Everyblock’s Adrian Holovaty, who used to write some great stuff about news and journalism, redoes a tune from Super Mario Bros. 2 in ‘gypsy jazz’ style. The result is incredible and had me grinning ear-to-ear - it was impossible not to think of sitting in a friend’s basement about 15 years ago playing the game. You can even download an MP3 and tabs of the track on his site. (Oh and for good measure, here’s a Super Mario Bros. art installation).

Tossell hits one out of the park again, outlining some of the reasons that there is so much iPhone hype. Essentially, he suggests that the iPhone makes the internet instantly accessible anywhere and that this is quite a profound shift: “Having the Web handy changes how we navigate daily life, much like access to mobile telephones already has. It’s a cure for uncertainty: Constant access to online maps means an end to getting lost; constant access to retail websites means comparison shopping on the fly; constant access to Wikipedia means always having an answer in an asinine debate at the pub.” Hyperbolic? Sure. But he still has a point.

Speaking of the iPhone hype, let’s look at some major blogs shall we? On July 10, Engadget posted 10 stories. Crave wrote 28 iPhone related posts. Giz posted 35. Thirty-five! Now, imagine what mine and everyone else’s Google Reader looked like today. Yeah. I actually want an iPhone but fuck me!

Racism on the Web: You’re Part of the Problem. I am so glad someone from the tech world actually had the guts to say this about the Loren Feldman ‘Tech Nigga’ fiasco (seriously, how stupid do you have to be?). Good on ya’ Hank Williams.

The Globe’s Ivor Tossell ‘murders’ Tim Russert and writes on the thrill of being the first one to edit a Wikipedia page - in this case, being the first to update the Meet the Press page with the news of Russert’s death. Best part: “[Wikipedia] is not so much an encyclopedia as a registry of – and I use this word with some trepidation – reality. It’s an ever-changing ledger book of where things stand in our universe.”

Recent academic conference on the strange fasciantion we have with train-wreck female celebrities. I haven’t yet found any of the papers online, but it seems that the most interesting question would be the inseparability of desire and revulsion, approval and condemnation, particularly if we consider the media circus surrounding Spears, Winehouse et al a covert return of misogyny and conservative sexuality.

Why I Still Use Windows, by Gizmodo’s Adam Frucci. I almost never agree with Frucci, but from the cult of personality that surrounds Jobs, to commodity fetishism to sheer stubbornness, I could have written this.

A robotic snake that is creepy and a bit terrifying. (I’m really scared of robots taking over aren’t I?)

Arthur C. Clarke’s story “The Nine Billion Names of God”. Fuck aliens, supercomputers and other juvenilia- this is what science fiction should do. [via] {Update: As Matthew so rightly points out in the comments: a) this story has a supercomputer in it; b) there is nothing inherently juvenile about aliens or other sci-fi tropes. I was just shooting my mouth off for no good reason at all.}

And finally, Peter Singer on Hegel and Marx. I’ll be honest, I didn’t watch it all but it seems they’re taking pains to emphasise the the Hegelian roots of Marx rather than the Marx’s radical move away from Hegel’s focus on mind and spirit.

The Globe’s Scott Colbourne writes about Krazy, an exhibition at the Vancouver Art Gallery that focuses on comic books, manga, video games and other things that are often the subject of derision. Probably the most interesting question though is whether or not video games - a form that is dependent upon the participation of the viewer/player - can be appreciated in a gallery setting.

The sad truth about relationships. It starts out funny. And then gets crushingly sad.

In honour of Mr. Carlin’s passing, here’s a great clip simply entitled “Religion is Bullshit“.

Speaking of the funny and the sad, this 3d recreation of 742 Evergreen Terrace is awesome and seems like it took forever.

This article on Slate wonders if breast motion can power an iPod. I sorta’ had to link to it because it combines my two favourite things in the world - by which I mean science and music.

Not sure how I feel about this argument that Twitter ‘has a culture’, but it’s interesting, if for no other reason than because it again points to the interdependence of technological forms and cultural activity.

The idea of guerrilla gardening - i.e. illegally beautifying grey, urban spaces - makes me happy. The need for it does not.

And finally, my muxtape is sorta’ updated - I’m particularly enjoying the Wes Montgomery, The Field and Mark Kozelek tracks.

Wax Scrawls is an occasional feature on Scrawled in Wax where I link to bits and bobs that don’t fit into my usual ‘culture of technology’ schtick. Hope you like ‘em.

This Atlantic piece (courtesy of Matthew’s Shared Google Reader items) suggests that introversion is an orientation rather than a choice and makes a couple of suggestions for dealing with introverts. It’s hard to tell how much is serious and how much is tongue-in-cheek, but if this is a new form of coming out, then fuck it: “Hi. My name’s Nav. And I am an introvert.”

Is musical consonance something we just naturally like more? Why else, asks this article, have once-avant-garde atonal compositions not become commonplace? I distinctly remember when listening to a punjabi folk song, my brother walked in and remarked, rather disgustedly, “this is totally out of tune”. A lot of Indian music works by invoking a root note - usually with a drone instrument - and then creating a dynamic of tension and release by moving off and then on key. This means that, in a sense, my brother was totally right - and wrong - which I think would support the argument. So yes, in response to your question, atonal medleys by Phillip Glass are a sin against nature.

With all the unsettled weather we’ve been having in Toronto lately, this picture of a tornado makes me not want to leave the house. Like, ever.

This nifty little tool lets you upload a picture of yourself and see what you’d look like as ‘a member of a different race’. I tried it and came out looking like a pale Frankenstein - so, all in all, pretty accurate.

A newspaper clipping from 1971 that criticizes a new show for being boorish and racist. Which show? All in the Family.

And finally, if you’re looking for proof that men are socialised to never grow out of their adolesence, here ya’ go.

Fittingly, this post on words that come to stand for entire arguments comes from the always great Tumblr, Daily Meh.

Speaking of Daily Meh, it’s also the source for this very funny utopian version of Google News. My favourite bit is something totally minor: the entertainment section that says “Serenity sequel tops box office six weeks running”.

J.K. Rowling’s Haravard commencement speech, in which she discusses imagination in a manner akin to how Heidegger talked about poetry - i.e. that it is ‘projective saying’. [via]

What do you do when Twitter’s down? You go to Twiddict. (get it? It’s a mix of Twitter and Addict…) For people like me, who are momentarily convinced their tweets are absolute gold - only to be saved by the fact that I can’t update - this is sure to lead to embarrassment. [via]

For the first time, scientists actually witness bacterial evolution in a lab, i.e. the development of a rare, complex trait through chance events. Pretty amazing stuff. Oh and while we’re on the science tip, here’s some news about monkeys who have figured out how to fish. No, seriously. You know it’s only a matter of time before they make guns, right?

Kevin Kelly ruins a perfectly good idea (”the communal version of genius”) by using Brian Eno’s absolutely terrible term for it, ‘Scenius‘. Bleh.

Stephen Hawking, in an affirmation that genius can come from anywhere, is, and I quote, “setting off on a hunt for Africa’s intellectual talent“. Awesome idea. Poor fucking phrasing.

Instead of taking sides in the “Clint vs. Spike” director scuffle, Salon instead ends up thinking about how they might make each other’s movies. (Also, I say 25th Hour is Lee’s best film. Anyone else?)

And finally, Blaise Alleyne (who I am seriously impressed with) has another great post, this time in response to some more Nick Carr curmudgeonliness, “Is Google is Making us Stupid?“

Leigh has an interesting post up that takes the recent discussion around comments in a different direction. Rather than an emphasis upon ‘who owns what’ or where comments should lie, she instead seems to argue that comments are linked in non-linear networks across different locations and, instead of only belonging to a particular post, form one of a number of ‘texts of identity’ - an idea I am also currently struggling with.

Toronto writer/author Russell Smith tackles the future of the book and argues that we usually descend into two extreme options: the growth of a new digital age that makes books easily and instantly accessible; or a new era in which copyright, authorship and artistic sense will be shot to hell. Yeah yeah. But most interesting is the end, where he describes the hand-wringing as “debating the best methods of decorating an empty church” i.e. will people actually read? When I was out drinking with a friend recently, he suggested that the persistent, omnipresent ‘text’ of the internet will return us to a sort of oral culture. Discuss.

A great piece by Kottke on the beginnings of film criticism. The critics who did not simply dismiss the new form instead struggled to articulate what they were witnessing - as in “Photography has ceased to record immobility. It perpetuates the image of movement.” Cool huh? Also, it’s things like this that reinforce my belief that those who dismiss video games are totally missing the point.

I don’t know either what the subject of this picture is or what the context is. I can quite safely say, however, that it probably will result in the end of everything.

Hey book nerds! Admit it - you feel like this too, don’t you? It’s alright, don’t be embarrassed - I do too.

A great, if perhaps unoriginal quote from kick-ass plus-sized model Velvet D’Amour about our notions of health.

When the first trailer for video game Resident Evil 5 came out, I wondered about its potentially racist implications. Now the second trailer is out and, in a game set in Africa, includes the lines “there is no reason here… no humanity”. Phew! Good thing there’s not an established, well-documented history of Africa being described that way or that would be horribly inappropriate…

Dodai from Jezebel goes through why she hates the Sex and the City movie. Haven’t seen it and probably won’t and this just increases my ‘meh’ reaction. (and the idea that Jennifer Hudson’s character kinda’ ‘graduates’ into being a vapid, materialistic white woman is really fucking weird).

This site that lets you covertly read literature at work feels delightfully retro (remember those screensavers from the nineties?) and subversive at the same time.

I’ve been obsessed with theorising Twitter lately, and this BBC post on using Twitter as the new watercooler for discussing TV shows in real-time is one more reason why I shall continue to.

From the “obvious but someone needs to say it” files, this Salon piece looks at two new books that argue that brands not only sway what decisions we make, but are also used to carve out our identities.

Snarkmarket points to a great comment on Metafilter about the joys of being of a grownup. As someone whose ‘temporary stay’ with my parents is almost pushing 2 years, this made me laugh - and ache a little inside.

I could write a lot more about the 2008 Mesh Conference. Whether Mike Masnick’s great talk on the Economics of Abundance - in which he went through 322 slides in 35 minutes and still made sense - or the intriguing panel on privacy that, perhaps inevitably, was all over the place, the conference has left me with a lot to think about. But I think the time for more reflection has now passed and, frankly, I’m getting a bit sick of looking at my notes. So, to wrap things up, here are some of the (not very serious) things I learned at Mesh 08:

• The only acceptable justification for using a Windows laptop is that “work won’t let me have a Mac”. Use this excuse even if you, like me, don’t have a job. And for the love of God, do not say “I just prefer Windows” - you will be ejected from the premises immediately.

• If you are diffident or suffer from some form of social phobia, you will get much less out of a conference. While others say you should just muster up some confidence or just go get some therapy, my personal suggestion is simply to do a lot of drugs before each day.

• A tech conference is the only place in the world where anyone not multitasking is considered strange. Now stop reading this and get typing on that Blackberry!

• A tech conference is also one of the few places where you can use the word ‘frag’ with an audience of adults and not have anyone be confused. In fact, it’s likely people will instead break out their latest story about playing Halo 3 online.

• When someone shows up late, proudly carrying a Wii Fit box that they just lined up for – and everyone’s reaction is envy rather than derision – you, my friend, are in a room full of nerds.

• If Leah Culver is any indication, developers are more fun and down-to-earth than their bosses.

• Twitter can be taken down by a small Canadian tech conference. That or 500 Canadian nerds twitter a lot.

• Power outlets are the new water coolers.

• “How’s the wi-fi?” is the new “How’s the coffee?”.

• Actually, when you’re in a room full of internet geeks, everything is the new something.

• When the Red Bull is free, it suddenly becomes quite easy to dismiss the ‘dosage’ instructions on the can. I’d say more, but my hands are still shaking…
  

• Mathew Ingram, Rob Hyndman, Stuart MacDonald, Mark Evans and Mike McDerment sure know how to put on a show

Can’t wait ’til next year. If your sense of humour is better than mine - which it almost undoubtedly is - feel free to leave a “I learned this…” comment and I’ll add it to the post.

“The New Front Page” session at Mesh 08 was perhaps the most entertaining talk I attended while there. Featuring Daniel Burka of Digg, Pema Hagen of GigPark and Candice Faktor of Ourfaves and Toronto.com, the panel talk largely focused on what I suppose you could call ‘crowd-sourced information gathering’, whether that information is the news or about products, services or locations. Now, there has been no end of virtual ink spilled about how the web is reshaping information and perhaps the clearest topic to arise was that of filtering: what are the limits, both positive and negative, of the democratisation of editing what information we are exposed to?

It was Daniel Burka - who is a funny, entertaining guy - who had to field most of the questions from an audience who, while not aggressive, was perhaps a little sceptical. Moderator Mathew Ingram asked whether or not Digg functioned as an echo chamber and Burka’s response was essentially based on both the wisdom and diversity of crowds - i.e. that having a divergent community like Digg means that a number of different interests and perspectives will constantly be represented. I think this tended to gloss over the criticisms of Digg as being both too tech-focused and too sympathetic to left-of-centre politics, but Burka also stated that there is continual work being done on Digg’s algorithms that is meant not only to diversify perspective but also to prevent the system being gamed. Ultimately, Burka made a convincing case that the multiplicity of topics and perspectives on Digg was indicative of its democratisation of information.

The one thing that did nag at me during entire thing, however, was the conception of democracy at work. In the model used, an individual has interests and inclinations and then, through the conscious activity of ‘digging’ or something similar, expresses these opinions and beliefs. The aggregation of these individual actions results in Digg being an accurate representation of what its community is feeling. My problem with this is the simple question of where an individual’s interests and inclinations come from. There is a solid case to be made that our interests are as produced by our immersion in mass culture as they are a reflection of ‘what is inside us’. Indeed, what is ‘inside’ has to come from ‘outside’ - i.e. is it ‘natural’ for me to want an iPhone or does my desire work in relation to a cultural context that values technology, aesthetics, conspicuous consumption etc. That’s not to say that I have no choice; but it does suggest that there is a force exerted on me by my cultural context.

To be frank, people don’t like it when you argue this. The reaction is generally that you are either extremely naive or just a conspiracy theorist. But the point is not to suggest that we are being indoctrinated by a group of old men hidden in a room somewhere. Instead, it is to argue that what we value is at best a combination of our beliefs and the information we are given. When part of that information is deliberately persuasive - i.e. advertising, both explicit and implied and our immersion in an ideological context - to argue that online crowds reflect their own interests is to suggest that those interests are produced in a vacuum, in relation to ‘purely internal’ needs. They are not. Instead, they work in relation to the ebb and flow of information that exists in the public sphere, to the production of individuals by the social and cultural contexts in which we live. So yes, Digg is an accurate representation of its community - the key point to keep in mind is that this does not necessarily defend it against the charge of being an echo chamber, if the chamber we consider is not just Digg, but its social context too.

One of the most challenging aspects of online communication is the replication of physical experience. While there are clear benefits to email, IM and Twitter etc., there is obviously a lot lost in electronic communication, whether body language or physical context, and the issue of how to ‘make oneself present’ in something like videoconferencing is both complex and difficult. This was the topic of the Mesh talk “Does Location Matter”, featuring Nora Young, host of CBC’s podcast Spark and Microsoft’s Principle Researcher, Bill Buxton. (I’ve linked to a video of the full thing at the bottom of this post).

Buxton, also an academic from the University of Toronto, argues that technology both cannot and should not replace face-to-face interaction. What must be improved as we move forward, however, is the recreation of the physical and social contexts that define communication. As an example, Buxton points to personal space. During physical communication, there is a social protocol that roughly determines the acceptable proximity of one speaker to another. If during a teleconference, the image of one party is captured with the camera only a foot or so from their face, then the technology has not lived up to the cultural mores it should work within.

As such, for Buxton, tech has to function as a proxy for identity and its context, creating a digital projection not only of the self but also as much of the social and physical context as is possible. And because this context is so difficult to convey across video, Buxton says that the relation of communication and context must be inverted in online connections such that the context is foregrounded and the communication made the ‘unnoticed’ background. An example of this might be additional monitors in a videoconference to convey the layout of a room or the physical distance between the various members there.

What wasn’t raised as much as I would have liked was the actual titular question of ‘location’. It would have also been interesting to hear some discussion of the relationship between one’s physical location and one’s identity. I, for example, still identify very much as a Torontonian, particularly when I am not here. How will this start to change as, for example, group identification starts to shift in relation to a virtual community, or the what is defined as the public sphere moves to the online world?

What was raised, however, was how things might differ in regards to media when the need to appeal to population centres potentially diffuses. After all, something like the Toronto-centric nature of Canadian media or the New York-centric approach of its American counterpart is very dependent upon not only physical location determining some sense of common interests, but also the economics of scarcity that dominate ‘old media’. And is new media taking advantage of the long tail effect when it continues to pitch TV shows with high production values and, consequently, a high cost of entry to the interests of its major population centres?

The emphasis of the talk, however, was ultimately the question of translation: of how one conveys the physical through the digital. Buxton’s provisional answer is to think of technology as a social prosthesis, an artificial replication that roughly approximates the function of the thing it copies. It’s an approach that could have a number of beneficial implications for how we interact with each other and technology itself.

Does Location Matter? from CBC Radio: Spark on Vimeo.