Ok folks, I switched to WordPress 2.2 a few minutes ago. So far the site seems pretty stable, but please let me know if you notice anything acting funny.
Thank you,
— the management
Christy prefers the title, “How I Shaved His Thick Skull”. We took some photos during the cutting process, so might as well post them here. Unfortunately we didn’t have another camera person, so no action shots of Christy, even though she did most of the work.
All of the thumbnails can be clicked on if you really need a closer view. The last photo of my hair pre-shaving. It’s pretty much just straight out of the shower at this point, so a mess. I should be chopped off!
We start off with initial hacking via scissors.
Christy’s demonstration of what I would look like in a mohawk. Tempting to stop right here, but we tarried on.
Getting shorter… We started with the scissors and would later move to “buzzing” with the beard trimmer. I’m not the hairy beast (on my back and shoulders) that these pictures may indicate, that’s pretty much all cut hair.
Look, a shaved monkey! I actually kind of like it at this length. Something to look forward during the inevitable “put it back on!”
At this point we’ve switched to the beard trimmer. Christy was a little nervous about using it without the guard, so I did some testing to make sure it wouldn’t tear up my scalp too badly. The guard clogs after about one stroke so just wasn’t useful.
Stubble! 
Some of my ex-hair.
With a little glue we can still fix it!
I jumped back in the shower, added some shaving oil and gel and then did the final shave by hand. Christy did most of the back, which is handy because there’s a few moles that way.
The final product a few days later, the same day shots are in the last post. No more helmet hair!
Guess What?
The ever-insightful danah boyd pointed out the following link to a (PDF) transcript of the Internet Caucus Advisory Committee’s Just the Facts About Online Youth Victimization” panel. I think danah provides a lot of fascinating insights about online youth culture and it was very enjoyable to see some other social scientists bringing a more quantitative approach to the discussion. Lots of good stuff here.
This piece is also titled, “Self Portrait As A Zombie.” It’s the last in this series of three sketches (“Sick” was the first and “Everything Hurts” the second) all using layers of India ink and pastels, then scraped off with a razor blade.
Zombie Hands! Otherwise known as: one of many reasons joint pain sucks.
So I posted an article about the delectable negroni a while back. It’s a ridiculously tasty way to consume Campari. Betsy mentioned their print ad involving a devil, and ever since then I get about a hit a day from google with people searching for that thing. This post isn’t going to help that trend, but since Campari is one of my favorite things I’ll do them a favor and tell you folks how to find a picture of the poster.
The advertisement you’re looking for is probably Matthew Rolston’s 2005 “Il Buono e il Brutto”. CampariUSA has a copy of it on their website, and I’d link to that copy, but in a fit of style-over-brains the site is entirely in flash which is why google can’t search it and I can’t link to it. So you’ll need to do the following:
- Go to CompariUSA. It will resize your browser window because it’s an annoying flash-based site and it knows what you want better than you do.
- Enter in your birth date and click “Enter”.
- In the upper-left corner, click on Menu, then Culture, then Posters.
- See those squares in bottom of your screen, under the poster? Those are miniature pictures helpfully made so small that you probably can’t actually use them to find the right one. Click on the 4th square from the right and you should see the angel and devil.
There’s another copy of the poster on the same site, but instead of talking about the photographer, it accompanies the poster with:
“Il Buono e Il Brutto” expresses the bold sensuality of classic Italian style while embodying the sinfully provocative taste.
Isn’t it remarkably vapid and annoying? Really, you’re better off ignoring all of the above and getting yourself a nice Campari based drink.
An always thoughtful friend pointed me to the New York Times two page article discussing a martini tasting. My love for the topic (gin!) prompts me to post about it here, but do be warned that they only review ten gins and I’d lodge a few disagreements. I keep saying I need to do this more in depth at some point, but now is certainly not the time. Some commentary on their gin reviews:
- Plymouth – They’re right to love it. It’s a great gin.
- Junipero – What they call assertive I maintain is downright undignified. I have a bottle, and have tried it a few times, and it’s just too aggressive for my tastes.
- Old Raj – Huzzah! Someone else in the world has tried this stuff! It’s a strange gin, and you should totally try it out in a bar. But it’s also the most expensive gin I’ve ever seen, and having bought a bottle back in the days of full employment, it’s tough to recommend someone else doing so unless you’re also a collector of such things.
- Hendricks – It’s a fun gin and it comes in a delightful bottle. I’m a sucker for packaging. Not my favorite but close to it and there are lots of my lovely friends who adore the stuff. It is a little different, but in this case different is good.
- Bombay Sapphire – I like their review on this. Sapphire tends to be a little harsh for my tastes these days, but it’s ubiquitous and not bad.
- Quintessential – Ugh. Enjoy it in a gin and Fresca but it’s really a terrible base for a martini.
- Martin Millers – I always think of this gin as a little bubbly, but I recall enjoying it. It was the favorite of one of my friends, and I think he was on to something. It’s one I’m looking forward to returning to at some point, and if you’re touring gins I’d say it’s worth a stop.
Keep in mind that my “go to” gins are Magellan and Van Gogh, both of which are somewhat soft and floral. As such, my tastes are a bit different than the NYT folks and probably my dear readers. Hrm, perhaps I need to host another Tour of Gin soon!
I’m sure you’re well aware of the whole Digg fiasco. First, Digg announced that they’re getting rid of posts that link to the hack for HD-DVD’s. Some of their users are annoyed, and since Digg is just a collection of user-submitted links that people vote on, they bury Digg in a pile of links to the crack. Digg then gives up and says effectively, “we might get sued into oblivion, but it’s what our users want.”
There are lots of interesting, obvious questions about holding the tiger by the tail when you implement user-created and moderated sites. We’ve been talking about them for long enough that even the LA Times can cover it. This is useful to examine, but I’ll let someone else for the moment.
There are even more interesting discussions about what the heck the AACS Licensing Authority (aka: the folks who sent the original lawsuit) should do. The obvious answer is: get out of the business of trying to control your customers, but even that discussion is fascinating, relevant and widely beaten into the ground. Frankly, I’m most interesting in starting this kind of discussion with my fellow MBA students because they’re the ones who need to hear it. But they’re not reading this.
The Digg example is interesting because I’m not sure it really does represent a wide scale revolt by all of Digg’s users. Instead, I think it represents a relatively small percentage of them who were ticked off instead of educated. Then they act in a way that’s humorous, witty and attractive if perhaps self-destructive. And the action certainly holds the possibility of Digg’s destruction. Although the EFF notes that we don’t really know how much linking to this material can get Digg in trouble, they also note that Congress’ choice to cripple the US with the DMCA certainly indicates that Digg is potentially liable.
There seems to be this image of online user communities where most people take an active role, and I just think that’s probably not what’s happening. I don’t have numbers, but my guess is that the Digg incident really does show that a vocal minority can have a huge voice. This is great in a lot of ways, but it does show how very reactionary this discussion can be. If you’re trying to lead an online community like Digg, you have to be very careful about how you communicate. Digg’s initial post was trying to say, “we’ve been sent a legal notice, and we think it sucks, but we feel it’s probably in the communities best interest to reply.” Instead, what a chunk of their users heard, was “the same people we know all know are evil are forcing us to censor you.” The second message may be the truth, but it isn’t really what they needed to convey. When you make a website out of galvanizing people to act (even if it’s just post and vote), you have to realize that if you do something you know damn well will be unpopular, you should probably try to harness that community. You need to give them a voice, some sort of outlet or else they’ll make their own. Asking them for help might be much less antagonizing. Otherwise a small but vocal minority, without anyone providing context or counterpoints, can easily become a more popular whirlwind.
The last post on Digg ends with:
You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.
What’s frightening is that this comes as a result of Digg’s miscommunication to its community, and its community communicating frustration and outrage back. I’m not sure the community of Digg really did pick ‘break an unpopular law and to hell with the consequences.’ Our government is designed to help stop the tyranny of the majority. Sometimes it seems like online communities need to be equally wary of the tyranny of the minority.