And When was Data Ever Correct?

Ironic - I was thinking about how to trust online data, and there goes Rob beating me to the punch! But seriously, how do we know that any data is correct? I mean, I BELIEVED the encyclopedia was correct when I was a kid, but now I understand that encyclopedia writers are just as human as the rest of us. Case in point, I was listening to one of Stephen Hawking's latest books (I'm a book on tape fiend), and he started explaining current theories of space-time. Then he blantantly said (I'm paraphrasing here), "So what you learned in school was wrong - sorry..."

So it makes me think and/or wonder if the Internet, when taken in total, might be a bit MORE reliable (I know, imagine that). Here's what I mean: basic journalism tells you to always find at least two confirmations before writing it down. But when doing research in a traditional-book-mode, it becomes cumbersome to do this with every little fact. So you trust that the author(s) did the checking for you, footnote the source in your paper, and go on your merry way. But with the Internet and current search engines, I can often find many sources by typing in a few keywords. Now since I know that each individual source may or may not be reliable (see Rob's note below), I'm going to spend a few minutes checking the other sources for confirmation of information. In that way we all become active consumers of knowledge, testing facts against each other rather than accepting them. Interesting, no?

Of course, the cynic in me just assumes that we'll be lazy and just get it wrong all the time, but oh well...

And on a side note, I too hope the Internet never replaces written media; somehow curling into an easy chair by the fire with my laptop and a good web page isn't the same visceral experience. And I could never have imagined getting through the brand new Harry Potter book online - that site would have crashed in a heartbeat!

How Precious is Your Data?

Quick thought today - is data (information, knowledge, insert synonym here) less or more precious in the digital age? I mean, we've always asserted that "Knowledge is Power," but now we have the possibility of having so much knowledge at our fingertips that we might take it for granted. I remember when I was a kid in school, going to the library to research was sancrosanct. You'd go in, consult the card catalogs, pull down tomes of encylopedias, and take notes inn a silent room. I mean, could it be more like a church? For goodness sakes, when you graduated you put on priestly robes!

But now, I can find the same information ten times over with a quick jaunt to Google. This happens while my iTunes are blaring Public Enemy, my email is getting my correspondence, and a game of Sims is in the background. Very pedistrian. And I must have as much data sitting on my hard drive as that encylopedia once encompassed (of course, who can say how much of it is "worthwhile" data). All it would take is one good lightning blast and years of notes, projects, art, etc. are gone like ashes. Transient (unless I do better on my back-ups, but who does that consistently?). So when you add this all up, does it mean that we value knowledge less because it is too easy, too transient, and/or too much?

P.S. - in-joke for Rob: Knowledge Reigns Supreme Over Nearly Everybody...

Phone-bia

I realized something yesterday - phones scare me. I mean, if I have any other way to interact with someone (email, go see them, send carrier pigeon, whatever) over calling them, I'm all over it. Strange, no?

I think this comes from two personal tendancies. The first is that I'm an introvert and hate interacting with people, especially people I don't really know (okay, one may now ask why an introvert is starting a blog, but I'm sure that's worth another separate entry and years of therapy!). But the second reason, I think, is more interesting. I find talking to people on the phone incredibly, incredibly awkward. I mean, how many times have you called someone and then got stuck with pregnant pauses, unsure of what to say next? You know, you wish your Dad a happy Father's Day or call an old friend to wish them a Happy Birthday, and the moment you have said, "Happy Birthday" you're hemming and haughing on what to say next? Not that every call is like that - sometimes you can sit and talk with someone intensly for hours. But the awkward times are so awkward as to turn me off from the experience. And now with email, instant messaging, and the like, I can still converse with people, just not with actual sound.

So my question is, is this just a personal quirk, or is this something endemic to the phone as a medium? Does the phone itself encourage or create the awkwardness, with all of us standing around listening and waiting for someone else to say something? The phone demands so much of us when we use it (focus on conversation, shutting out of distractions) that each pregnant pause is an eternity; the same pause at the dinner table is just a good reason to move on to dessert. Or do I have a phone phobia?

Harry Potter - no Digerati

Okay, I admit it, I was one of the geeky millions that pre-ordered the latest installment of the Harry Potter saga; right now I'm halfway through and enjoying the guilty pleasure immensely. But it struck me - not a single computer in the whole Harry Potter world! What's that about?

So it got me thinking of the popular films and books currently bopping about, and they seem to come in two distinct classes:

1. Technology is Evil - from Matrix Reloaded to The Incredible Hulk, we see nothing but technology screwing with our brains, our bodies, and whatever is left. Very dystopian, very dark, very anti-tech...
2. Technology? What's That? - Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, numerous upcoming period pieces, you see a lot of books and movies coming out/resurging that our based in our pre-electronic past. I mean, I haven't seen Frodo whip out his cell phone yet, have you?

So is this just chance? Or do we have a collective need to avoid or fear technological change. I mean, how more relevant could Frankenstein be in a world of genetic testing and biotech engineering? And it makes me wonder: has any author/director/artist articulated a plausible, enjoyable, and positive view of a technological future? Or are technological futures just banal - much more fun to run from Agent Smiths...

Analog Habits Die Hard

Part of my job as the web designer for Virginia Homes is to travel each week to every home being built and photograph it. I then take these photos back to the office and upload them to the web, where home owners can see their new house under construction. Nice gig, and gets me out of the office on a regular basis. Now often, I will encounter the different tradesmen and subcontractors while photographing, and they inevitably (and politely) strive to stay "out of the frame" - much like how people jump out of view when tourists start taking snapshots.

So here's the weird thing - I'm using a digital camera to do this. In the past, jumping out of the way showed consideration to the photographer; each shot that person took was one less piece of actual film being used. A photographer had only 24 or 36 shots (on average) on a roll, and it cost hard money to develop each and every one of those shots. So jumping out of the way was not only polite - it saved the photographer money and other resources. But now that I'm using a digital camera, this isn't the case. Three button presses and the photograph is deleted into the void, and with current memory cards I can store hundreds of shots before having to swap media. So while I may not want every Tom, Dick, and Harry wandering into my shots, it's not a big deal anymore.

Yet this is behavior which I don't see changing, at least not for a long, long time. I mean, it's habit - we've all grown up with traditional cameras, and I'm sure the majority of cameras still in use employ actual film. Still, I forsee film being used less and less every year - it won't be too long till most cameras are digital in nature. So will we hold onto this polite dance we do when someone pulls out a camera? Will we continue to treat the camera as an analog medium, though the new generation of cameras have few of the limits their predecessors had? How hard is it to change memorized manners and behaviors?

Note - I probably should state that I am not advocating not getting out of the way of photographers; it's still a polite and considerate thing to do. I certainly plan to continue the behavior. It just seems anachronistic, that's all.

Deus Ex Machina

I've been listening lately to Stephen Hawking's book Universe in a Nutshell, and today he began to muse about the growing complexity of our own evolution and the evolution of our "electronic" creations. It made me realize once again that there is a great fear that our machines (computers, robots, refrigerators, what have you) will overthrow their creators (again, us) and rule the world. Now most of the time this is a proposition, that while ominous, which is jolly fun; just look at the Matrix and Terminator movie franchises if you think otherwise! But in musing today, I now wonder if this is just an irrational fear. The argument, to me, seems to fall into three flavors:

1. I'm an Idiot Theory - It seems that most people assume that humans, in general, are idiots. That we make things with no regard to their meanings, implications, or even results. And that eventually we will stumble across making a machine with enough intelligence to clone itself, overtake us, and either enslave or kill humanity outright. Now, I'm not one to defend the intelligence (or lack of) of the human race; certainly we can all come up with examples, either individually or as a group, of people being idiots. But to project that upon every member of society seems an overgeneralization. I've got to believe that some of the people who are not idiots are also some of the people involved with A.I., computer design, and programming. Hopefully they'll be intelligent enough to pull the plug? This idea is also a bit contradictory - it states that while we may be smart enough to build a complex, thinking machine, we're not complex enough to protect ourselves from them. Call me crazy, but the protection instinct seems WAY less complicated than a microchip - all I need to take out my laptop is a sturdy hammer...
2. Fear of Creation Theory - Let's call this my Frankenstein Theory. It works a little off the above "I'm an Idiot Theory" and looks something like this: Man makes creation, creation gets pissed that it's creator isn't perfect, creation rips creator to shreds (either literally or metaphorically). So why are we so scared of our own creations? Is it a fear of the imperfections of ourselves? I mean, if we actually met "God" (in whatever incarnation you prefer), which would we do: a) fall down in a mixture of awe, disbelief, and/or praise that we'd met our creator, or b) rip him to shreds because we found our Junior High years SO imperfect? So then why do we think that our creations would be so pissed at us that they'd eradicate us or our way of life? Sounds a bit Freudian to me...
3. Logic is God Theory - This one comes straight from the Enlightenment, the idea that the universe is some expression of supreme logic and order (whether divine or otherwise). And since we build computers and such in the spirit of mathematical logic, they will eventually replace us because they, as it were, are closer to the language of God. And that they'll just create even smarter computers - we won't stand a chance and go the way of the Cro-magnon. Okay, haven't we learned already that it's hard, very hard, to create something from scratch that is better than you in every way? When's the last time you've had a philisophical discussion with your computer? Or composed poetry with it? Or romance? Sure, my computer whips me every time we play chess, but let me tell you that that's not too hard! The only creations we make that can sometimes surpass us are our children, and even then it's a crap shoot. And we didn't use blindingly elegant logic, it had to do with a messy thing called sex and years of trial and error, not to mention millions of years of evolution. Yet we seem to fear that once the computer is given free reign, not only will they comprehend themselves to clone themselves but that they'll improve on the design and replace us...

Now, I'm as paranoid as the next body, and loved having my wits scared by those squidy things in the Matrix. But it does seem that imminent predictions of our demise by the machines sells human potentiality short. Still, I might consider keeping a wooden bat next to my CPU, just in case. And watch out if they co-opt our pets in the cause; then we'll really be in trouble!

Suprised? Well....

Well, the news that the web design world is waking up to (unless, like me, you're really a geek and check the news over the weekends) is that Microsoft has decided to discontinue development of the Internet Explorer Browser for the Macintosh. Now as I'm a dedicated Mac Geek, this should be affecting me. However, I long ago ceased using IE on any platform, Mac or otherwise. The truth is that while IE had been a groundbreaking browser, especially on the last Mac release, it has long since been eclipsed by other third parties (Safari for the Mac, the Mozilla Project, Opera, you take your pick). So when Microsoft says that they think Mac users will be better served by something like Safari, I wholeheartedly agree with them (hard to admit that I'd agree with MS, but there you go).

What I find more disconcerting is that this seems to fit into a series of recent predatory moves that Microsoft has taken. Let me list a few...

• Microsoft discontinues the development of Macintosh Internet Explorer, further isolating the Mac Platform from mainstream software and acceptance. MS does promise to continue development of Office for the Mac, however...
• Microsoft buys the leading Windows Emulation software company for the Mac (makers of Virtual PC); for the time being they promise to continue development...
• Microsoft buys a leading Linux developer whose main product is Linux Anti-Viral Software, than plans to discontinue the AV software
• Microsoft begins paying licensing fees to SCO for Unix, strengthing SCO's claims of ownership of the Unix code and thereby the threat of legal action against users and distributors of Linux (which SCO claims incorporates copyrighted SCO Unix code). Many folks see this as a way to help SCO make it's current legal case against IBM and in general weaken the position of Linux and Open Source projects in the world at large.
• Microsoft begins slashing prices on software which has competition with Linux, including Developers SQL Server (by over $400 dollars). They also establish a special fund to use in discounting software when signing contracts with large enterprises (governments, etc.). All of this follows a memo where Steve Balmer specifically indentified Linux as a threat to MS.
• And the capper, rumor has it that MS will soon discontinue the development of a stand-alone browser for the Windows (that's right, Windows) platform. If true, it means the ultimately the only way to get a new browser would be to buy a new copy of Windows itself.

Now, taken separately many of the actions seem either justified or benign. But together, it appears to show the same pattern of predatory practices that landed MS in the courts before, only this time there seems to be no push by the government to respond. Now, for legal reasons, please don't trust or quote this - go to the source. Most of this info has been gleaned from email me and I'll do what I can. Now the point of this is not to sound like a raving paranoid, but I do have to admit that it all smells kind of fishy...

June 15 - Fathers' Day

Good morning all, and a Happy Fathers' Day to you. This being my first Fathers' Day (my first child was born June 2), it got me thinking about how one of the most interesting digital things I created didn't require a computer or special training at all. For what is DNA but sets of digital bits, replicable and and with error sum checks? So that while we still see the world in analog terms, our basis is digital in nature. Now, a former instructor of mine asserted that a human being isn't truely human until they come of age and awareness. Certainly seems to mean that I have a lot more work and training ahead of me; time to work on the upgrades...

Greetings to the Blog...

Hello to the blogging world from myself, Jeff Stevens. I hope to start this weblog as a diary of my trials, tribulations, setbacks and successes as I begin converting myself from a traditional to a digital fine artist - keep your fingers crossed!

As for background, I am an artist, web designer, and educator in Columbus, Ohio. My current interests range from creating 2-D collage pieces to interactive Flash art/applications (whatever that might mean). To see more from my "analog past," see my work at http://home.earthlink.net/~jfstevens.

I also hope to invite others to participate in this little experiment, sharing their experiences in creating art through new online media - if you would like to chime in or have a participant suggestion, let me know!