Posted 11:50 by Mark Federman permanent link
Vanity of Vanities, All is... Google?

Wired Online reports that digital artist David Sullivan is creating a different sort of high-tech urn for his ashes, after he shuffles off this mortal coil. His ego will live on as long as the world "remembers" him through Google:

"The vanity of death memorials parallels in some ways the use of the internet as a vanity mirror, as shown by the practice of Googling your own name, or accumulating links to your website," said Sullivan. "And a lot of geeky interests, like robots, artificial intelligence, and DNA replication or cloning all speak to the urge for immortality that drives so much of technology."

Sullivan said he wanted to create an urn that was visually interesting, allowed some user interactivity and referenced the physical body. He decided that his remains will be integrated into a computer processor. A virtual agent running on the computer that contains his ashes will scour the web for mentions of his name. As the mentions increase, an on-screen image of Sullivan will morph into an image of his younger self. But if the mentions decline, Sullivan's image will age, deteriorate and eventually fade away.

You can play with Sullivan's image even before he's gone by visiting the online prototype of Ego Machine. By clicking on the plus sign, Sullivan gets progressively younger; the minus sign sends his oscillating image to its ultimate demise.

Ecclesiastes I: Vanity of vanities, saith Koheleth; vanity of vanities, all is vanity. What profit hath man of all his labour wherein he laboureth under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; and the earth abideth for ever. ... There is no remembrance of them of former times; neither shall there be any remembrance of them of latter times that are to come, among those that shall come after.

Ah yes, but the Bible never reckoned with Google!

Thanks, Shannon!
       Technorati-Trackforward

Posted 17:59 by Mark Federman permanent link
Wi-Fi/Wi-Max = Electricity?

Glenn Fleishmann asks us to, Imagine Electricity, particularly in the context of municipalities providing Wi-Fi, and later, Wi-Max as a public utility.

Electricity is too important a resource for America’s future to be left in the hands of cities and towns, the council argues, which are inefficient enterprises that take profits from industry in their pursuit of ever-greater control of the flow of capital within their borders. “How big may these so-called public utilities grow in their efforts to stifle free enterprise and increase the size of government?” the report asks.

The report notes that 97 percent of all neighborhoods in the U.S. have at least one functional electric street lamp running built through private enterprises’ effort, and that some urban areas have two electrical lamps on each corner, as well as lighting available at different times of the day and night both within and outside of homes and businesses.

The report dismisses the concern that in many areas, only a small percentage of all buildings are equipped with electricity and rejects the fact that private utilities in some municipalities only provide enough voltage and amperage to power a few dim lights.

His Honor, Mayor Charles Franklin Warwick of Philadelphia has recently said that he intends to provide universal electrical service, but critics argue that merely providing electricity will not ensure that the “electrical divide” will be bridged because poorer inhabitants of cities and towns will not use their hard-earned pittances to pay for electrical appliances, such as a motor-driven wringer or electrical lamp, much less power. And, in any case, most of them are illiterate and work 16-hour days, and thus have no need for the modern wonder of electrical lighting which would merely disturb their few hours of rest each night.

Wi-Fi/Wi-Max are immensely disruptive technologies, both to cellular/mobility companies and to broadband-to-the-home companies. Here, with Rogers and Bell both in both businesses, each has much to lose, but with the right view and some quick action, both have much more to gain. Resisting what is fast becoming a structuring reality, and attempting to legislate against this tide (as is happening in many places in the U.S.) is a losing strategy over the long run. Instead, both these companies should be racing to City Hall with proposals to create ubiquitous hotspots, and not just for their captive subscribers (I'm looking at you, Rogers).

The days of "owning the customer" are long over. The law of reversal suggests that, unless the providers are quick and clueful, the customers will 0wn3rz them!
       Technorati-Trackforward

Posted 10:58 by Mark Federman permanent link
Connections

It's fascinating to observe the effects of ubiquitous connectivity. While the Internet was originally built as a way for academics to share their data, its ground effects have created what I like to call "pervasive proximity" - everyone is right next to everyone else. For academics and researchers, this is akin to walking over to a colleague and asking, "Hey! Whatcha reading lately?" or, "Got anything on this topic?" Two capabilities are proving their value to academics in providing ways to connect, collaborate and simply find stuff.

CiteULike is a "A free online service to organize your academic papers." It sucks in the titles from a bunch of academic journals, indexes them, and allows users to search on both its collection of article titles, and those other article titles contributed by its users. It allows you to maintain your own library of references, and exports in either BibTex or Endnote formats. But here's the kicker: Like del.icio.us and flickr, it gives the user the ability to tag each library entry, thereby creating an academic folksonomy. For instance, just this morning I was able to find a recent paper I had missed on the hermeneutics of career counselling that I can use in my "natural mode" research.

To find academic writing among the larger universe, Google's Scholar Portal is the ticket. It's been around in beta version for a while, but is tremendously helpful to navigate the tens of thousands of academic journals. Imagine Google pointed at a large percentage of all the recent peer-reviewed articles, and you get the idea.

Both of these work best if you have a connection to a research institution through which you can get access to these locked down, and expensive, journal articles. And there's the rub. As a society, we have created two classes of people - those with the privilege of access to (a certain kind of officially approved) knowledge and those without. Given that the vast majority of peer-reviewed articles are directly or indirectly supported by publicly-funded universities and government-sponsored research, this knowledge should belong to the public (although, I will admit that the publishers legitimately enjoy a copyright over the printed or imaged versions of what they produce). This suggests a need for a publicly-available repository for research to which the public has contributed. Here in Canada, there is a whole lot of federally-funded research through SSHRC and NSERC. It's time for some of this to be made available to more than the privileged, so that everyone can enjoy the benefits of the connections that pervade our contemporary society.
       Technorati-Trackforward

Posted 10:42 by Mark Federman permanent link
Former PM Shows His Balls! Hearing Room Howls!

Here in Canada, the "best seat in the house" is one at the Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, involving millions of dollars of government money that was supposed to be used to sell the idea of national unity in Quebec finding its way into the pockets and coffers of Liberal Party supporters, and their companies. Yesterday’s testimony starred former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and provided some of the best political theatre - and Menippean political satire - in years.

Before Christmas, Justice Gomery made some remarks that many felt inappropriately demonstrated bias for a commissioner heading a federal inquiry. Among several controversial remarks, Gomery commented on the fact that the government paid thousands of dollars for golf balls imprinted with the Prime Minister's autograph. His comment: "That's small-town cheap." This is a particularly biting remark, given that the former Prime Minister's personal trademark is that he is "the little guy from Shawinigan" (a small-town in Quebec).

Yesterday, at the hearing, Chretien had his Menippean moment with a wonderful piece of satire that, true to Menippean form, assumed an unusual position, and used the ridiculous to highlight the hidden ground of the powerful, in this case, of a potential conflict of political interest behind both Commissioner Gomery, and the commission's lead council, Bernard Roy:

Asked by his lawyer, David Scott, whether he had any examples of these gifts, Chrétien sighed theatrically and reached into his briefcase.

"Yes," he said, clicking open the latch and hauling small boxes out of his case.

"I have a ball here with the seal of the United States and signed by a Texan by the name of George Bush. ... I have one here signed by a gentleman from Tennessee, named (former vice-president) Al Gore, with Capitol Hill on the ball."

Scott tried to stop him there. "No, no, it's too much fun," Chrétien said.

In an obvious jab at Gomery, he said the next one came from "a small-town guy from Hope, Arkansas ... signed Bill Clinton and the seal - the seal of the president of the United States."

Another one came out. Chrétien said: "Here I have another guy from Texas - from small-town Crawford, Texas - George W. Bush, with the seal of the presidency and his name signed." Then came one from the ex-president of the Philippines.

But it all built to the climactic flourish, a golf ball emblazoned with the name of the law firm Ogilvy Renault - the same Montreal law firm, Chrétien delighted in pointing out, that is home to chief commission counsel Bernard Roy, former prime minister Brian Mulroney and Gomery's daughter, Sally.

"You cannot call them small-town ... To call them Westmount cheap would be an oxymoron," joked Chrétien, referring to Montreal's famous wealthy neighbourhood.

Classic Chretien!

CBC's The Current will have a stream of a wonderful satire of Chretien's satire posted (it comes just before the end of the first half-hour of the broadcast) here by tomorrow. A sample: "Mr. Prime Minister, what else do you have in your briefcase?" "Well, der's ma briefs - Fruit of de Loom ... and Gagliano! What arrr you doing in ma brief case? You are usually in my back pocket!"

       Technorati-Trackforward

Posted 10:34 by Mark Federman permanent link
Democracy, American Style

In the euphoria surrounding the recently-completed vote in Iraq, and its use to finally - finally! - give justification to a still-costly (in both dollars and lives) and escalating war/incursion/liberation/occupation (take your pick), my skepticism and cynicism was working overtime. You see, when one sees an exclusively Western media that has become somewhat problematic, given concentration of ownership and radical application of FCC sanctions in the U.S., unanimously reporting on success, and large voter turn-outs, and the beginnings of democracy in the Middle East, one learns to take such news with a large pinch of salt. Make that road salt.

So now we hear reports that, indeed, Baghdad is closer to Baltimore than we thought. For example, there is the admittedly legitimate claim that the majority of the population boycotted the vote, so its validity as the expression of the free will of (all) the Iraqi people must be called into question. As well, polling places, particularly in Sunni areas apparently ran out of ballots. Well, if it's good enough for Memphis or Miami, it's good enough for Mossul. More egregious and disturbing, however, are the reports that Iraqis who did not vote were threatened with having their food rations withheld. When being offered the chance to vote in an occupied country, where the occupier controls both the leading candidate and the source of food, can true democracy be far behind?

But all is not complete despair. This story - although it is one belonging to an ex-pat Iraqi - caused me to smile.

Still, the ink is barely dry on the mythology being scribed this week about the emergence from tyranny into democracy for the Iraqi people. And soon, in order to ensconce that mythology firmly in the minds of American voters, there will be this, coming to your local Fox affiliate. See local listings for dates and times; please check your critical thinking at the door, and pass the remote.
       Technorati-Trackforward

Posted 09:52 by Mark Federman permanent link
Same Sex Groundhog Day

Seems appropriate, eh? If the Parliamentarians emerge today, the day after legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada, and they see the shadows of impending doom, they will hurriedly retreat to the safety of their Centre Block offices on Parliament Hill. Or something like that.

The debate over recognizing same-sex marriage reveals much about the ground of this country, and reveals the future that is, in actuality, our experienced present.

Extensions:
Naturally, it extends marriage rights enjoyed by heterosexual Canadians to all Canadians, without taking those rights away from anyone. It extends our notion of family, rather than destroying it, and enables children of same-sex couples to feel included among their peers in belonging to a recognized family. The bill just introduced extends the pressure to commit, now only enjoyed by heterosexual couples, and used almost exclusively by recalcitrant (often live-in) boyfriends. More significantly, it enhances and intensifies the principle of the Constitution being the supreme law of the land - above what even a democratically-elected majority might want. This is an important principle in a modern democracy: The measure of a country is not so much whether the majority can rule, but rather, how well the minority fare under the rule of the majority.

Reversals:
While it newly grants rights to some Canadians, it removes the putative right of religion, in the name of religious freedom, to dictate the behaviour of all. Actually, I'll admit that I'm having trouble discovering the reversals, although we know that they do exist. Reversals suggested by those opposed to the legislation - such as Stephen Harper's attempt at linking same-sex marriage to polygamy - doesn't stand, since all aspects of the tetrad have to be empirically based.

Obsolescences:
It obsolesces the exclusivity of religious definitions of marriage and family, of this there is no doubt. Equally, there is no doubt that this is a threat, not to the family, but to the political influence wielded by would-be neo-conservative, radical fundamentalists - especially those in the U.S. - who would hope to export their influence to Canada. (Okay, that's a little strong, I admit.) Notwithstanding that, we should take careful note of the equivalence between the desire of some Americans to export American polico-religious values and the desire to export American foreign policy to Canada. The proposed legislation also obsolesces the somewhat laissez-faire attitude among some homosexual couples who may be commitment averse - "I would marry you, sweetheart, but it's not legal."

Retrievals:
The big one for me is Trudeau's famous, "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." It also retrieves the decades-old struggle for recognition of homosexuals as something other than sub-human (this morning I heard a CBC clip from 1959 in which people were calling for homosexuals to be "locked away" in something akin to an "insane asylum"). At every stage along the way, the decline of society was predicted by those who are repulsed by homosexuality - for either religious or other reasons - when homosexuality was no longer a crime, when employment discrimination was ended, when pension rights and survivor benefits were extended, and when same-sex couples were allowed to adopt and raise children. As I look around, I see a society that is, in most respects, stronger and more vibrant than it was back when I was a child.

What is telling, however, is the change in attitudes that has occurred over the generations. In the 1950s, homosexuality was considered disgusting and repulsive. By the late 1960s and into the 1970s, homosexuality was treated with tolerant apathy: "So long as they don't touch me and stay away from my children, I really don't care, and don't want to think of it." Today, this apathy has flipped to caring - yes, caring. We, as a society, care enough that this legislation has finally been introduced in the House. We are framing this issue as one of human rights, and even those opposed are using the argument of civil/human rights versus religious rights. The debate is not about sex or sexuality, althought there is clearly a sexual subtext at play. Rather, the debate - on both sides - centres on rights, inclusion, and ultimately, the social policy position of Canada relative to the rest of the world.

It has been said that Canada is the exemplar of the 21st century country. Over the next few months of debate, we have a chance to see just what the 21st century might look like.

Update Andrew Chrystall sends this suggestion: "Was reading today an old MMcL article called "Rousseau and Geneva," dated around the late 40s early 50s wherein he suggests a possible reversal: The state as religion (?) ... Which is great for anyone who wanted to blame the govt for the weather and or any other natural disasster. Voting officially became prayer, policy is liturgy and..."

To which I would add, the Supreme Court becomes the Vatican or Synod. Of course, looking south, with the expectation of new appointments by Bush the Younger to their senior bench, that metaphor is starting to look particularly apropos. Thanks Andrew!
       Technorati-Trackforward