Logic Contortions in Support of the iPad

1. Calling people Luddites who resist the latest inventions of Steve Jobs--the man who got rich dumbing down the computer for...Luddites. (see Nicholas Carr)

2. Saying that although the iPad is the future of computing, it's for the unwashed masses, not the digerati (see comment to the "Luddite" post) This is as patronizing as it is nonsensical.

Do you want to do all your typing on smeary glass? Do you need external storage or email? Do you want all your docs “auto-saved” every 30 seconds with no "Save" command? Do you need a loading dock at the bottom of your screen with little dancing animations that activate every time you open or close a file? (don't know if the iPad does this but it's one of the dumber elements of Mac computers.) Do you want to buy music from one source? Do you need a digital book reader that also plays movies and polishes your shoes? Well, if you don't, you must be a Luddite.

Unpublished, related comment to a Mac fan on another website:

apple_lover, I know how highly my opinion counts around here [sarcasm]--just think of me as a typical consumer who follows things and can spread bad memes through simple peasant miscomprehension, thus endangering the Grand Apple Project.

It really bugs me the way geekier Apple users say "oh well the target market won't care about things we true heads hate." It's not like you are leaders or anything. Not just you--I've read this a dozen times. "Yeah it sucks but we need to get the little people hooked to make this work and then things will be super awesome!"

I may be technically illiterate but I know a defensive justification of something bad when I read one.

Things the true heads hate: change in the developer's tools terms of service so certain developers (Flash, Monotouch) can't cross compile to the iPhone; file-sharing issues "not worked out yet" (hat tip Server Side for the info if not the rhetoric)

Update: Atrios wonders why this topic makes people mad. Calling a closed system open and its critics Luddites--let's start with that.

Update 2: Comment I made at Paddy Johnson's:

Macs appealed in the '80s when they were still simple and you could move programs back and forth on floppies. Since then the aesthetics have changed–-it’s all about elegance and lifestyle. Not elegance in the sense of “the fewest number of steps to get the job done” but self-conscious elegance, like the slick interface with drop shadows and thumbnails that twist and morph when you browse them. This is adding data to create fascination, treating consumers like babies who need dangling, shiny crib toys to keep from fussing. Resisting Apple aesthetics and the consumer anxiety of constant new product roll-outs isn’t Luddism but old-fashioned pragmatism (with a hint of the stoic). As for Carr’s “technological development doesn’t necessarily give us the change we want,” a 19th Century railroad monopolist couldn’t have put it better.

Update 3: In her post Johnson talked about Brian Eno and the artist's response to "black box" technology. I added:

Re: the Eno discussion in your post. That’s good to bring up. I’ve been talking the past few years with artists and musicians who are interested in older programs and hardware. Some want to “hack” the gear; others are just interested in the way it sounds and looks. Some of these people have Mac laptops but use them to surf the web, send emails, ordinary stuff. There is very little talk about “the future of computing” or participating in some grand Apple experiment that revolutionizes thought, mostly because we know how past claims for gear and software played out. The 8-Bit Construction Set record has a loop of an advertising voice-over saying “master your finances”–-taken from an '80s Atari ad. Did anyone really master their finances with an Atari? I’m looking forward to the day when iPads can be bought cheaply and taken apart to make into sculptures.

Johnson replied on that same thread:

I’m worried for that day. I’ve already seen enough ipod art to last me a lifetime! I’m guessing the artists remixing Steve Job’s iPad pitch on youtube have done a good job but things as good as the 8 Bit Construction Set come along very rarely.

Carr’s post is pretty confused, but has the advantage of sounding like he’s said something more profound than he has. He agrees the iPad is a step back, he’s just of the “there’s nothing I can do about it so too bad for me” variety. I’m not sure what the 19th century equivalent to this would be, but blissfully ignorant peasant sounds about right.

My reply: Orwell called it doublethink. (That's not 19th Century but it should be mentioned.)

progressive rock set

a friend who is guest DJing a college radio morning prog show asked for some suggestions; here are mine in no particular order:

Gryphon, "Opening Move," from Red Queen to Gryphon Three
Caravan, "Winter Wine," from In the Land of Grey and Pink
Gentle Giant, "His Last Voyage," from Free Hand
Gentle Giant, "No God's a Man," from The Power and the Glory
Henry Cow, "Half Asleep, Half Awake," from Unrest
Jethro Tull, "Fat Man," from Stand Up
King Crimson, "Indoor Games," from Lizard
Matching Mole, Suite: "O Caroline," "Instant Pussy," "Signed Curtain," from Matching Mole (continuous on vinyl version)
Keith Emerson, "Main Title Theme," from Inferno soundtrack
Curved Air, "Once a Ghost, Always a Ghost" from Phantasmagoria
Curved Air, "Young Mother" from Second Album
Terry Riley, "G Song" from Lifespan soundtrack
Kraftwerk, "Ruckzuck" or "Ruckzack" from Kraftwerk 1
Premiata Forneria Marconi, "Promenade the Puzzle," from Photos of Ghosts
Penguin Cafe Orchestra, "Chartered Flight" from Music from the Penguin Cafe

stretched GIF

superfinemovement

4 x 64 GIF (from ulillillia via rising tensions) stretched to 450 x 400 and smoothed by...your browser!

Similar experiments with the aesthetics of involuntary smoothing (but more complex than the one above) are being done at renders.in. The issues are explained here.

Accepting data added to your images against your will by herd-following programmers and designers, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the anti-aliasing of everything.

The image above will be seen as "normal" on the SeaMonkey browser or Internet Explorer 6. In other words, by very few. It might surprise you to know the purple smear in the middle of this GIF is a clean line dividing red and blue. But it doesn't matter. Must...stop...caring.

tumblr quirks

After having a few dozen images of mine scooped up by a tumblr user (let's call him "image_devourer")* and wanting to find them again, I started looking more carefully at the site architecture. Some notes:

Tumblr is like a blog in some respects but the archiving is limited.**

You can page back through every page in a tumblr or use an archive page (grouped by month and year).

Archives by month are not done with text but by thumbnail.

To limit bandwidth, there is a maximum number of allowable thumbnails. I count 306.

For a really heavy user like image_devourer, what happens to the posts after 306? They are effectively gone forever.

How to find, say, April archive, post 307?

You can still find it if you page back from the current post. Assuming 15 posts on a page, that would make it 20 pages back. You can find that by typing http://image_devourer.tumblr.com/page/20.

The problem is the page you are starting from constantly changes as image_devourer adds new posts.

In a couple of months post 307 will be on page 60, or 70, or 140, but who knows? You have to guess what page to type in. If you are wrong there is no way to orient yourself, so you are doomed to page forward and back through single pages of 15 posts.

Most people will give up at this point.

The pageback process is not by month--it always starts from the present post. So you can't start paging back, say, on March 31.

You could save the permalink to a post you think might "disappear" off the archive, but there is no way to page back or forward from that individual post, so it doesn't get you to a group of posts made around the same time. Posts have no archive info other than a post number, e.g. http://image_devourer.tumblr.com/post/498860497

Tumblr founder David Karp will be one the seven artist-technologist teams hooking up at the New Museum this month. On the AFC thread linked to in the last sentence, a commenter took umbrage at the suggestion that technologists had anything to learn from artists. Here is a good example--"David, I found some issues with your blog design..."

*Update: After choosing "ballsofsteel" as a hypothetical name I learned there is a tumblr blog with that name--sorry, I have changed my hypothetical.

**Update 2: New tumblr archive format: every image on a blog is now thumbnailized on a single page - woa. Most of the above rant is now irrelevant, but am not sure that an infinitely loading page is the solution for heavy users. Or maybe it provides a disincentive to be too prolific.

Wikipedia on Burnt City Goat

Burnt City Goat

The Burnt City Goat is considered by some to be the "first animation." Briefly Wikipedia had a link to my animated GIF of it (above). I made no opinion on the nerd controversy [1 / 2] over whether the sequence of five images is supposed to be a flipbook image or is just a series of pictures. I said it was an animation because that's what many people said it was and that's what it looks like. If anything I would question whether it is possible for a spinning bowl to produce the blinking "shutter movement" of a Zoetrope or flipbook pages.

So I have no ax to grind in the "historical debate" but I do believe that my animated GIF is the most accurate example out there on Web of what the movement of the images looks like. That has now been banished from Wikipedia because Wikipedian Janke removed the link and pronounced me "not an expert." Yet somehow he has gotten one of his own rather terrible GIFs on the Wikipedia animation page where he removed the link, as example of animation. Check it out:

Animhorse

Here is the back and forth from the Wikipedia discussion page, where Janke rules the roost.

Burnt City Goat

There has been a very interesting discussion on this issue on Niel Cohn site [1]. According to a discussant Britannica considers Pygmalion the first animator, in this Wikipedia article paleolithic cave paintings, the phenakistoscope, and praxinoscope, are presented as the early examples of animation. Moreover, Tom Moody has clearly shown the animation of the bowl in his site [2]. Please discuss your point of view here before reverting the text of the article.

* I am reverting. Stating that it is "considered as the first animation" is one-sided, since there is no evidence that the bowl could have been used to view the goat in motion. The fact that this is contradicted only in a reference makes the statement POV. See all the refs - the most probable use is as a bowl! The moving examples that are shown on the web are creations of today... --Janke | Talk 08:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

o Dear Janke Here are a number of arguments, 1. an animation authority such as Tom Moody considers this bawl animation then it is animation; 2. Britannica considers the statue made by pigmentation an early example of animation (despite the fact that that it was not meant to be an animation), 3. The wiki article considers the paleolithic cave paintings as an early example of animation (despite the fact that that it was not meant to be an animation)4. In the Neil Cohn web site the example of Egyptian wall paintings of two wrestler has been cited as an example of early animation ((despite the fact that that it was not meant to be an animation)5.Tom Moody has shown the animation of the images as it could have been seen on a an optical device mentioned in Neil Cohn site. But more importantly this is in the domain of Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo" which implies that while these recorded facts permitted to prove the de facto existence of an animation device through Kepler's laws, one could not establish this de jure. This is the foundation for Kant's distinction between "the question about that which is rightful (quid juris) and that which concerns the fact (quid facti)" (A84 / B 116) Thus, based on the wiki policy of NPOV We can say that: "Some observers have considered this bowl the earliest example of animation". Therefore, I revert the text to its preceding version, and I hope you are reasonable enough to avoid an absurd stand.

I am reverting. A google search shows that Tom Moody is a blogger, not an accepted "animation authority" - if he were, Google would prove it in some way, which it does not. Your references to Newton, Kepler and Kant are totally irrelevant in this case. "Some observers have considered this bowl the earliest example of animation" is technically true, for sure, but this can convey a false impression. Read closely: This article does not state that the cave paintings are "animation". Re. the egyptian mural (which I personally uploaded), note the text (I wrote): "Even though this may appear similar to a series of animation drawings, there was no way of viewing the images in motion." If you wish to revert back, please provide a reference in professional literature that the goat actually was seen in motion 5200 years ago (Such a reference should not be from a local paper or any other possibly biased sources, nor from a blog.) Thank you. (PS: Why do you wish to include a link to the graphical nightmare "thewebofcokaygne"???) --Janke | Talk 05:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia is that non-experts can decide who is an expert and "spin" a subject based on their personal taste. Janke doesn't like the Web of Cokaygne site (which wasn't linked to from Wikipedia, only my blog post) so he substitutes his personal judgment for what's proper for the encyclopedia, with appeals to science and objectivity ("accepted 'animation authority'"). It's hard to beat such a person--likely he watches the site every day, when he's not working on his live steam trains--and will pounce if you change anything he doesn't agree with.