Bill Brandon: Bill's P.O.V.

Dodging the draft

Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:35:15 GMT

Dodging the draft.

This is a response to a post by Dave Winer at Scripting News: "Dodging the draft is what young men were doing in the late 60s and early 70s. You got out of the draft any way you could."

Not all of us, Dave.

The true draft dodger was simply afraid. Or too self-absorbed to comprehend what "obligation" meant. The number of people whose motivation to resist serving came out of moral courage was quite small, in my opinion. It's ok to be afraid, it makes sense to be afraid sometimes (even Gen. Macarthur noted that "Courage is fear that holds out just a little longer."). What's not ok is to duck out and let the other poor bastards take the risks. What's not ok is to duck out and pretend that the motivation was created by a morally superior position when in fact it was just cowardice. I don't have a problem with people who at the time were acting out of real moral courage and conviction, and I never did. I do have, and always did have, deep problems with cowards who only acted out of fear.

All wars are hard, whether they are just or justifiable or not. Viet Nam wasn't an evil undertaking by the U.S., it wasn't even immoral. It was ill-advised, it may even have been none of our business, but the South Vietnamese were fighting for their freedom and the North Vietnamese were the aggressors, not the U.S. Viet Nam was Korea Part 2. It is what would have happened to the Kuwaitis when Saddam Hussein invaded them, had we not stopped him. It bothers me no end that people apparently still do not understand that. If someone thinks that other forms of government, particularly Communism as practiced in Cuba, China, and Viet Nam, are "ok" or that there is no difference in life under other systems, then that person simply does not comprehend how lucky they are to be living in the U.S. In Viet Nam, we lost to ourselves, and in many respects we have not come to terms with that yet.

Even George Bush served. He did not "dodge the draft" in the sense of evading service altogether. He put on a uniform. He took an oath. I believe he would have done his job if he had been sent to combat flying. True, he didn't see combat, and true, he seems to have joined the Guard in order to reduce the possibility of seeing combat, but he did actually serve. The distinctions are only in degree. I joined the Navy in 1964, and stayed on active duty until 1978. I served in a destroyer escort that did Market Time Patrol and gunfire support, among other things (including support for the Swift boats). We were in less danger from hostile fire, including counter-battery fire when we did close-in support missions, than we were from our own old ship's machinery and from the sea itself. I served in a carrier on Yankee Station as an assistant to the Operations officer. Again, while our pilots were in danger every day from hostile fire, most of the 5000 men on the carrier were in more peril from the same dangers that face a ship's crew in war or peace - equipment failures, fire, accidents. John Kerry actually asked to go in harm's way, and when he came back, he did what a citizen with his experience should do -- he called for an accounting by his government and by the military. There is nothing wrong with what George Bush did, with what I did, or with what John Kerry did (although I admit to being mad as hell at Kerry at the time -- 30 years of reflection and maturity have helped me get over it), but the degrees to which we served were certainly different.

Which brings me to the point of this rant. In truth, none of this Viet Nam stuff has a damned thing to do with the real issues in this Presidential race. If it's "character," I maintain that Bush and Kerry both have passed the test, with any difference being just in degree, not in quality. I think the media stirs these Viet Nam service questions up and keeps them alive. It's part of the culture of negativity the media have created and from which they draw their profits. Who controls what you see on the news? Given three or five or a dozen angles to cover, why do they choose the one that they do? Shame on us for letting them sucker us into watching, let alone giving a damn what the "news analysts" have to say.

We have serious problems in this country, and we're about to make a decision to put someone in charge of fixing them. We need to pay attention to:

1. How do we finish what we started in Iraq, without wrecking our economy further to do it, and without incurring massive financial obligations to rebuild Iraq that will last for the next 50 or 100 years?

2. What do we do about the real terrorists and the Islamists who would like to reduce us to poverty and subjugation? (And if someone thinks that's not their aim, that person just has not been listening to what they have to say.)

3. How do we restore our relationships with the rest of the world -

a. to help with 1. and 2.;

b. to deal with coming problems (e.g., North Korea, which is about to start selling nukes to the world. Nort Korea will make Osama Bin Ladin look like a mere nuisance);

c. to get our economy back in working order.

4. How do we handle our internal problems:

a. erosion of our privacy and our essential rights;

b. economy, and issues of intellectual property, ethics, and accountability that impact it;

c. education

I'm not hearing much about these issues, yet they are the factors I must base my vote on. What I get from George Bush is slogans delivered in that annoying high-pitched nasal whine of his. What I get from Kerry is combative rhetoric that just panders to people's dislike of George Bush. I wonder whether either of them is capable of the leadership it will take to resolve the things that (it seems to me) are most important. What a mess.

Laissez faire

Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:31:02 GMT

Let it be.

Today, someone I work with sent me an article that was a pretty vile and ugly attack on my personal religious beliefs. I think it was done intentionally, with intent to cause pain (this person knows my views and beliefs), and as far as I am aware it was done without any particular provocation on my part. So I said a prayer for the sender, and one for the writer, and I let it go, or tried to.

But because I was taking it personally, it got me thinking about all the other times people have said nasty things about what I believe in. Then it occurred to me that over the years, people have said ugly things to me when they found out:

- my religion
- where I live
- where I grew up
- my military service
- that I helped set up race relations programs in the 70's
- that my children married outside my religion
- that I don't agree with them about everything
- that I willingly work with people who are "different"
- etc. You name it, somebody has taken a shot at me about it.

So it's really foolish (and possibly prideful) to take this stuff personally, or to feel compelled to "say something back" to individuals who, for whatever reason, feel compelled to put me "in my place." It isn't about me, it's about them.

Dawn D. said something on her weblog the other day that also came to me in the middle of this: "I know they suffer just like I do, and they think that [people like me] are the reason they are suffering." (not an exact quote, but close enough)

Thanks, Dawn -- I needed that.

Public Service Announcement

Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:07:51 GMT

Don't like the trash on television? TURN IT OFF!!!!

Seriously, it's time to go find something better to do. A washed-up singer flashes the audience for two seconds at the end of a raunchy duet with another second-rate "talent" and for two days after it's all over the Web and television news? Geez, get a freakin' life. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING on the toob worth your time. Not reality shows, not Ted Koppel, not Oprah, not Tim Rosser, not The View, none of it.

Send a message to the sponsors. Turn off their programming and use a few minutes of the time you get back to write them a letter and tell them what you've done.

Mainstream Media and weblogs

Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:29:29 GMT

And I thought maybe I imagined it ...

Dave Winer in Boston saw the same Meet the Press that we got here in Dallas. I don't know which group I loathe more - pols or press. -- BB

Meet the Press had a particularly clueless segment on blogs. Typical BigPub arrogance. One guy says he has a blog, but his is different -- he posts columns instead of pancake recipes. Oh. Okay. I guess you're smart and we're stupid. Thanks. [Scripting News]

Social network software

Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:49:40 GMT

Social network software.

Social network software has been getting a lot of attention lately. Is it a good thing or not? I think it's always good to add a channel through which people can find you, especially if you are a small business. Some people are suspicious or nervous about sharing their rolodexes. My view is that those who share thrive, those who hoard die. I'm on LinkedIn - search for me as William Brandon, and please add me to your network. -- BB

What YASNSes bring.

Jeremy Zawodny:

"Get yourself out of the mind set of social network software for the sake of social network software and start thinking about how adding a social networking component to existing systems could improve them."

Follow the links from JZ's post to find a lot of discussion surrounding this debate.

And see the argument that my colleague Stephen offers to the view that there is a disincentive to sharing one's connections:

"If the value you create is based on 'knowing', then your livelihood will be undercut by someone who has the same knowledge - in this case, the same (or similar) network of contacts - and who shares it freely."

(By the way, my primary point of presence in social networking systems is here, on Ryze. Ryze is one of the oldest systems alive today - it was launched in 2002. Worth a login if you have yet to try one of those systems...)

[Seb's Open Research]

Sharing your RSS feeds

Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:34:29 GMT

View other people's feeds.

"Share Your OPML: A commons for sharing RSS Feeds" You can upload an OPML file from your aggregator that identifies your RSS subscriptions (or point to the place on the Web where your aggregator stores your subscriptions). This allows people who read your weblog to also view your subscriptions in a convenient way. You do have to join the service -- this is because the OPML files themselves will be aggregated in various ways (Dave hasn't said what those ways are, yet, though he is showing the top 100 and the number of subscribers to each, for example). I suspect it also allows him to deny access to any individual who might choose to abuse the service in some way.

This is one more reason why I stay with Radio, in spite of its warts. The more I look at how it's put together, the more impressed I become. Also the more embarassed about my own clumsy use of it. Well, we can't all be Robert Scoble or Joi Ito.

Moment of Truth

Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:21:40 GMT

Two more reasons I don't watch television.

The NY Times asks if CBS paid Michael Jackson $1 million for the 60 Minutes interview. "In essence they paid him" for the interview, the Jackson associate said of CBS, "but they didn't pay him out of the 60 Minutes budget; they paid him from the entertainment budget, and CBS just shifts around the money internally. That way 60 Minutes can say 60 Minutes didn't pay for the interview." [Scripting News]

Political Correctness

Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:59:02 GMT

Merry ... um, Happy ... er, ...

Reading in Timothy Willkins weblog about why I am not supposed to wish anybody a Merry Christmas. OK. For the hyper-sensitive, please pick the good wish from the list below that does not offend you and understand that is what I meant to say:

a. Merry Christmas!

b. Happy Hannukah!

c. Have a nice day.

I sincerely hope this is the worst thing anyone says to you today.

Christmas Day, 2003

Thu, 25 Dec 2003 02:49:27 GMT

In the beginning was the Word;

the Word was in God's presence,

and the Word was God.

He was present to God in the beginning.

Through him all things came into being,

and apart from him nothing came to be.

Whatever came to be in him, found life,

life for the light of men.

The light shines on in darkness,

a darkness that did not overcome it.

He was in the world,

and through him the world was made,

yet the world did not know who he was.

To his own he came,

yet his own did not accept him.

Any who did accept him

he empowered to become children of God.

These are they who believe in his name -- who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it, but by God.

The Word became flesh

and made his dwelling among us,

and we have seen his glory:

the glory of an only Son coming from the Father,

filled with enduring love.

Spam Law(s)

Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:18:54 GMT

Have we solved anything?

I am not sure that we have. The wise home-based entrepreneur will make sure that everyone on the email list is there as a result of positively electing to be there, and that everyone gets an opt-out on every email. Even at that, there will be problems. Be sure that you have captured and properly documented the "opt-in". -- BB

Can Spam? Or New Can of Worms?. When the new antispam law kicks in New Year's Day, e-mail users may not have much to cheer. The definition of unsolicited e-mail includes loopholes wide enough to drive a dump truck of junk mail through, critics say. By Chris Ulbrich. [Wired News]

Public Service Announcement

Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:00:38 GMT

Summer returns to the Northern Hemisphere!

You read it here first.

Since today is the shortest day of the year, it also marks the beginning of the return of summer. From this point on, days get longer. Time to start working on trimming up that tummy! You have six months until it's time to hit the beach again.

You can afford to help someone.

Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:14:28 GMT

You are richer than you think.

In the spirit of the season, consider helping someone else with a donation of cash, food, or clothing.

Where do you sit?. The Global Rich List website tells you how many people on the planet earn less (or more) than you. Here's how they compute it.
[Seb's Open Research]

MS IE spoofing bug

Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:23:55 GMT

Be careful out there.

This is about the newly reported spoofing bug in MS Internet Explorer. Always be sure you know where your browser is pointed and where your information is going. If you're using Opera or Firebird or Mozilla, don't assume that there aren't similar bugs in your browser.

A new security exploit?.

Don Park: "It's like discovering that everything you designed was built on a gigantic turtle that just woke up."

As Don recommends, I did a View Source. This is what the URL looks like. With a quick glance it looks like it's from Microsoft, but you're actually viewing a page at zapthedingbat.com. This isn't entirely new. I'm not sure what the %01 is about. I guess it's a problem if it's the action attribute of a form element, where you can't see the URL. Takeaway: look in the Address part of the browser window when you're typing into a form and if it's the wrong place, hit the Back button and resume your life.

"curly"

[Scripting News]

HBE is back

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:24:10 GMT

The Home-Based Entrepreneur is back.

I regret that my absence was longer than intended. My father, who had been ill for the last three years, took a turn for the worse in November. He passed away November 19. I am getting back to normal (kind of) and should be posting more frequently from this point onward.

Bill

(This note was posted December 10. For some reason, Radio insists on dating it November 10.)

Home-based entrepreneur on hiatus til November 15

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:24:13 GMT

Next post here will be on Saturday, November 15.

I am at the eLearning Guild "eLearning Producer" conference in San Francisco for the rest of the week. I may be weblogging the experience at http://egconf2003.blogspot.com, time and technology permitting. Radio only runs on my desktop, I refuse to buy a laptop just to look cool on my one or two trips each year, so I will check in either via my Psion 5MX or from the nearest Internet cafe.

Political Compass

Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:35:40 GMT

This was fun.

I took the political compass test. I'm a leftist libertarian. [Scripting News]

As it happens, I also fell into the lower left quadrant, but not by much. Jean Chretien and I should have lunch together sometime. Who says all entrepreneurs voted for George W. Bush?

Dogma and ISD

Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:03:28 GMT

Dogma as a two-edged sword.

Susan Smith Nash writes on Xplana ("Course Development Wars: A Content Expert's Cry for Help") about her experience doing a "work for hire" project. She is not happy about the way it turned out, and blames the ID model, the Education Department, and the graduate student who was the project manager.

This is so typical of the problems we get into in development. On the one hand there is blind dogmatic insistence on doing the ID model step by step (without ever understanding the model or its function). On the other hand there is blind dogmatic insistence on sticking with what the content expert has come up with: "quite subtle and ingenious."

Instructional Systems Design (my term for "ID") is a systematic way to make sure that the structure of a product intended to facilitate learning is sound. ISD is supposed to ensure accountability. It should support learning, it doesn't create it. The ISD product is only an armature upon which the finished product is built.

Reading Susan's article, several things are clear to me. First, the Education Department was producing an application intended to support near transfer and implemented a project management structure designed with behaviorist outcomes in mind. A leads to B and the result is measured by C. Some people think of this as "low road." Susan was thinking "far transfer" and produced a design to support that. F and R, mediated by G, lead to a result K that won't be measured but that the learner can apply (or not) either to learn more or to obtain a personal goal later in life. Susan would probably think of this as the "high road" approach. Neither of these views is right or wrong, but in this case they were terribly mismatched.

Second, it isn't the ISD model's fault, it isn't Kendra's (the graduate student project manager) fault, and it isn't Susan's fault. (Although Kendra and Susan both bear responsibility for the unhappy result, and I'd bet both of them would disagree with me about that.) Kendra and the Dean were working to produce an Industrial-age training product. Frankly, it's about money and getting funding, pure and simple. Susan was pursuing a means to bring students to a higher level of intellectual accomplishment. She wasn't thinking about money, especially. The irony is that, properly applied, ISD can support either outcome. The designer and the subject matter/content expert can take the low road or the high road, they can go for near transfer or for far transfer, and ISD is the vehicle that can get them both there safely --- but the designer and the expert must both be going to the same place via the same route. Otherwise they wind up fighting about who gets to drive the damn bus.

Third, the real lesson here is not about the technology or the model. It is about the vital importance of relationships and communication. This is so trite to say, but so true. And it bites us in the butt so often.

In the original ISD, and in its best implementations, the largest amount of time is spent at the beginning of the project. The function of the "needs assessment" is to identify and resolve the desired outcomes among all parties before the team ever gets into methods, means, and crafting of "deliverables." Too often, "needs assessment" is twisted beyond recognition by people who think they "know" what the problem is and what solution is called for, and who try to bulldoze their solution over everyone else. Stories like Susan's are the result.

In graduate school thirty-plus years ago, one of the professors in the Psychology department (who also happened to be a Greek Orthodox priest) used to make a little diagram. He said, let Sigma (and he would draw the Greek character) stand for "Systemia" (system), and Alpha (again drawing the Greek character) stand for "Anthropos" (human beings). When you add them together, you get "SA", which is the abbreviation for the Greek word for "Sickness." It's a lesson that has stayed with me because it is true in many areas of life, but nowhere more true than in using ISD.

Predictably, others have a different view of Susan's experience. I can't say I disagree, but I do think it's a shame to blame the tool for the workman's inability to use it.

Further thoughts and elaboration (added after the first part of this post).

Susan's article is more about poor project management and uncommunicated expectations than it is about Instructional Design and Subject Matter Experts. What she describes was surely a disaster all the way around, but don't blame ID or even the Education Department. This was totally avoidable.

How did it happen that the project manager never discussed the model and the requirement for behavioral objectives with the SME until after the SME turned in her deliverables? That was a truly cosmic dumb new-project-manager-suddenly-in-deep-doo-doo mistake.

How did it happen that the SME didn't catch on immediately to the fact that what was being written was not "her course" but a work-for-hire, meaning that there were specifications to be met? A writer on contract cannot afford to have any ego tied up in the deliverables. If that's unacceptable, don't do work-for-hire.

I've been designing, delivering, and managing training and education since 1968, and I've been both a hired gun and an employer as well as being tapped to be an SME in my own areas of expertise. Never once has the ID model been a problem, whether the design was to be behaviorist in nature, collaborative, or constructivist. ID, intelligently applied, will support any educational outcome. All that ID does is to provide a framework for the project and a basis for accountability. It does not create knowledge and it does not dictate objectives, methods, or means. Problems in development nearly always come as a result of poor communication, incompetent project management, or unclear expectations/specs.

Information overload and weblogs

Tue, 04 Nov 2003 04:08:23 GMT

Handling (weblog) information overload.

Lilia Efimova has started a discussion about handling weblog reading chores, asking whether aggregators are a good thing and whether weblogs lose their personal "voice" when aggregated.

In my opinion, this is a simple overload problem. People handle information overload in a number of ways, some of them dysfunctional to their purpose in gathering the information in the first place. For example, many people handle overload simply by "editing out" or "spacing" part of the information. Ironically, this means that the more information a person tries to access, the more they miss. Another way people handle information overload is to extend their working hours. A big chunk of the 60-70 hour workweek that has become normal for some people goes to trying to deal with information.

I use an aggregator and I am selective about which weblogs I read (about 50 currently). This helps tremendously.

I did a search on handling information overload. Predictably, most of the hits dealt with using software to manage information flow or with email overload. However, one article found so far addresses personal strategies, which seems to me to be closer to what is needed for dealing with weblogs: Overcoming Information Overload (InfoWorld, January 7, 2000).

More on this later. It's an interesting question.

Real Entrepreneurs Don't Spam

Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:03:29 GMT

Real Entrepreneurs Don't Send Spam

Survey Confirms It: Spam Sucks. A new report reveals what most had already suspected: People hate getting spam. And a number of them are using e-mail less frequently because of it. By Katie Dean. [Wired News]

This is a follow-on to a post here October 7 (The Entrepreneur's Take On Spam). The survey cited above shows that a substantial number of people (11%) think your email is spam even if they have asked you to send them email. And the numbers indicating intolerance are rising.

If the intent is obviously commercial -- if the reader can sense that you are trying to sell something, if the reader can hear the "close" coming -- they don't want to see it, read it, or have it in their inbox. And you can bet that if you annoy someone enough, they will NEVER buy from you.

Think through your marketing plan very carefully. People want information for free, with no strings attached. Your marketing, more than ever, needs to build a relationship based on trust, service, and value to the public. This applies to your emails, newsletters, and your weblog. It probably even applies to your website: if your site looks like a billboard, how motivated are people going to be to buy from you?

The Easterbrook Affair

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:04:33 GMT

The Easterbrook Affair.

There has been a lot of discussion of this in the blogosphere today. Here is a reply I left for Dave Winer on Don Park's weblog:

Dave Winer says (and I am posting this here because I think he will see it here and maybe respond):

"We think we're good people, we are good people, but we have this embarassment (to put it mildly) of having been exterminated in a holocaust and then the double embarassment that some of the stereotypes are true, there are greedy Jewish bastards, and in a sense they do run the world (as do WASPs, and Germans and Italians, Koreans and Japanese, even Arabs run the world if you look at it from the right angle). So some of what the Jew haters say is true, enough so that we can't really argue about it without getting unreasonable, which is something a good Jew doesn't want to do. We're more likely to see your point, in our hearts, even though it's painful to admit it."

See, there's something there that bothers me. In fact *none* of what the Jew haters say is true, and it's a damned shame that even Jews are apt to get fooled by the rhetorical trick. There are bad people in the world, some of whom happen to be Jews and some of whom happen to be Catholic and some of whom happen to be Korean. But those people would be wretched excuses for human beings no matter what they claimed to be or appeared to be, if for example they were Wiccans or Buddhists or Belgian they would still be (to use Dave's term) greedy bastards. This is the oldest trick in the bigot's book: "You know how *those people* are ..."

I don't know whether Easterbrook had "that train of thought" going on before the movie was released. I don't know whether the man is an anti-Semite. He may have been under the illusion that he was saying something good, by way of being ironic, and got so full of himself that he didn't see that his irony would come across as sarcasm or as a threat. But the classic "reasonable man" would have foreseen the reaction.

Here's my personal (very personal) take on this affair. We all carry our past, and we deal with it whether we want to or not. I was raised a white Catholic in segregated East Texas in the 1940's and 1950's. The irony in my case is that I have a great-great-grandmother who was a Seminole, so the matter of racial identity was always a problem for me, and a great gift as it turned out. This made me a hated minority (religiously - read up on who the Klan used to string up and burn out: blacks, Jews, and Catholics, in that order), a person of mixed race (not made known to the world until much later), and an ostensible member of a "superior" group. Oh, yeah - we were poor, too - no friends in high places, no notion that we had intelligence and ambition. There were plenty of messages about race and religion and worth and primacy that were poured into my young ears, eyes, and soul. It took me until young adulthood to figure out that, while my ancestors were brave, pioneering, and independent-minded, and they provided me with some very important values about honesty and integrity and hard work, they were also tragically, horribly wrong about some very important things. Their progress, such as it was, came at the expense and through the suffering of other human beings.

The trick for my generation is to remember and act on the right values, and to work to eliminate the wrong ones in what we pass on to our children. It's hard. It's a long road. And it's a road marked by mistakes (in my case) some of which have surely been as offensive as Easterbrook's, even if they offended fewer people at the time. I have a great many reasons to strive to do better, not the least of which is hope for mercy in the next life. A lot of white southern people my age and older share these reasons and motivation.

I hope Easterbrook survives this and becomes better for it. In fact, I hope we all become better for it.

Shift Key, Shmift Key

Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:26:17 GMT

The Shift-Key Affair.

Shift-Key Case Rouses DMCA Foes. A student finds he can disable copy protection on CDs by pressing the Shift key. The company that makes the software threatens to sue for revealing the fact. Critics say this is exactly why the Digital Millennium Copyright Act should be rewritten. By Katie Dean. [Wired News]

I am not a lawyer, but these news stories certainly make it sound like SunComm got caught selling crappy, practically non-functional copy-protection software to a record label - software that only keeps out the honest people who would never think of stealing music in the first place. These are the people who won't make copies of the music even now that they know the not-so-secret handshake.

It must be terribly embarrassing to be exposed like this. SunComm is probably the one that should worry about getting sued -- by their customers, if not by their shareholders.

How much is $87 Billion?

Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:09:24 GMT

I'm a little short of cash today.

Could you loan me $87 billion until Tuesday?

Check it out.

[CrunchWeb]

What works with weblogs in education?

Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:55:35 GMT

What's Working? Weblogs in Education (A Reply)

This citation is the second in a series of columns by James Farmer on xplana:

Personal Publishing in Education... What's Working?.

Here's my latest xplana piece which basically asks of weblogs in education the question 'what's working?' and to an extent 'why?'

I think that throughout my attempts to clarify what personal / social publishing can do for education I've always run up against this... if these are such free, liberating, personal tools then why don't they get used more? Originally I figured I'd got it wrong, that I'm not losing that 'control' thing that dogs so many teachers, but now I'm coming to think that in fact I'm recognising how this 'radical freedom' doesn't quite cut it and that our society (and ourselves???) demands structure, meaning and guidance...

Hmmm... still not too sure though, help!

[incorporated subversion]

Responding to just one of James' questions: "why don't they get used more?"

Teachers don't use them more, I'm sure, because weblogs are of the lesser world of rhetoric rather than the world of logic. OK, everyone is not going to be impressed by that lame reach. Weblogs require dealing with technology, not with intellect. Closer? They require changing the way things have always been done and they require re-writing lesson plans for the umpteenth time. They involve risk (what do you do when a student uses a weblog to write up dark and violent essays that you hope and pray are only fantasies?) and additional time to evaluate, without any reward for doing well with them. And so on.

Why don't they get used more by students, to better effect? James, I guess I'm wondering what educational outcome you are "going for" with weblogs or personal publishing. Not too many students ever did all that much with paper-and-pen journals, and those that did were usually exceptional people who were already on their life's course. My recollection of students at the high school and undergraduate level is that most are set on shorter-term goals (getting finished, getting a degree, finding a job) than on a deliberate and rational path to a life of high achievement.

Weblogs are no easier than journals or lab notebooks to keep and to do well. Two-thirds of people give them up, I think because a good weblog is a hard thing to make, and because it can consume a lot of hours. The technology involved with most weblog tools (well, ALL weblog tools) is very distracting. It doesn't help one's confidence or motivation when the inevitable happens - a software glitch, a server failure, a careless keystroke, and all your work is gone forever. On top of that, having your words published publicly is a daunting thought for a lot of young people -- social embarrassment, etc. Even Darwin kept his Origin of Species as a VERY private, handwritten book circulated only among his closest colleagues for a decade or more, because he feared ridicule. I think we're asking a lot of learners when we add weblogs.

Almost no one teaches people how to use journaling (read: weblogging) as a personal tool for building up a knowledge base, or as a record of personal introspection. Hardly anyone offers a course on how to go back through your old journals (weblog entries) and gain new value from them. Are you teaching scientists, engineers and mathematicians? Your task is different from that of the person teaching writers, artists, and philosophers, isn't it? And wouldn't the uses of weblogs be different for these groups? When I was a student, it was my great privilege to work as an assistant in the University of Texas Archives, where I had access to and was able to help researchers who were using materials left by great (and, face it, some not-so-great) writers and thinkers. Later, I worked as a research assistant and accessions specialist in the University's History of Science collection, with the actual notebooks of great (and not-so-great) scientists from the Middle Ages through the early 20th century. Even forty years later, I recall clearly that their notebooks were of very different characters, and not just because their personalities were different.

I have the sense that the key to getting learners to use weblogs effectively is to find a way to help each learner find, for himself or herself, the lifelong *value* in journaling as it contributes to their life's work (whatever it will be).

If this is off the mark, I apologize. My experience is in the training (yes, that word -- not education) of adults in the business and professional worlds, not in the education of young people, so if I missed the point it won't be a surprise.

Eolas v. Microsoft: Fallout

Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:09:19 GMT

Fallout from Eolas lawsuit.

Jeffrey Zeldman is providing some excellent coverage on this.

Eolas: first fallout. Microsoft, Apple, Macromedia, and RealNetworks publish technical papers explaining two ways to work around the crippling of IE/Win. We examine the pros and cons of both methods and consider the merits of sitting out this round. [Jeffrey Zeldman Presents: The Daily Report]

I was going to quote the whole article, but it's better to read it on Jeffrey's actual weblog. This is vital information if you are using the Web to deliver content of any kind, including marketing and e-Learning.

My only comment on the California election

Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:11:11 GMT

Good luck, California.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.