As i swooned earlier, Amazon’s decision to allow text-based search was brilliant. Unfortunately, not all publishers have agreed.

Currently, i am sitting amidst 15 (yes, i counted) anthropology, rhetoric and philosophy books. I own these books; i have read large chunks of these books, underlining points that were relevant then. But here i am, trying to construct a meaningful response to whether or not culture is an ensemble of texts (recursively), frustrated. Why am i frustrated? I am frustrated because i _know_ that the tool to find the various quotes floating in my head to support my argument exists, but that publishers have prohibited it. (A moment of silence for ignorance is bliss.)

Here’s what i propose.

Amazon, you know what books i’ve bought, or at least a large chunk of them. You currently use this to successfully incite me to buy more books. Why not let me search _my_ books, regardless of the publisher’s opinion?

One might ask why Amazon would want to do this. Silly, silly. This would motivate me to buy ALL of my books from Amazon, particularly those dense theoretical texts that are dreadfully indexed.

One might ask why publishers would want to do this. Why? Because i’m now keeping tabs of which publishers are cruel and am far more incented to buy books when i know that i can search them. This actually affected my decision between two anthologies last week.

The biggest uproar over Amazon’s decision is one of copyright fear. Fine. I understand if a publisher is worried that the searchability of certain types of texts might discourage someone from buying the book, but in the purchasing of my books, i already have permission to the copyright. Now, i simply want easier access. Trust me, folks, if you can give me ‘grep’ on my books, i’ll never switch to a digital format. The smell of paper is just too enticing.

::sigh:: Because of Basic Books and The University of Chicago Press, i’m back to screaming ‘grep’ at Geertz and Levi-Strauss. This could be a lot easier…

First, i am *not* thrilled that 80s fashion is coming back. I don’t want to wear scrunchy socks, deal with shirts that snap at the crotch or ever see those horrid tight jeans with their roll-up ever again. And furthermore, scrunchy leather boots with heals is not attractive.

That said, most people know that i’ve been wearing jelly bracelets around my wrists for 3 years. This wasn’t a return to the 80s. It was because i don’t like seeing my neck or wrists without adornments and jelly bracelets were the first things that i could wear that didn’t impede my typing – i could just push them back.

Well, apparently the press is hyping the idea that these jelly bracelets are sex bracelets and that if you break them, the person has to give you a sexual favor in return. Hmm.

In an attempt to spend the day writing, i turned off both phones and IM (and tried to avoid email, sorta). Yet, i did not expect the number of door visitors i would get today. Not only did the UPS delivery man ask me if i had voted, but i received visits from five Gonzalez supporters asking me if i had voted (one covered in Gonzalez stickers from head to toe).

I really wonder what this turn out will look like. Normally, rainy days for a non-Presidential election are a disaster at the polls. But the whole city is abuzz with election fever. Normally, when i go to the polls, there are very few people voting. Sadly, most of my neighborhood is ineligible to vote (or doesn’t speak English so very well). Thus, i was pleasantly pleased to go to the polls this afternoon and find it !full! of voters (rare at 2PM). One cluster pleased me the most. The older ones didn’t speak English but the younger ones were helping explain the process to them. This totally made my day.

One thing will be interesting… right after the first round of the mayor election, many Gonzalez supporters invaded my neighborhood to get people to register to vote. (Everyone in my neighborhood despises anyone situated in the Marina.) I’m guessing that most of those registered didn’t speak English, and most of the discussions i overheard were in Spanish. I wonder how many of my neighbors were eligible and came out today for the first time.

I really liked this blog entry concerning the Esquire article on Friendster.

(Yes, it’s finals time.. that’s the level of thought going on in my head.)

So, i was a bit dazed after my exam today and i responded to my advisor’s query with a rambling spillage of the process my mind was going through in response to his question. I realized after i sent it that i had answered the question three times, differently, most undoubtably causing confusion.

He responded with this link “to help get me through a bad week.”

That made me giggle in that the world is bizarre kind of way. Sometimes, absurdity helps. Especially check out “Change.”

I love people who see the world as a bit peculiar and absurdist. Speaking of which, San Francisco election tomorrow. Y’know… i think it’s outright hysterical that the entire city is up in a tiff over a Democrat vs a Green. And what’s even better is that none of my friends would dare vote for anyone other than Gonzalez. I love San Francisco.

Ryan has been running statistics on his network on Friendster. (I’ve been meaning to do this, but he has far more patience than i.) “Friendsterwhore Institute of Statistical Trends (F.I.S.T.)” has run queries on musical taste, interests, sex, and a whole lot more. Based on 2,097,997 users, some of the simplest but still fascinating are:

• People who indicated that they were men: 862,398 (41%)
• People who indicated that they were women: 835,240 (40%) … which means that 9% weren’t really sure WHO they were…
• People who are “just here to help”: 327,533 (16%)
• People who are looking for activity partners: 932,953 (45%)
• People who are looking for friends: 1,339,616 (64%)

• People who are looking for a date with a woman: 394,641 (19%)
• People who are looking for a date with a man: 298,385 (14%)
• People who are looking for a serious relationship with a woman: 289,652 (14%)
• People who are looking for a serious relationship with a man: 216,602 (10%)
• People who are single: 1,067,620 (51%)
• People who are in an open marriage: 48,444 (2%)

• People whose name is “Kevin Bacon”: 33 (0.002%)
• People whose name is “George Bush”: 28 (0.001%)
• People whose name is “Jesus Christ”: 147 (0.007%)

Continue reading →

I’ve got my head buried in texts for finals and i realized how valuable one of my pieces would be for many technology creators, HCI folks and the like so i thought that i’d share it:

Grint, Keith & Woolgar, Steve. 1997. Configuring the user: inventing new technologies. In Grint & Woolgar, The machine at work: technology, work, and organization (pp. 65-94). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

This article addresses how technologists configure the user. In other words, what expectations do creators build into the technology and what are the implications when the users do not view the technology from the same perspective. It’s a great article, teasing out why you can’t expect users to do what you want them to, and why you shouldn’t.

Technologists should *listen* to what their users are doing, not try to educate them to do what they want them to do when they give them feedback. When users are having difficulty doing something, it’s not because they don’t get it, it’s because they read the technology in a different way than intended. Given feedback, the responsibility of a technologist is to try to see why this misperception occurred and try to fix the technology to shift behavior. Simply telling them that they’re wrong won’t do much good.

In response to my post on turtles, Joi posted about badgers. And then today, Xeni posted about bunnies, uncommon creatures, kittens, sheep, teddy bears, lemurs, and monkeys.

Dear me oh my… animals everywhere.