Screenshot: A Weblog

I was chatting with some colleagues about what new holiday gadgets they are coveting, and was surprised that there isn't really a major toy coming out that I'm interested in. And then I saw the new Altair 8800 kit [via Boing Boing]. I have no practical use for this thing, but I think it would be a blast to play with. The "differences/comparison pictures" section of the site is really well done - I recommend it as well as the more obvious technical documentation sections for a picture of how these are actually being built.

Posted by Amanda at 7:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In one of the cutest hacks I've seen in a while, someone uses the Powerbook motion sensor to power a software marionette [via MAKE: Blog]. The applet code is included - it draws on a library for accessing the Sudden Motion Sensor, but there are links provided to a couple of such libraries, if you are interested in trying this hack out for yourself. At the least, go check out the great videos of the marionette in action.

Posted by Amanda at 12:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Maybe this is done a lot and it's the first time I've run into it, but I love the idea of liveblogging a book as you read it, and defective yeti is doiing a brilliant job with Moby-Dick. Just a couple of weeks ago he came up against the infamous "whale chapter":

"Cetology" has the narrator giving an impromptu lecture on the nature of the whale, grouping the beasts into fourteen categories and offering lengthy descriptions of each. Here, Melville uses a literary technique known as OMG BORING! In some other context I might have found this engrossing, but here it's like, "Dude, you got your marine biology lecture in my adventure story!"

I, too, forced my way through this novel, feeling that it was a missing piece of my education by never having read it. I tackled it over the summer while I was in college, taking it to work with me and reading a chapter or two a day during lunch while I sat outside eating cheese sandwiches and escaping the basement computer lab I was spending all of my time in.

Thinking about what books I might do this with, I have totally stalled out on my efforts to read the Federalist Papers cover to cover. But, the sane side of me says that this is a project that probably needs to sit a few dozen items down the to-do list.

Posted by Amanda at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In response to Harvard releasing its internal report on their educational objectives, Steven Pinker discusses some reservations, more with the high-level phrasing than the specific steps to be taken, it seems [via Arts & Letters Daily]. Of particular interest - even at Harvard the debates about requiring science, how much science, and of what types for what reason take place. Pinker laments that the current argument for science education seems to have a greater requirement that the applicability to social issues be made the focus than other fields find required of themselves. While it isn't a full argument, I thought his counterclaim for the relevancy of pure science education was nicely phrased:

Also, the picture of humanity’s place in nature that has emerged from scientific inquiry has profound consequences for people’s understanding of the human condition. The discoveries of science have cascading effects, many unforeseeable, on how we view ourselves and the world in which we live: for example, that our planet is an undistinguished speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that all the hope and ingenuity in the world can’t create energy or use it without loss; that our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the earth; that humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods for ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified.

I believe that a person for whom this understanding is not second-nature cannot be said to be educated. And I think that some acknowledgment of the intrinsic value of scientific knowledge should be a goal of the general education requirement and a stated value of a university.

Posted by Amanda at 9:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I know that good weblogger style would suggest that I shouldn't link to another of ze's videoblogs so soon, but I've been catching up after not web surfing much the past couple of weeks and couldn't resist pointing people towards his tips for hiring a web developer, starting with what their personal appearance says about their development aesthetic. Very funny, in a "I wish it weren't kind of true" way.

Posted by Amanda at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was chatting with a friend about life, and the topic rolled around to issues of grading and busting cheaters. Which led me to speculate about how awesome it would be if that awful reality show "Cheaters" was about academic dishonesty. Which led me to write the following:

CHEATERS: ACADEMIA

Scene: at bucolic college campus, a professor calls up a PI.

Prof: "I think I have a case of cheating, but I need evidence."
PI: "Give me the details - I'll build up a dossier."

Night vision camera shots of the professor at the computer using Turn-it-in

PI: "These cases all start out the same. That small nagging voice of doubt in the back of the head. The normally sloppy student shows a new attention to grammar and turn of phrase. New words start appearing and the student gets vague when asked where they're from. Eventually, even the most naive instructor realizes something is going on. And then they come to me."

Cut to interview with professor, in a strained voice: "I don't want to believe it is true, but I just can't hide from the truth anymore. I need to know. I need to know if any of this was ever real." waves papers around

Scene: PI rolls up in a van outside an academic building to meet with the professor.

PI: "I have some things to show you - are you ready?"
Prof: "Yes - I need to know."
PI: "We've been monitoring your student's work for the past week. First, we look at this essay. At the end of the first paragraph, we see this complex sentence - it is similar to this passage on p. 67 of the text, but you'll notice that while there are no quote marks, the text is listed in the bibliography."
Prof, nods: "He always was forgetful about explicit citation - we used to laugh about that."
PI: "Later in the essay, we see him approach the question of the author's approach to the question, and you see him start this paragraph with a claim about postmodern existentialism....."
Prof, quiet: "He never saw that in any class with me...."
PI: "And then here, this entire paragraph is an exact match for this article found in the author's entry in Wikipedia."
Prof: "The bastard!!!!! Not with that whore!!!!!"

Scene: The PI and Professor roll up in the van to the campus computer center. They approach the student, working inside.

Student, looking up from computer, open to Ask.com: "What are you doing here?" hits Alt-Tab
Prof: "Shut up! I know what you did!"
Student: "What are you talking about?"
Prof: "Don't lie to me! I know what you're doing here! I know all about you and those websites. All that talk of background research, and using the web to familiarize yourself with the vocabulary - how long has this been going on?"
Student, defensive: "It was just that one time. I swear. I couldn't help it. I was just checking a date, and then I read it. I didn't mean to do it. I didn't even realize I was repeating what it said. It was an accident!"
Prof: "Accident! If it wasn't anything, why didn't you mention it? Why didn't you give me a citation? You knew it was wrong, and you didn't want me to find out."
Student: "What can I do? I'm sorry. Let me make it up. Let me write it again. I'll do anything. I don't want to lose this class."
Prof: "You've got to be kidding me. You had your chance with me. I want you out of my class now. You're not going to make a fool of me again."
Student: "This is all your fault. You were never there for me. I wanted to learn from you, but you were always in meetings. The web was there for me when you weren't. All of my friends say I deserve better. My mom is always telling me you don't understand me and my needs. I'm glad to finally be done with you."

The PI and his burly henchmen separate the two - fade to post-interviews

Student: "Whatever. I already had a transfer to another college. I was just hanging around for the transfer credits. I've already moved on."

Prof, sadly: "I just don't know anymore. I really thought this one was special. I just don't know when I'm going to trust again. Maybe they'll take some time to think about what happened and come back. I think we might still be able to make it work...."

Posted by Amanda at 9:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

There are some in-jokes that a casual viewer will miss, but I still recommend episode two of zefrank explaining videoblogging. If you're interested in web 2.0 publishing, you'll like his rundown of videoblogging style guidelines, and if you follow videoblogs (or web popularity in general) you'll like his snark about rankings and traffic measurements.

Posted by Amanda at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Wish you could type faster? There are tons of these typing games out there, but Word Shoot: Spell Fast or Die! is actually really well done [via Clicked]. As the game gets more difficult you can't succeed if you have to look at your hands, and unlike most of these games there is actually a liittle bit of strategy. Plus, the graphics are cute.

Posted by Amanda at 6:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Another internet list, but a pretty fun one at that: The 50 Worst Video Game Names Of All Time. The list is pretty good, made, of course, by the humor of the commentary attached to each entry. And the provision of the link to this awesome random word generator to make your own awful titles. The student game I've been playing recently that's name refers to non-Euclidean geometry would probably fall around number 27, right after "Ninja Hamster".

Posted by Amanda at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While taken from real life conversation in an ad agency, I suspect these "overheard" snippets of conversation at advertising agencies will ring true to anyone working with clients on design [via India, Ink]. Sure, much like "stupid user" humor, the humor is a catharsis but the professional has to realize that part of their job is to facilitate conversation with non-experts without demeaning them. On the other hand, how can you not love:

"I like the design but I think it ‘ll look better stripping all graphical elements, it ‘ll look more web 2.0-ish" (Agency, Creative Director to Designer)

“It’s amazing how well you interpreted the brief. This piece is exactly what we wanted, you could not have made it any better, I love it. But I also think it’s too good. This is for a bigger client, a more international one. We’re not like that. See if you can do something shittier that we can use.” (Client, Marketing Manager)

Posted by Amanda at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an interesting detour in the question of what "Web 2.0" really means, Nicholas Carr (of "Does IT Matter" fame) takes on Lessig in his weblog post Web 2.0lier than thou and challenges Lessig's claim that Web 2.0 is synonymous with unrestricted sharing of information (and consequently that services with built in restrictions such as YouTube are not Web 2.0). Carr asserts that this is not an accurate portrayal of the current web, and that Lessig's moralistic take on Web 2.0 is idealistic utopianism. All of the sharing just furthers industry and in fact exploits th creative individual by asking them to provide the content from which industry will now profit without any financial benefit to themselves. If anything, Carr claims, Web 2.0 is exploitive.

I know that except for a de.licio.us account I basically avoid contributing content off of my own domain because I don't want to give up that much control. But, really, I don't see the essential difference between Facebook and YouTube as compared to usenet and personal webpages and weblogs and Wikipedia. There's no revolution - the media just wants a new buzz word under which to rerun the same gee whiz stories they've been running for the past decade.

Posted by Amanda at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From last week over at badscience, this is one of the most succinct and compelling examples I've seen of why everyone needs to know math, particularly prob/stats math. The example centers on a legal case and everyone involved's inability to compare two conditional probabilities. Or, more properly, that the relevant thing to compare is conditional probabilities. It's one of those situations where knowing how to do the calculations isn't as important as knowing what the calculation you should be doing is.

Posted by Amanda at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Computing changes our world - not a new idea - but this registration-required NYTimes essay (you're using BugMeNot, right?) summarizes what some computer scientists think is, and isn't, coming. Predictions? More interdisciplinary impact and more policy issues requiring knowledgable leadership. Data mining in social networks as a promenent theme (I'm guessing the whiteboard scribbles in the photo at the top of the page are illustrating clusters...) It all suggests to me that getting more people educated about the fundamental capabilities of techology and the implications of its use is going to get more important to us over the next decade too.

Posted by Amanda at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)