Small Pieces: The Gang Blog

• Small Pieces From 2002-06-18 •

An article today shows how Bush invented the hyperlink.

(Dave baiting? Moi?)

Loosely joined by Kevin Marks • 21:47 UTC

Dave, I was referring to Tom's use of 'links' in the sense of connections or correlations, perceptions of affinity (at least, that is what I think he meant). Tom, in response to your earlier point about literary critics anticipating the virtualisation of real place, I can see what you are getting at, but Brad's point was that while the deconstructers were inventing ever wordier and more reflexive jargon to describe the putative social construction of reality, a different reality was indubitably being socially constructed online. Another quote from late 1995:
Having children really changes your view on these things. We're born, we live for a brief instant, and we die. It's been happening for a long time. Technology is not changing it much - if at all.

These technologies can make life easier, can let us touch people we might not otherwise. You may have a child with a birth defect and be able to get in touch with other parents and support groups, get medical information, the latest experimental drugs. These things can profoundly influence life. I'm not downplaying that. But it's a disservice to constantly put things in this radical new light - that it's going to change everything. Things don't have to change the world to be important.

The Web is going to be very important. Is it going to be a life-changing event for millions of people? No. I mean, maybe. But it's not an assured Yes at this point. And it'll probably creep up on people.

Steve Jobs in late 1995

Loosely joined by Kevin Marks • 09:14 UTC

• Small Pieces From 2002-06-17 •

I'm getting lost and I don't want to be because you're talking about something really important. Allow me to recapitulate so you can tell me where I'm going wrong:

We take the dumb-ass tests because we are looking for others like us? Ok, got it, although aren't they a postmodern exercise in irony because of the implicit contradiction between the supposed richness of the result and the tawdry, multiple choice technique they use? Anyway, so we're looking for links to others. (Nice birdsong trope, by the way.) But Tom objects that links on the Web tend to be binary. Say wha'? E.g., the links within a blog entry tend to be richer than that. For example, Kevin's link to the Borges piece occurs within a provocative, voice-ful piece about links and collections. Further, the linked page provides more context for understanding Kevin and his blog entry. No binary-ness here. Even the blogrolodex, typically consisting of nothing but names, is contextualized by the blog page and in turn contextualizes that page. But, Kevin, when you say "The kind of links you are talking about are more likely to...", what kind of links do you think Tom is talking about? I think this is where I'm getting lost. Contextualize me, please!

(Considering I hate the term "contextualize," I'm certainly using it a lot today. Shoot me before I say "prioritize.")

Loosely joined by David • 15:05 UTC