Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Have you ever watched a wind-up toy run down? Getting slower and slower before it finally stops moving?

That's what it feels like watching Boopsie.

This is hard to write, but unless Boopsie's condition improves soon, I'm afraid she may not last the week.

Ian has convinced me.

Saturday, we're going to catch the Chinatown bus (not Fung-Wah -- Lucky Star) to NYC to catch a matinee of Cymbeline at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.

We'll probably spend eight to ten hours on a bus for a three hour play.

And this is at Ian's insistence more than mine...

Neither one of us would do something like this on our own, but together... I guess we're just bad influences on one another.

There's something so wrong with me...

I already created a Pokemon-like card for tracking Shakespeare plays, but that wasn't enough.

Real Pokemon lists include a different avatar for each name [Example]

So tonight I've been tinkering with one of the ELouai dollmakers and...

Voila!

	King John	Richard II	Henry V	Richard 3	Henry VIII
	Comedy of Errors	Merry Wives	Midsum Dream	Tempest	Twelfth Night	Winter's Tale
	Antony & Cleopatra	Hamlet	King Lear	Macbeth	Othello	Romeo & Juliet

Of course, it's only getting more difficult because (a) the dollmaker doesn't have anything remotely resembling a toga, and (b) we're reaching the limits of plays I'm familiar enough to illustrate.

So... What do you think? Comments? Suggestions? Asylum recommendations?

Just a few clever innovations that have crossed my monitor recently that I wanted to share:

1) Many websites use CAPTCHAs as a way to separate humans from computers. The most common method is asking the user to identify distorted text (like the example to the right), which is often used in account creation or comment writing to block automated hacks.

But I know many humans who find these letters frustrating and difficult to read. And, apparently, some computers are starting to learn to crack them.

Microsoft Research came up with an interesting alternative

ASIRRA (Animal Species Image Recognition for Restricting Access) "works by asking users to identify photographs of cats and dogs. This task difficult for computers, but our user studies have shown that people can accomplish it quickly and accurately."

Furthermore, they've partnered with Petfinder.com, offering more information and the option of adoption for any animal they show. [Though I now wonder whether it's hackable through the "Adopt Me" links? Never mind. I see they already took that into account]

The website includes a demo for you to try. It's still in beta, but MS is offering it as a free web service for those who want to install it.

2) Christopher Penn asks and answers (via):

Ever go to a conference, take a bunch of photos and recordings, and wonder about fair use and all that? I have. Here's an idea to help make the flow of information more simple - give away free armbands to let people opt into the kind of coverage they want to experience.

He provides three sample images based on Creative Commons licensure: non-consent, consent for non commercial use, and consent for commercial use. They're all colorcoded, making it easy to see from a distance who you should and shouldn't photograph. And the concept could easily be reworked into badges, buttons, stickers or ribbons.

I'll confess, I haven't been as many places where copyright's been an issue, but privacy can be a big deal in some venues.

I've made one further suggestion (in case anybody else wants to run with this concept). Our culture is pretty well ingrained to recognize red=stop and green=go, but it might be a good idea to use associations that won't cause problems for the colorblind. Perhaps Red (non-consent), Yellow (noncommercial), and Blue (full consent)

3) Just repeated something I blogged a few weeks ago about an innovative use of cheap USB drives:

Two lanyards with dangling USB drives that had a 'I'm Lost' label adhered to them and tucked into their shirts later, we had two boys that if got lost would be found and be reunited with us quickly.

Have you seen any cool or innovative ideas lately?

Yesterday, I wrote about BostonNOW, a local tabloid that's seeking to publish blog content.

I was wondering (still am) whether to contribute.

But I wanted to clarify a few of the questions received in comments:

Regarding the fact "they demand the right to modify what you submit. Your review could be unrecognizable once they got through with it, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it." From the issue I read, it looks like they only print excerpts, rather than entire blog posts. And (as Ian once wrote) one of the advantages blog posts have over standard print journalism is the lack of length restrictions. I definitely take advantage of that to ramble a bit, so I wouldn't mind reasonable blurbing.

FWIW, the article that really started me thinking about BostonNOW for this week is my Romeo and Juliet review. And I'd be seeking visibility not so much for my own sake, but to help them attract an audience.

I'm curious though, about the exposure BostonNOW gives bloggers.

An Open Question to any Bloggers published in BostonNOW:

How much traffic have they driven to your site?

 Have you seen a noticeable uptick in your hit counts, or not?
 And if so, roughly how much?

Thanks!

Okay, I'm having an intermittent problem with my cellphone, and I was wondering if anybody had some suggestions.

My phone is a Sony Ericsson Z520a.

Every so often, while talking to someone, I will lose audio.

The other party can hear me fine, but I can't hear them.

If I hang up and redial, the problem persists until I shut the phone off and restart it.

I suspect I may be bumping a button with my cheek or something that's killing the audio, but if so, I don't know what I've hit or how to disable it.

Any advice?

So, are any other Boston-area bloggers submitting content to BostonNOW?

Alternately, anybody refusing to contribute?

Why, or why not?

I know they initially had problems taking information which wasn't offered, but when I picked up an issue the other night, I noticed a couple items credited to blogs.

I was thinking of submitting yesterday's Romeo & Juliet review to get it wider circulation and ensure a good crowd at the remaining shows.

But their initial ethical misstep makes me want to think carefully before providing them any of my content.

Anybody know whether that's resolved, and if they're totally on the up-and-up since then?

Skimming over their Terms and Conditions, I noticed a couple areas of possible concern:

• As soon as you post your Content on our Site, we shall have and you grant to us a royalty-free, unrestricted, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully transferable, assignable and sublicensable right and license to use, copy, exploit, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) and / or to incorporate them in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.
   
• Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding paragraph, all such uses of the Content shall be attributable to you, unless you indicate in writing at the time of posting the Content that you do not wish attribution.
   
• You understand and agree that others may use your content and therefore license all of our present and future members and herby grant to such members an irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use such Content, but only for their personal use.
   
• You agree that any information or materials submitted by you to this Site, including without limitation ideas, creative concepts or suggestions relating to any facet of our business, products or potential business or products, may be used, reproduced, exploited, and disclosed by us either in its original form or as modified by us without restriction for whatever purpose we deem fit and without payment of any sum, or any other form of consideration or remuneration or acknowledgement of you as their source. You also warrant that any "moral rights" or "droit moral," as those terms are defined under copyright laws, in posted materials have been irrevocably waived by the appropriate authors.

I'd love to get feedback, particularly from anybody more knowledgable in law or publishing or anyone whose read these and decided to contribute.

PS: Since writing the above, I found today's New York Times has a story on BostonNow. [via]

Steve Garfield is quoted saying that visibility is a reward in and of itself, even without payment.

And the article adds:

Mr. Wilpers said he wanted to compensate bloggers but was still considering the best way to do so. For now, he has come up with rewards packages that include things like press credentials or consulting services to help bloggers make money from traffic on their sites.

"If you're writing about Boston sports, what's more valuable to you, $25 or a press pass to the Red Sox? Or a backstage pass as a music writer to interview the band you've always wanted to interview?" he said. "It's something they can't get but as a newspaper we could."

Does that information change your opinion any?

As I wrote last week, I feel much more secure in my reviewing skills than I used to.

The fact that I'm writing for my own weblog has allowed me to develop my own unique style of expressing myself when reviewing.

And chief among this is my dismissal of standard highbrow/lowbrow divisions, or scholarly vs. fannish language. A few recent examples:

• In yesterday's R+J review, within the space of two sentences, I quoted Samuel Johnson and described something as fanon.
   
• For April's Men In Titus, I made references to Shakespeare Wars, Joss Whedon, and Stage Beauty -- not to mention the Mel Brooks takeoff in the title.
   
• I also posted about slashy subtext of Coriolanus.

This is actually how I think, and the way I discuss things with my friends.
And I finally seem to have developed the confidence to write my reviews in that manner.

I no longer feel like I'm stifling myself to fit into a more formal tone, nor that I'm being somehow pretentious by discussing academic theories, nor that I'm using pop culture references just to be "hip." Sometimes, fannish jargon is the most accurate word.

I am Lis; I contain multitudes.

And rereading some of these juxtapositions honestly makes me smile, which I can only consider a good thing.

Hopefully, my writing makes others smile (and think), and attracts an audience for the shows I'm reviewing.

What do you folks think?

Wherein I embarrass myself so Ian doesn't have to.

My verbal slip du (yester)jour:

I accidentally referred to the website I Can Has Cheezburger as "I Can Has Cheerleader."

D'oh!

Consider this an open invitation if anybody wants to create a LOL!site along those lines.

Crossposted to Riba Rambles () and bard_in_boston:

I've watched both major motion pictures calling themselves Romeo and Juliet (1968 & 1996) but part of me feels I'd never really seen the play until yesterday afternoon at Harvard.

I can't remember such a sense of joie de vivre in either movie. The sheer mirth and whimsy during the first half had me grinning so much, my cheeks hurt.

Ian claims this is because the films have to cut the text, and the humor can be more easily removed without hurting the plot. That may be the case — this performance did seem fresh and new to me — and if so I feel sorry for people whose only experience of the play has been on film.

But the last time I remember such a grin on my face was Redfeather Theatre Company's As You Like It (which I saw last summer), reminding me that professional theatre may have the edge in skill and budget, but the passion and energy of amateur theater — particularly college productions — make them equally worthwhile.

Yes, there were a few flubbed lines, as is to be expected in amateur theater. Likewise, the location was subject to a lot of background noise which made some lines harder to hear. But those were minor distractions that didn't detract from our overall enjoyment.

On the whole, I am so glad to have seen this production. I recommend catching it if you can.