through the overheard words of friends' oldest of older brothers. Did these other fans have the experience of listening to "Gloria" at 6am on their paper route, just when the fallen leaves start to freeze so that your footsteps could be heard through your headphones? It's not really possible that we have all that in common, is it?

What we do have in common is a need for words to turn into action, of a bracelet on our wrists to turn into a way out of poverty for someone else. We want to never be so calloused that we can watch the news without tears. We want to be regular people, and what we are finding out is becoming regular people is just as hard as becoming strikingly successful. The challenge of turning a place into a community, whether the place is a blog, a bar, or a stadium, rests on our ability to retain our sensitivity and channel our reactions into useful actions for others.

I don't know what actions will help. I turn the news off, because I cannot manufacture the tears. The tools available for us to take action vary, ranging from airplanes to text messages. We can help from that intensely personal place, in cherishing all our direct relationships, and we can help from a very public way in the varying formats of broadcast communications. The future might remember us for the latter, but we will feel nostalgia for the loving moments more dearly.

April 27, 2005

road hazard for media

When buying tires, I always sign up for something called "road hazard." It costs maybe $15 per tire. This covers the tire over a certain timeframe in case of accidental damage. Tires have a certain lifespan, perhaps 50,000 miles, but it only takes one shard of metal off of a semi to turn even a new tire into trash. I imagine this road hazard program was developed by tire store owners who see the same customers come in all too often. The unlucky ones like me who seem to run over everything. Perhaps they decided they no longer wanted to feel the brunt of this customer anger. It seems to work, at least for me. I choose a tire store near a mall, thus negating both the time and financial cost of tire replacement. It's definitely worth the money.

What if we could buy road hazard for our media. For those of my readers who are generation Y and have never purchased a CD from a store, I will walk you through how that process would work. You go into a CD store with something specific in mind. This is either an artist you are familiar with, or heard on the radio, or had a recommendation from a friend. Because the music is so loud in the store, it is not practical to audition your choice before purchasing it. Since the choosing and audition stages are removed from your buying experience, the whole process is quite short. You pick your CD and go to the front counter. $16.99. Would you like insurance with that CD?

What, you ask? Insurance? Yes, the clerk tells you. For an extra $2 you can have your CD insured with FancyPants Insurance Co, who will replace it for free if it is ever damaged, lost, or stolen.

Cool, you think, I'll sign up. Tower records now gets $16.99 of your money for the CD, the profits are distributed through the usual channels. Tower also gets an additional $2, of which it keeps $0.50 as a finder's fee. The rest goes to FancyPants Insurance Company where they note your purchase next to your (non-PII) username slash guid.

This media insurance program is based on the principle that legitimate purchases of media should still be yours. It is a way of moving media out of the same ownership space as a car, where possession is 9/10 of the law, and into the similar ownership space as intellectual property. When you purchase media, you are purchasing a license to use this media according to what is determined to be fair use. You are also incidentally paying for a fulfillment service, where the licensed materials are pressed onto a CD for you and handed to you in a yellow plastic bag. Insuring your media is a recognition that possessing the media is transient, and should be a relationship between the supplier and the customer, rather than the customer and a piece of plastic. Plastic can be damaged, lost, or stolen. A license exists outside of physical space.

Let's back up and look at intent. When a supplier sells me a CD, they intend for me to be able to use it fairly. They don't intend for me to become a distributor myself, or for me to "sublet" the cd to the person who happens to steal my car. They also don't intend for the rights to this fair use to disappear when someone's toddler decide that CDs make great "skis" when used to skid across hardwood floors. The situation is even more ripe for a road hazard type of insurance arrangement, because unlike car tires, fulfillment of a replacement CD is a fractional copy of the retail price. The tire store still has to cut down a rubber tree, which should be expensive, but burning a new CD back at the plant is negligible.

Let's look at what we have done. 10 years go by and I purchase insurance on all my new CDs. This turns out to be quite a collection. Then, I lose all my CDs in a tragic bear accident while camping. Let's just say the bear won. I call up FancyPants Insurance Co and tell them I've lost everything.

No problem, they say. I can use my username and password to download all tracks for free from their server, or I can have the CDs burned for me at a cost of $.50 each. Shipped as a group, all shipping will come to $15.00.

Now wait a minute. You mean I can buy insurance on a CD, and then it also means I have download rights to those tracks? Yes. What if I only choose to download some of the CDs I previously owned? No problem, just download the others later. Are you saying my entire music library is already online, and legal, and all I have to do is ask for it? Yes, Tower records thanks you for your business over the past 10 years, you're good to go.

The thing to understand about this media insurance idea is that fulfillment can be optional. You're buying a license, and you can have the media any way you like it. It's only fair, right?

Even more fair is now the bear who took your CDs will have no access to downloads or replacement, because his name isn't on the list. Those CDs will last only until he decides to damage them, if you are a bear you will understand this will be fairly soon. Another fairness: libraries or other lending institutions will no longer have to assume a certain level of media degradation, once they buy a license for a certain piece of content, it stays with the institution. Similarly, it is also fair that if I loan a person a cd, I only loan them the media and not the license that goes with it. If they accidentally move away with my cd in the truck, they can't replace it if it gets scratched.

Another powerful thing about this idea is people make money at the point where we sign people up. Unlike DRM, which is a defensive mechanism for preventing initial theft, media insurance is an added value that customers can purchase to really become collectors, as opposed to consumers. Tower and FancyPants Insurance Co both make money in this example. It is easy to see how you could apply insurance to iTunes or other purchased downloads... if your hard drive crashes, you will get access to the material again for free. If a track is $1.00, the additional insurance could be $0.50 and worth every penny.

Another powerful thing about this arrangement is the information would be centralized. No matter what the source of the purchase, whether over the counter, or online download, if you signed up for insurance and FancyPants has your track list, this is an established license relationship. There would be no problem buying a single on CD, and following up with buying the remaining tracks online. Or vice versa, where you have purchased the single online, and are now waiting in line to buy the whole CD. You should not be charged full price for this CD. Another advantage of the centralization would be flexibility. Perhaps you would like your own XM radio station with only your music library playing.

But the absolutely most important thing about this arrangement is that fulfillment - the act of getting the goods onto a media device - is optional. The net effect of an insurance program for media is that it works around roadblocks in the existing digital rights management space, and allows users to purchase exactly what they think they are purchasing: a license. Yes, we can call it insurance for a while, while we are getting this thing off the ground, but it's really a license management system that's profitable in and of itself. Some people might want to buy the license without ever getting the CD. It's a solution that's pro-consumer rather than defensive. And it would make gobs of money. Who wouldn't want to support that?

April 26, 2005

update

Just a quick post while I have batteries. The reason why I haven't been able to post is not just the new rules, but also we have had trouble with our connectivity at home. The rules are working great. Today I was observing how different it is to be with the kids when I'm not trying to do something else at the same time. Different, nice.

There is lots happening, it is mostly coming out in my cooking. One night last week I was mired in a personal trauma and so I cooked. Midnight saute madness. Today it was a porketta roast, and chocolate chip cookies. Chicken is in the freezer marinating (?) in oven roaster bags, ready for the delay-cook setting on a workday.

U2 concert last night. Lots on that, as well as a new business idea that will rock your world. No, I haven't forgotten you!

Follow-up on multitasking with kids:

I saw Brooke Shields on Oprah when I was home sick this week. She brought up, one indication that her depression was going away was she wasn't trying to multitask* while feeding her baby. Those of you who are parents, do you think this is an indicator of something wrong, or are we just natural time optimizers and nobody should take it personally?

*Brooke wisely avoided the nerdy terminology and said "doing something else at the same time" instead of "multitask."

Follow-up on the chicken:

It turned out tremendous! We have now eaten both birds. If someone had explained to me how you can seriously marinate something in the freezer, and then roast it in a plastic bag, I would have thought they were crazy. Now I'm all about saute and oven bags.

This time, I did things a little differently. I started two sautes at the same time. One vaguely asian, the other vaguely italian. For both, I started by scalding some bacon in the bottom of the pan, the better to de-glaze you with my dear. Then, the oil. Asian was sesame with canola. Italian was olive with canola. Both pans got a whole onion and some garlic, the Asian also got ginger. When stirring, I made sure the burnt stuff got all involved. Once the onions were cooked I added the acidic stuff. Asian got soy sauce. Italian got marsala wine. This time I skipped the "poultry seasoning" for the italian, not sure if this was the secret ingredient, but it does turn things a little greenish. We will see.

While this is cooking, I start washing all the chicken, drying it (this is important!) and placing the parts in the plastic oven bags. I used best-of fryer this time, because I got a great deal, and I prefer it to roasters because it's less mess. When both bags were equally populated, I poured one saute into each, tied the top with a twist tie (remember to remove before cooking), and shook things around a bit to get some coverage. Then, into the freezer.

This morning I set the frozen package in the oven on time delay. 3 hours at 300 degrees, to be done at 6pm. Yes, I could come home to the house on fire. I could suffer some intestinal malady due to the parts defrosting too fast (not in my cold house though, I think), but I could also come home to dinner. As I said, we will see.

Obviously I haven't solved the personal trauma yet.

April 21, 2005

Nate's String Quartet this Sunday

The Odeon string quartet is opening for Wayne Horvitz and Robin Holcomb this Sun at the triple door. They're playing one of Nate's pieces "Init" (yeah, how geeky). It's about re-creating synthetic sounds through natural instruments. Here is some info:

Set One: odeonquartet

Morango...almost a Tango Thomas Oboe Lee
Init Nathan Grigg
Skies of Thunder Moon Stuart Diamond (world premier)
Mountain Language III Wayne Horvitz

Set Two: Robin Holcomb and Wayne Horvitz
CD release concert featuring music from *SOLOS* (Songlines)
on the Triple Door*s Beautiful Steinway *D* piano.
At the end of the set the odeonquartet will join Mr. Horvitz and Ms. Holcomb for a short movement
from Whisper, Hymns and a Murmur (Horvitz). The work, for String Quartet and Improviser
was premiered in spring of 2004 with Eyvind Kang as improviser.
This performance will feature Holcomb on piano and Horvitz on electronics in the improvising role.

Here are some links:

For more information, visit www.waynehorvitz.com, www.robinholcomb.com and www.odeonquartet.org

Show is on April 24th, 2005 $16 7:30pm

April 14, 2005

I like TRC Chapter 3

Yes, it's true. I read it and learned a lot. Some quick notes:

* Please no more postings with double spaces. It makes it hard to read online. I know publishers love it.
* Regarding the story about Shel and MCI "We don't care if the other people don't like the calls..." : I would like someone to explain to me why traditional media thinks is great to carpet bomb us with brand awareness campaigns for products there is a net zero statistically significant chance of us buying. Like the IBM campaign where all the guys do is think about servers. What is the value of raising brand awareness in this way? How can it possibly merit a superbowl ad? This seems to me like money going down the drain via traditional channels. Help me understand!!
* One paragraph struck me as difficult. It's the one that ends with "Free vs. $3 million a day? You choose." I have a super hard time with this socratic method. It sounds very sales-y. It's difficult to read. It is a little condescending and I know you guys don't mean it that way. The reason it's condescending is, if we were to answer "3 million" to that question, we would be stupid, so the only other choice is agreeing with you. It's a sales tactic used to get people to say yes in tricky situations. I think we can do without it, you had us at hello, as it were.
* Another paragraph ends as "Skype recently announced it will begin brand recognition advertising and promotional campaigns. How big an investment this will become, and whether it is a wise strategy remains to be seen." You could take a big tangent here and talk about underdog companies. I remember when RN was the underdog, and we (I was there at the time) had no plans to do any big marketing campaign in traditional media. Every user was our friend. Then, suddenly, we were evil. How would things have gone if we had built up a traditional media following by then? Unknown, perhaps you have access to underdog examples if this is an interesting topic.
* Last comment is on a paragraph ending "But none of this matters unless the product or service is really remarkable." I can't help but think about how the social software saga is playing out for Robert (hmm, can't find the post), as well as for Russell. I have yet to fully understand Russell's second post on the subject, which re-positions the issue like you do, around being central to friends and not to a service or company. But it sounds like the trail was cold for him already. Perhaps you can piece this together?

illusory progress

We have made some big changes here. Some new rules, and they're the hardest for me to follow. They are:
1) No computer when the kids are awake
2) Kids to bed between 8 and 9
3) No family TV except between 7:30 and 8 on weeknights
4) Grownup shows watched on tape only, and only after kids are asleep
5) No burying your face in a book either, when the kids are awake
6) Grownups to bed early to take advantage of school opening at 7am, time in the coffeeshop together until 8:30.

Now, as for TV and books what this has done has addressed my hefty sense of entitlement to be entertained when I get home in a way I expect. Being more in the kids' face is also entertaining, but a little less comforting because I don't know what to expect. It's certainly not the sit back, relax type of entertainment.

Not being constantly on the couch with the laptop open, now this is a little more serious because that makes me feel productive. It's illusory productivity - in many ways blog readings and entries are down payments for something you don't know whether will pan out or not. But like a video game, or a good antidepressant, it filled the void of "am I productive" with a resounding yes.

Now, of course, I see how little I truly do. Line up any one of six major trajectories I'm managing, it's not a stretch to say I'm stuck on many of them. This occurs to me sitting on the floor enforcing the no hitting rule. Going back to blogging-while-parenting would quell that panic. But I didn't know until I stopped.

April 12, 2005

Radiers Adaptation: Childhood well spent

Now that I am one of the few people who have seen the Raiders: Adaptation movie, I feel it is a privilege to write about my own experience of this film coming into my worldview. How it intersects, how it tangents, and what I can personally learn from its existence. I write in this weblog more like Dominick Dunne, where every incoming item is filtered through personal experience, than like Jim Windolf, who I can tell is a real journalist, reporting the facts of the case and letting the rest of us fit our baggage into our own overhead bins. Watch out when opening them, though, that baggage might fall on your head! Another reason why I am a blogger and not a journalist, other than having no qualifications to the latter, is I am egotistical enough to think that the real story IS my own personal baggage surrounding the topic at hand, colliding with my head and perhaps risking my personal safety. The facts are just facts, but the real story is in the interpretation and application.

As mentioned many times in this blog, I am well past miniskirt age, and perhaps grappling with that more than I would like. Like Chris Strombolis once reportedly (in Jim's article) said to Eric Zala, I have definitely sold out, chosen the corporate universe, with its unruly orbit of two stars: mortgage and paycheck. The mortgage being a red hot supernova spewing hot lava and toxic gas. The paycheck being a white dwarf, practically invisible, with somehow just enough gravitational pull to keep the mortgage-star from careening into a black hole. But barely. And this is my universe, where skirts are low, age is recognized, and my head turning this way and that as I watch this cosmic game of tennis between the two major stars that embody my corporate sell out, as Chris might have characterized it, 10 or so years ago.

Given these factors I was nonetheless granted access to a private showing of Raiders: Adaptation by virtue of my Microsoft e-mail address. I signed up for two tickets. I told my dh, that if he wanted to see it with me, on what unfortunately turned out to be a glorious and sunny Saturday afternoon in Seattle, he would need to find a sitter. I gave him a list of names. Then on the Wednesday before, I told him that it was officially the last minute for him to find the sitter. He made one call and waited for that person to get back. On Thursday I sent out a mail to a group of FOAFs (friend of a friends), asking if anyone wanted to go with me instead. I immediately got a reply back from Nancy, who is a former FoxPro MVP and currently makes a nice living rescuing FoxPro projects for midsize businesses.

My internal preparation for this event involved racking my brains for an episode of This American Life on the subject of Adaptation, which it turns out I hallucinated. The episode, as I remember it, was an in-depth coverage of the Adaptation crew and their antics. Lamenting the absence of audio tagging, I trolled through the archives on the TAL and the NPR websites, never getting any search results for my entries. TAL tends to name the shows obliquely, so a show dedicated to Adaptation might very well be titled How to light yourself on fire and live to tell the tale, where three disparate stories of fire-based troublemaking would be placed back to back. All fine and dandy if you're looking for a tale as your keyword. For search results where you don't know the answer, it's completely useless. Even worse that we, as geeks, have not solved this problem for a show this good. I am always sad to reach my destination in my car if TAL is on. Come on, geeks, we can solve this one! But I digress...

Over coffee, before the screening, Nancy and I had each listened to the wrong parts of a different TAL from last Friday, where a performance art group posed as hardcore fans for an unknown band, giving them the show of their lives. Neither of us could piece together the whole story in a satisfying way.

What I remembered from the in-depth Adaptation episode, which turns out to have actually been an article in Vanity Fair, was the following:
* Two boys' entire adolescence captured on film in this staged way (true, but more like 4 boys)
* Love interest / triangle between two of the boys and the actress for Marian (true, without which likely the Making Of would not hold nearly so much promise)
And that sketchy memory was enough to make a fan out of me.

After finishing coffee, Nancy and I return to the new digs of the Northwest Film Forum to take our seats. For me, the building will always be the Art Satellite. For while Chris and Eric and Jayson were starting to get on each other's nerves, in that building me and my friends were undergoing similar changes. For example:
* My childhood chum Joel, who should have gone into film makeup and will always hold such promise in this direction no matter how old we both get, used this space to make the most exotic plaster casts of himself and others. I suspect he used dental plaster and not superheating industrial plaster like Eric had to suffer through.
* It was in that building that I had the first class where we sat around in a circle on the floor and talked about our feelings. Unfortunately, it would not be my last class of this type.
* I practiced and auditioned in that building for the part of Adelaide from Guys and Dolls. I forgot the words during the audition. The part went to a deserving petite redhead named Rachel. That song remains trapped in my memory, and now lives on as Product Managers Lament for Microsoft: The Musical, which I would like to say that I am in the middle of writing but that would be putting it optimistically.
* During a performance in that building of Godspell, a classmate of mine lost his mind, we all thought, playing the lead part a little too convincingly.
* For the first time, in that building, I placed my head on the chest of a young man I was smitten with, and listened to his heart beat. Due to a security screw-up recently, I now have his current e-mail address, which I will not use because I don't have anything to say. But perhaps someday. Until then it sits in my outlook garbage can. Perhaps my address is sitting in his.
* At a high school reunion, I was shocked to see that a picture of me in the part I actually got for Guys and Dolls - a chorus girl, in fishnets, and hair piled on top of my head - was blown up larger than life size and placed at a prominent position since approximately the time I had graduated. Think of all the circle-time classes subsequent students had to put up with, talking about their feelings, and then having to stare up at me in my fishnets. The example of school spirit Oh, the humanity.
Based on all that baggage, I couldn't tell whether seeing Raiders: Adaptation in that space was a fitting coincidence or not.

So. You will remember that Planet Mortgage burns like a red hot burning thing. You will therefore understand how I squirmed through the lovely and enlightened folks at NW Film Forum a) not asking for any money at the door for the tickets, and b) asking us all for fundraiser-grade money later at the beginning of the show. I felt like I had stolen the ticket, because even if I gave three or more zeros, I do not have the power as a v- to tap into the Microsoft matching funds. Nor could I offer anything other than the most laughable number of zeros. Perhaps what I can do is to post my story here, hope someone from MS will read it, and offer to be my match-buddy for the 10 bucks I have free to donate. Hey, it could work.

Finally, with Chris's admonitions that the film was the worst video quality imaginable and also the worst audio quality imaginable, the film started. He was right. We forgave him, much more readily than we would forgive ourselves. And this is the key to the entire experience, for Chris, and for us: bringing this film into prominence is a way of processing each of our own childhoods in the same way it was useful for Chris to process his. For example, an essential part of childhood is boredom. You're ancy, you want something to fill the void. The counterpart to boredom is obsessive activity: the train of dominos that is set up over the entire house, the chemistry experiments comparing the sound cake mix makes compared to water when stuffed into a water balloon, finding a primo set of blackberries and the secret stump which gives you the leverage to reach them. Yeah, life gives you classes titled Social Studies, which sound much better than they actually are, but with these powers to overcome boredom, anything is bearable. The pee-chee gets more and more obsessively detailed as you slump in your chair like your dad was the unabomber. Adaptation is a celebration of kids overcoming the primary dynamic of childhood: boredom. And, as I told Chris later after the film, it's very impressive. We could hardly get it together to build a rope swing. And even then, we got busted.

The film is framed by text at the beginning and the end. The beginning text scrolls by as a tribute to the real Raiders and its effect on the Adaptation filmmakers. Then, immediately, the audience starts laughing. The jungle scene video quality is almost indistinguishable from a greenish magic eye painting. We get our first look at this new Indy from the back, and his shrug-shouldered followers have a sense for slapstick. They all look about 8 and 1/2, the age where the 1/2 still means something. This in and of itself is funny. We see Indy pack a sack full of sand, and this time we know why he is doing it. The sack is the kind usually used to carry around collections of marbles. They enter the cave, which resembles a homespun haunted house that some lenient parents would let kids build in their basements for Halloween. We see Indy, this new Indy that we haven't quite bought into yet, dance across the checkerboard of loose bathroom tiles and make it to the statue. The statue is probably a pumpkin. It also has a more convincing incarnation, but our first look of it is as convincing as the Tick's Little Wooden Boy. Which is to say, not very convincing at all. When the sack of sand sinks into the ground, the escape scene plays out and the audience is at the edge of their seat waiting for the boulder. Finally it arrives, round and white, as ceremonial as the new year's ball on times square. Chris runs to the left and is backlit by this white round thing on his right. We applaud.

The scene at the school begins, which is where we see Chris's real work in imitating Harrison’s every gesture. NEOLITHIC. The girls do a great job of looking smitten. The text on the eyelids is illegible. The council of nitwits from the government is fun to see, the boys not any older than in the jungle scene, and they seemed grateful enough to have memorized their lines. All but Indy rush through the verbal text, and one boy seems smallest of all, in round Harry Potter glasses and a shrunken too-small frame. We see him later on, in the final council of nitwits at the end of the film, where Indy is told the ark is "safe." This little guy looks all of a sudden like he drank from the "drink me" bottle. But I digress. In both scenes, a heavy dictionary is useful, perhaps stolen, I know they wouldn't let me actually touch mine in my middle school, they were too expensive. Pasted in is a fair approximation drawing of the original "ark" reference picture that Harrison shows. The drawing is so good, it carries the scene.

It's about this time that it occurs to me, one way of making a film would be to do the script, and the storyboard, and then get a bunch of film students to do it on the cheap as a class project. If the film still holds up at zero budget and zero experience, you have a winner. This student film would have passed that test.

Now, the amazing things start happening that awe the audience. We are thinking: How did they pull this off? First, a rolls royce shows up. Then, the actors get on an actual airplane. A map of the world is ruined by a green pen, then a red, scribbled with general intention toward the destination and occasionally correcting itself, ending with a blotch in Tibet. The bar scene starts, and just like in the real Raiders, the whole film lights up when you meet the girl. Of course, she has my exact hair that I used to have in the 80s. Both the long and the short versions. She reminds me of Missing Persons, of Belinda Carlisle, of Berlin, of comparing how long your tail was with your friend before the bell rings. Mostly she reminds me of that old Behind the Music footage of No Doubt, where Gwen is singing awkwardly onstage similarly groomed. Note to self, time to cancel the cable before your life slips down the drain. But this young actress is remarkable in the way she can convey to us how familiar all these things were, so long ago. Watching Adaptation, it doesn't matter how much we are bringing to the experience from our personal life. The film is so humble, it welcomes this type of derivative experience. So even though it might completely be projection on our parts, let's give this young actress some credit for reminding us of who we were. Another note to self, too much talking about your feelings leads to writing like this.

As a mother, the bar scene in Adaptation is incredibly frightening to watch. You want to give your kids creative freedom. You want them to grow and make mistakes and have perseverance. You want them to aspire to ideals before they wise up and learn better, and hope in a way that they never learn better. But honestly. The scariest thing about the fire scene is the feeling - nay, the knowledge - that it happens in realtime. You know that this is not a special effect, that 2 seconds with an arm on fire is really 2 seconds, and therefore incredibly scary. At the end of the scene, the whole room is on fire, our jaws are on the floor. When Marian says she's Indy’s new goddamn partner we feel slightly vindicated. Someone had to yell at him after all that destruction.

Cairo is where we actually start to buy into this new Indy. Sure, he's short, squishy, has the wrong coloring, is way too young, he looks almost completely wrong. But there is the rapport with Miriam, and the dog, the kidnapping with the baskets (who knew so many laundry baskets could be rounded up?) was all done very well in Indy's favor. They light a truck on fire, which is one thing, but also this Indy is in agony before it, and believably so. So we're sold. Also at this locale we start to see the first of Belloc, played by Eric, who delivers great lines. My favorite line he says is "blow it back to God" later in the canyon scene of the movie. Indy has his most confident and believable performance just pausing, looking out the window, before his dates get poisoned. Now that Eric is on the scene, we wonder just for one second what if the actors switched roles? But then Chris lets loose with those eyes, the classic Indy "pools of mystery," and mountains are moved with just a few facial expressions. We are behind Chris 100%, carrying around that dog on his shoulder, and we applaud with relief at the "bad dates" line.

Some logistics come into play at the rogue dig site. First, a Nazi flag. How in the world do you come by such a thing as a kid. You would have to make it in secret yourself, no getting someone's mom to sew it for you. Sitting in your closet, that's a school suspension just waiting to happen. Worse, it's probably a newspaper story. Grounded for life. Devastating. Nevertheless, it shows up. The hole to the map room is a pile of freshly dug dirt on top of a painted cardboard box with a round hole in the top. You're supposed to only see the hole. Chris lowers himself into the box, attempting to not scrunch up, because presumably of the long way down. At the dig site, they pull off a great scene at sunset, with people working, the sun going down, and Indy taking his hat off in silhouette form.

Some observations during the Mariam drunken seduction scene with Belloc in the tent. One is: perhaps, if this film was any better, the outcome from Spielberg would have been more along the lines of cease and desist rather than good job. The rawness of the film is a major asset. Another is my own personal memory of watching this woman get crushingly drunk (supposedly), for the second time. She uses liquor for her own needs as an expression of her own personal power. Note that this never happens in real life. I believe that watching her in this scene is the exact moment where I formed my belief that alcohol can be a fun thing to consume. I still have had no life experiences to back up this belief. More grandly, this film formed in my mind the definition of what it meant for a man to be attractive. Harrison, in all his ganglyness, was simply IT. 12 years after seeing Raiders I went off and married the guy who looked the most like Harrison Ford who I could catch. So in a way, perhaps my own life has been crafted more by this movie than even Chris or Eric's. In the meantime, our audience gets a laugh out of the coathanger gag.

The white dress, by the way, is stunning. Completely accurate. And works well with the shoes, one of which is of course claimed for cinematic effect by the snakes before the other one. Indy and Miriam spend some time in a basement falling from the ceiling, scattering water on snakes using a canister of herbicide, and building up realistic feisty-romantic banter. They manufacture a totem pole thing in said basement, which of course is completely ridiculous, and use it to smash down a wall of breakaway bricks to escape.

At this point, we are completely behind the movie. It starts feeling like a ritual, similar to Rocky Horror Picture Show, where the acting and storyline can be incredibly derivative and still have ceremonial value. It reminds me of the holiday Festivus, which is actually a real holiday made popular in a Seinfeld episode. First there are the feats of strength, then there are the airing of grievances. A pole is erected. Someone places a clock in a paper sack. These are irrelevant activities with no context or fanfare, but meaningful because of repetition. I imagine a new kind of Raiders festival that takes place on a holiday that we could invent, where we have the breaking down of the wall, and the kissing of the elbow, and the catching of dates in the air. The family meal for Raiders night is brought out after everyone takes a turn riding in the laundry basket. It's just a thought.

Belloc gets a lot of scenes in the desert. He is very handsome as a teenager. His hair is unfortunately blow dried, but given that it was 1985, this is easy to overlook. He has a very good accent. I wish he had remembered the word com-fort-a-ble in the same way I did, though. The actors are all older now, visibly. Which explains how the truck scene was even possible. The filmmakers now know how to drive. Lots of dangerous things happen in the truck scene. I should note that I completely fell for the special effect they had of pushing or pulling the truck to simulate it driving. If this spoils the scene for you I am sorry. If the filmmakers had access to a truck with an engine in it, they would probably been driving it without hesitation, so perhaps you can feel the same fear I felt just thinking about that possibility. When watching, I could have sworn they were driving at least 10mph. So my heart was in my throat as one kid jumped into the truck from a tree, and Indy slid ironically underneath the truck and was dragged behind. Kids jump off the truck into water, I think. The whole thing looks very good, very dangerous. Possibly the best executed scene in the film. Lots of audience applause.

Okay, the cabin scene on the boat. This will be more interesting in the making-of movie. Indy does a little too good a job of sounding tired in Adaptation, something Harrison seems to convey at the same time as he conveys romantic interest. Completely forgivable, I know I try often to convey both at the same time too, and tired always wins out. Chris's bare chest is something that we are used to at this point, and we cut him a lot of slack. We are so rooting for him at this point that we just let the whole thing go, as an A for effort, and prepare to be impressed by Chris climbing up the side of the bad guy's boat in a very young and spry way after the famous quick swim in the ocean. Mariam continues to look stunning this entire time, and her confidence grows too. I remember feeling sorry knowing the movie was almost over, I wanted to see more of her growth as an actress particularly. Or, perhaps, as a projection of my own young self. Either way.

Just as the bad guy's boat lands, we get our first overhead shot. It's like an aerial shot except of course no airplane. We see the lackeys bring out the ark and start to carry it down the canyon. Indy holds up the operation with a section of plumbing, and of course he brings out the classic "pools of mystery" for effect. Once opened, the ark shows everyone what looks like blue sheets flapping and flipping around various characters squirming and falling to the ground. It turns out, that is part of how they did the effect. Go Eric. Toht meets his end first by having something the texture of green kefir drool off the brim of his hat. There is a cutaway, then back to Toht but this time it's a rib roast with a hat on it. There is the second meeting of government nitwits where the extras are now twice as tall as they were at the beginning of the movie. And the ark is wheeled along, and put to rest in a refrigerator warehouse. We have been told to sit through the film’s credits, and they are a wonderful expression of the project. Everyone's name appears several times. There is an injury list. We deduce a little from the Making Of by noting whose dad is listed under Transportation etc. And then it's over.

Chris was there to answer our questions, and there were many. He walked onto the small stage to big applause. His appearance now is crisp, urban, not arty at all. Seems like a man who visits his barber on schedule, and knows the value of a shave with a straight edge razor. Perhaps the Indy mystique is still with him a little in our minds. He is capable of pulling off a tucked-in shirt with a belt, which is to say you could not really call him pudgy at all anymore. Not really. He has perhaps not the cheekbones I imagine Eric might still have, but a good face for TV or video. His expressive eyes are no longer the "pools of mystery" that characterized both Harrison and Chris's versions of Indy, but they still are vivid enough to hold up from behind a set of glasses. He tells the story of Eric getting his head plastered. He tells the story of the film coming out of obscurity. Two new tidbits which you might not have heard about though. One is, that they decided not to do the shot with the bald guy getting chopped up in the airplane propeller, because they did not have an airplane. There was talk about using a miniature, but in their teenage logic, they thought it would "look really bad." Can you imagine, lots of your project looks like a magic eye painting and you think the use of a miniature would look cheesy. Word to all project managers who have lost perspective. This got a great laugh out of the all-MS audience. Another tidbit was how deep in obscurity the film really was, before it was discovered. In fact, Chris says, when he got married, his wife didn't even know about it. That produced the largest gasp in the audience for the afternoon. Can you imagine. Actually, we sorta can.

Milling about the lobby I asked Chris: Is this it for you, are you always going to be the guy who did Adaptation? What could be next? He said it wasn't so bad, he doesn't mind if this is the thing people think of him for. He has a career going in LA in video, and no complaints. The thing I realized is, for some of us we would have a childhood-self and all those adventures, and then the grownup-self who hangs up the superhero cape, and goes about our day job getting fat. (Gosh, who do I know who is doing this. Hmmm. Could it be ME?) Chris isn't doing this, there is no distinction between the person who made this movie and the person presenting it a decade or two later. I'd be interested to see if the other major characters had such a continuous identity. Then we talk about raising kids, which he doesn't have yet, and fear of giving them a chance to explore the world while at the same time keeping them safe. (See my link above underlined word boredom) Chris agreed that this was a major asset to making this movie: a small town where everyone knew everyone else, and loose-at-best parental supervision. That combined with free exploratory time in the Mississippi wilds. I know I can never recreate the freedom of his or even my own childhood for my own boys. However, I know I would rather have them setting a basement on fire than clocking in 10 years of video games. This is coming from somebody in the industry, even. But it has to be someone else’s basement. Easy to say now, when they're little, but truth be told I am seriously conflicted about the issue. I suppose I have another 10 years to think about it. For now I have Chris to thank for setting such a vivid example of a childhood well spent.

April 09, 2005

you say swami, I say...

It's been a week since I attended a lecture on Intuitive Management presented at Microsoft by Sri Nithyahanda. The title was a winner, I liked the description, and it was open to all-MS (not just FTEs) so I figured what the heck. However, if I had bothered to look at the website, I probably wouldn't have gone. I would have thought "Been there, done that, went to Evergreen." Evergreen is the hippy-dippy college I transferred out of after 2 years, where it's superimportant that we get over our cluelessness regarding: politics, spirituality, the food chain, other cultures, the works. The effect on me was to turn me from a natural optimist about everything, to only an optimist about subject matter, and pessimistic about the people driving it. That pessimism is only now thawing out. But you see why I would avoid everything surrounding these topics.

Unbriefed, I came to the Microsoft conference center and sat down near the front. The audience was perhaps 2/3 non-white, and by non-white I don't mean Asian or Black but that other category of the non-white world that I have not the education to characterize. And there was "Swami" looking, I now realize, nothing like his cosmic photo on his web page, where he has something retouched in the typical way where the beams of light are coming from behind him like a 14th century Russian religious icon. No, this was a man with long, flyaway black hair, killer cheekbones, and a luxuriously decorated tunic and pants thing going on. He had his eyes closed for a while, and then started to engage with the helper-types to get ready for the presentation, showing us an amazing smile with the almost jack nicholas curve to the edges of his large smile.

So, in my classic style, I list here some notes I took (and will honestly probably not follow up on), but post here for whatever use they will be. I mark my ideas with EG, and Swami's ideas paraphrased by my faulty memory by SP.
* The definition of recklessness is: did the action you took, when acting on intuition, work? If not, it was reckless. [SP] Funny after-the-fact categorization. [EG]
* The definition of instinct is does it come from a base physical impulse. Wanting to smoke is instinct, same as physical hunger or wanting to punch someone in the face. [SP]
* The definition of intellect is: are you confused about it, is it complicated. If so, it comes from the intellectual space. [SP]
* The definition of intuition is: is it correct (not reckless) and give you a sense of peace [SP], as well as lack the distinguishing characteristics of the other 2 spaces covered above. [EG]
* When making a decision, often I draw up a set of pros and cons for 2 directions. This results in a 4 square grid, with analysis in the boxes. This is the intellect talking. A way to make a decision based on intuition is to only complete the top boxes, which lay out the 2 directions to take. Set them in front of you and decide which you are drawn to. Then assemble proof for that decision after the fact. [EG]
* A quote for me to use by a character in any book I might ever write: "Jesus has gone and left my life, so honey you had better step up." [EG]
* Someone asks the key question "what happens when your intuition is wrong?" I am not sure there was a great response to this. The answer was something along the lines of, if it wasn't correct, it wasn't intuition. But said much nicer and not as blunt. [SP] But I think this after the fact justification does not sit very well. I would rather say: your intuition was telling you something of a general shape, such as "move your physical body more." You decided to give it a specific shape, such as "join a rugby team" where you might give it another shape, such as "change apartments." The intuition is right, but our interpretation can be mistaken, as you might think while examining your bruises from rugby and wonder what is it all for. [EG]
* Making Art is the act of inviting someone over to express themselves, even though you don't know who they are. Making Art is sending this stranger a gold embossed invitation and handing out the hospitality. Even if they are rude bastards with no taste. [EG]
* He handled a very tough question with aplomb. "What is the difference between the inner world and the outer world?" This of course is a very involved and interesting philosophical question. We first need to examine whether we recognize the presence of facts that may be outside the realm of intellectual proof. Our answer to that question (yes, we recognize, or no, we don't) will be very telling for us personally. However, it should be known that there is no difference between the two worlds, that there is one world only. [SP]

And with that, there was a threat of a meditation lasting 15 minutes, which was my cue to leave the room. You can take the girl out of Evergreen. You can take Evergreen out of the girl, too. Buh bye.

2 new subs this am

I sent out a request to greg to be part of the newsgator beta. This may or may not fix cases where, like last week, all of the msdn feeds reincarnated themselves and began the walk of the waking dead around my newsreader. Even Chris Brumme's feed skulked about with its 2004'ness all bandaged up. It was a horror show.

That phenomenon, combined with the inability to mark my entire "news" folder as read via right click in Outlook (you try it... not sure why it doesn't work but it doesn't), led me to delete once again all local copies of feeds. I rightclick on News and select "Delete 'News'" in which it prompts to confirm and I say yes. Then I go into Newsgator, where it psychically has detected that the News folder has moved into the garbage can, and it would be happy to download all additional feeds into the garbage can thank you. I wish the post office offered this service, but no, this is not what I intended. Open Newsgator preferences, create a new News folder in the exact same place, and I'm off to the races. Wonder who stayed home last night instead of driving around, contributing to road rage?

There is something about throwing all your old stuff out. It makes you feel like you have so much room now, room for more feeds to read. So today I subscribed to sanforth.org, which has a sensational design I simply must copy whenever I get around to overriding defaults on my mt 2.61 installation. The title is TivoLution which perhaps means it is about tivo but broadly, media. The other new subscription is the Never Eat Alone blog, which I'm frankly subscribing just for the title. I love taglines based on a central concept that you can remember. Like 43 folders.

April 08, 2005

half the reason we look so smart is the other guys are off their game...

Is it possible that the failure of traditional print media, and the failure of the electoral college, are both examples of the anthill no longer holding relevancy for us ants?

There is a long discussion of anthills in ZAMM, where the protagonist talks directly to the anthill. It is an intelligent being whereas the ants themselves are not. The anthill is deemed to be intelligent because, despite no central organization, it exhibits self-preservation and self-awareness qualities.

So when the electoral college exhibits low self-awareness (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain) and low self-preservation (overruling the popular vote), and traditional print media does this too (by being selfish about content, and not admitting the ship is sinking) we have to conclude that the ants must be getting smarter. At least, by comparison.

like a jingle

"Getting divorced won't make any difference. All you do is check the 'married' box instead of 'single' on your tax form. No big deal."

"Oh, of course we can stay married, because I was under the impression that the checkboxes were FAR APART."

This is a certain kind of logic, there's a name for it. It's not quite contrapositive, but what is it called?

April 07, 2005

a little more of firefox

They do search really well. Not the kind of search where you can build a business from it, but the kind of search wherer there is simply a feature to find a certain word in a page. Things they do well:

* Find in this page... is the name of the menu item. Now, this is slightly broken because the convention is, if there is an ellipsis, there should be a popup. But at least it's not chickening out, reinforcing the confusion that Microsoft does (is it Find or is it Search?? Oh well, let's put Find (on this page) as the name of the menu item). For the record, the convention is Search for items on the internet that gives a list of results, and Find for items on this document that will be returned in-line highlighted.
* Now that you're in Find, look at what it does. A bar comes up at the bottom of the screen. Because I was expecting a dialog, I did not initially notice. But clever Firefoc developers knew this, perhaps with or without usability testing, and flashed the text entry yellow for me. A very good use of something normally irritating (as per Outlook). Flashing yellow should as a rule never be attempted. This is the first time I think I've ever seen it work.
* Then, as you type, it scrolls the document forward to your next candidate that is a match. Very slick.

So guys, I get it. This feature would never be written at MS this way. But I still need concrete examples like this in order to root for the product.

April 06, 2005

left hand mouse

My right hand has clicked the mouse button since I was in nappies, and the finger has quit. It actually quit years ago. I am right handed, but I'm a left handed mouser.

When I get a new job, though, I forget. My hand feels fine. I leave the mouse on the right side.

Then, it feels a little funny, so I bring my trackball from home about the same time I bring the other personal items I plan to bring back home in a box when I lose my job. The picture of dh making me crepes on xmas morning, back when we were living at our best friends' house. Adorable wallet size photo of the boys. Big one looking charming, he's learned to fake-smile so that you wouldn't even know. Little one with eyes open, a curious grin. I also have some awful desk cruft - a calendar with some embarrassing stock footage - a former vendor gave me (and a zillion other people) as a holiday present. I keep it around to remind me to nag them to complete their report already. As well as a reminder of mediocrity and the cheeziness it can produce. I have the channel 9 guy this time. He doesn't need such a large box, but his head does tend to fall off. This time I also have walking shoes and the cd player. All the items waiting to come home with me again, in a box that I hold, riding silently down the elevator. That swift solo vertical ride in the middle of the day, e-mail account no longer working, and no one watching you leave. These items seem destined for the box even as I take them out. Especially the trackball, which I still leave on the right side this time, perhaps out of recognition of the transience of this work.

Now about 4 months in, I can't believe my hand has lasted this long, and I can't believe the damage. Why would I even bother with the right side when I can work the left just as well. Don't ask me to do anything else with my left hand, but scroll and click I can do fine. I'm even a decent left hand pixel push. So I switch the buttons on the trackball, and switch sides. This point in time, I feel like an information worker, like a factory worker, striving for ergonomic balance and productivity with rosie the riveters everywhere.

Speaking of workers, I took note of this article of Scarlettina's (via Anita Rowland) discussing the endless spiral of contracting work. I read it twice and had a thousand reactions, all of them mild, but intensely personal. Today, for example, I was not allowed to attend a lecture because it was FTE only (that's "Full Time Employee," a phrase I always found slightly insulting. As contractors we work very hard and eat at our desks, not wanting to have to clock out for that hour. The subtleties.) On the surface my experience differs from Sacrlettina's in that I am thrilled to be working here, and think I can do extraordinary things from where I am. I was actually thrilled to get this specific job. I see it as something that can go somewhere, and not necessarily a stagnant position. I hope I haven't interpreted her wrong. But below the surface my experience is similar. There is a distance there, of feeling a bridesmaid, and the sense of entitlement is there too, of knowing I'm good enough, and smart enough, and gosh darn it... I'm weak to it.

I wonder how many FTEs would be weak to it too, if they had to re-interview for their jobs the way some suggest. But that's toxic thinking. It's better to think of the future. It's why I didn't participate in the permatemp lawsuit. It's why, with a nod to the days when all we asked as members of the workforce was a living wage with a high school diploma, I move my mouse to my left side. 20 years down at the plant. Here's to another 20.

April 02, 2005

archaeological theories

Years from now, when alien archaeologists are piecing together our fascinating culture from a few corrupted files on the global internet cache, they will look at this and wonder:

1) Is it a foregone truth that Jay is never ever the person having the massage?
2) Or, occasionally, does Jay get the massage and this message changes?
3) If the former, then why doesn't Jay have any time? Is that the problem? Or is this a fish / bicycle thing where Jay doesn't need a massage because he is so relaxed already dammit.
4) If the former of the former, then who took the trouble to register this very indulgent domain name as a kind of Lenin Communist statue representing, well, one of the three things above?
5) Perhaps it is "art"
6) Not enough klatchnik-funds in this alien's archeology budget to track down possibilities to every branch of this inquiry. End of transmission.

intranet(sp)

I have unfortunately misplaced the source who referred me to this article on IncSub. Initially I mailed the link to myself, expecting to place it in the teetering stack of my "Blog This" folder. However as I read the article thoroughly, I realize this might be my first true opportunity to cross-post between this blog and my internal work blog. The topic is primary to the latter, and to this blog you just have to file it under the inevitable 20% (okay 40%) of material arising from any weblog these days that discusses the medium rather than the message. You can swear you're not going to do it, blog about blogging, then you have to go ahead and delete that post too. Best to just get it out in the open.

I like the thoughtfulness of this article. The thinking is very clear. It's a great example of being interesting just because the ideas themselves are interesting, and not necessarily because you jazzed up your writing with a bunch of slapstick. Like I just did just then.

What's so interesting about, uh, centered communication, you might wonder? Boy this is a long article. It just goes on and on. And the pictures are more like diagrams, not much spice there. But give it a chance under the right context. Pick it up when you're between novels (me, I just finished Chuck Palahnuik's "Lullaby" and I don't think I like books anymore), or in the evening when you can't sleep due to daylight screwup time. The concepts here unfold in a way that's steady, familiar, and welcoming. You won't want to skim a word.

The first place the author starts is putting blogs (ahem, we mean online communication) in an architectural context. Now, before you run off to interpretive dance class to catch up, this actually works. The architect quoted is the author of the famous "Pattern Language" used by hippies and UI designers alike to communicate the relationship of subject to object. Before you can say "form factor" you come to this stunning quote:

"A tree, to Alexander, is a system where ‘no piece of any unit is ever connected to other units, except through the medium of that unit as a whole’."

This got me thinking pretty hard. I still haven't really climbed out of this one, in fact. What is the distinction between the individual and their online writing? Because honestly, I don't feel like I'm connecting through a medium. It feels medium-free, like talking on the phone. And through the end of the article the point I think is proved that any online communication system will be more of a natural fit for people if it IS the person up there in print / video / rss. And that says worlds about intranets, about bureaucracies, about InfoPath and SharePoint and status reports, bug databases, the works. An organization might wish to capture team-specific "tribal" knowledge, so an intranet is created, with features, and made to look professional, objective, and impersonal. It's a business objective is to de-personalize the information, because that's part of the problem, isn't it? If superstar developer Ted were to jump ship, the organization should still be able to refer to his knowledge set in an indexed, searchable, and neutral manner.

The trouble is, Ted long ago lost interest in posting material to the intranet that was created. It made him feel like one of the stylists at supercuts who could never use their last name, could never establish a track record attributable to himself personally. It's not just that Ted has an ego, it's more like the intranet doesn't have any credibility because it's not a person. He doesn't think his ideas look so good coming out of that neutral mannekin's mouth. (Mannekins don't even have mouths, do they? Creepy.) So the information just isn't there. Now, if Ted jumps ship, Suzie the new person coming onboard wants information. Suzie was not born yesterday, and she'd be thrilled to wade through Ted's own website, complete with off-topic rants and favorite lunch menus, as a source of how to get the credit card system back online. Thrilled. This is the value of asynchronous but PERSONAL centric communication, is it has a value over time due to the strength of the information. Asynchronous but impersonal communication has as much value as the location of an anthill to an ant. It's at the wrong scale.

The next stunning quote is:

"... in order to communicate in an online environment such as a discussion board or chat room an individual needs to determine to visit that area and then act accordingly. This is not dissimilar to asking each employee or student to only communicate with each other when in a seminar or meeting..."

Can you imagine: "Sorry Suzie, I appreciate you coming to see me in person, but let's talk this over in the meeting with the entire group. That's the format we've been asked to discuss these matters in. Bye now."

This is a big vote for medium-free communications. E-mail continues to bloat and be disorganized because in many ways, people are the sum total of their inbox and outbox. This is why spam is so personal, they're scribbling this junk on YOU not just your inbox. Using e-mail is an identity shift similar to putting on the uniform and punching in at the taco joint. As soon as the communication, the "capture" method if you will, of this team-specific knowledge starts to feel like an intermediary technology, then the technology has already lost. In this case, the word transparency means not the dissemination of truth, but the sheerness of the method of dissemination. Like e-mail, with blogging you have to be reminded that the membrane is there, that the membrane is in fact only semi-permeable. You don't have to blog everything (despite the hypothetical "nobody knows I'm a blogger" t-shirts we wear). You don't have to have your e-mail client open all the time, twice a day will do. But we forget, because it's so easy, because it's expressive of who we are, and we have to force ourselves to stop, our faces pressed against the glass of the store window, sure that we alone posses the capabilities of navigating Tiffany's with panache.

So, read this article slowly if you get a chance. But first look up: Ontological. Epistemological. Subvert.