You couldn’t make this stuff up

Previously, on The Blogosphere: at Les Blogs 2 last year, Ben called Mena‘s speech ‘bullshit,’ so she called him an ‘asshole’. This year, at the successor conference Le Web, French presidential hopefuls showed up and lots of people got annoyed, including Sam. But Loic (who works for Mena, and organised Le Web) called Sam an ‘asshole’, then Michael fired Sam. And now, The Blogosphere continues…


OK, I’ve officially gone from eye-rolling ‘oh-for-heaven’s-sake’ to ‘fetch-me-the-popcorn-this-is-unreal.’ I feel bad for Sam, whose posts at Techcrunch UK read as being quite measured to this non-attender, and I’m appalled that Loic’s contentious comment on Sam’s post has apparently been removed.

Perhaps most significantly, I’m seriously reconsidering my use of Six Apart‘s products. This isn’t a new thought, in that I’ve been watching WordPress with envy for a while, wondering when some of the gloss of TypePad and Vox would pay off for Movable Type, stuggling against the strategy that has me moving to TypePad. But I’ve not seriously considered shifting allegiance, until now. Six Apart is a small organisation, and how its key staff comport themselves in public says a lot about the goals and aspirations of the company. There’s no benefit to me in using tools that are being developed by people who get it so wrong.

300Gb laptop drives

Woohoo! My PowerBook G4 has an 80Gb drive, which was as big as they came when it was new, and still as big as they came until earlier this year. But my PowerBook is three years old, sheesh – paging Gordon Moore, your Law may need tweaking!

I was beginning to wonder if the next MacBook Pro would feature 80Gb iPod drives in a RAID 0 array, but now it looks like sanity will return and save me from daily sweeps for free disk space.

I’m quite serious, by the way: one of the things that’s kept me from considering a replacement laptop is that even 160Gb isn’t enough for a full install of the dev tools, iLife, Final Cut Studio, a decent iTunes library, a series of Studio 60, and 300,000 documents I’ve accumulated over the last fifteen years. Well, it isn’t if you want space for media, anyway.

I turn my back for two minutes…

It’s a little hard to work out exactly what happened amidst the piles of debris, slowly-settling dust, and general confusion, but it looks like Paris-based web conference Les Blogs 3 Le Web has been hijacked by French Presidential hopefuls. Which is… er… weird. But hey, if David Cameron (…’s handlers) runs a video blog, I guess there must be some sort of reflected-glory thing involved and oh I can’t be bothered working it out, actually. There’s a view of the festering corpse of whatever pre-event excitement had been generated at Tom Morris’ blog. Euan’s take is interesting, however, in part because it’s remarkably considered given the general amount of flack that appears to be obscuring matters in Paris.

One odd theme that strikes me from the fall-out: there seem to be plenty of ‘new media’ types who still want to know if ‘old media’ (which now means TV and radio along with print, do keep up) is ‘dead.’ They may have an agenda there (cough), but if they do, then it’s just as simplistic as old media’s often-patronising perspective on the web.

Bits of TV are dead, sure. Some of those bits may not have noticed yet, but they’re dead all the same. Bits most certainly have plenty of life left in them, as the bloggers would notice if they stopped watching Battlestar Galactica for a minute. But none of this is really very interesting, because it falls under the heading gets tagged as ‘bleedin’ obvious’ and ‘divisive.’

What’s interesting, surely, is how ideas are relayed to, and between, audiences. Television was one early transmission protocol, that has serious technical limitations (one-way real-time communication, huge latency on the return path), but also unparalleled reach. Plus, you know, pretty moving pictures. But structurally, it’s really no different to newspapers and magazines (discuss, 20 marks); there are many other forms of transmission, other interaction models, with which we’re finally able to play. And hey, guess what? We really don’t know much about them, because committees and presentations and working groups and colloquia and symposiums and coffee mornings don’t scale to thousands of people, so we’ve just never done this sort of thing before and gosh that’s really exciting and gee, who knew thousands of people sharing pictures with each other would be, like, fun, and hey, what about a bunch of us get together and write an encyclopedia, and… and so on.

Our challenge is to work out which approaches are useful, productive (and/or entertaining), and can be explained to people in words of less than four syllables. Which was, I thought, rather what Le Web 3 was going to be about. It’s certainly why, once upon a time, I rather fancied being there.

Cleaning standard weights

Via the magnificent Ben Craven: the officially-mandated cleaning regime for international standard platinum-iridium kilogram prototypes (2Mb PDF download). You have to read this in order to appreciate the subtlety of the process, which begins by scrubbing the thing with a finger wrapped in a solvent-soaked chamois. Genius.

(file alongside ‘ISO standard for making tea,’ which was, I think, the story that got Kevin Marks reading The Daily Grind. Gosh, fame. etc. Oh, and while you’re at it, take a look at Ben’s magnificent never-turning gear train. Double genius.)

Standard definition people in a high-definition world

One of the guilty secrets of the glossy world of broadcast TV is that, behind the scenes, it’s all far more shabby than viewers realise. We’re highly adept at designing, building, lighting and shooting everything so it looks glossy, and then somehow it all looks better on your TV at home anyway. Hence one of the running gags of TV: come the age of high-definition, we’re screwed, because you’re all going to notice that the glamorous world of TV is, in fact, scrappy as hell.

I’ve always thought of this as it related to studio sets and things like presenters’ fingernails in extreme close-ups, both of which will have to be prepared to a higher standard for HD (and, thus, would be prohibitively expensive). Reading a review of Miglia’s natty little TVMini HD off-air HD receiver, however, I stumble across an altogether more significant worry: Evangeline Lilly has laughter lines (scroll down for a particularly well-chosen frame).

Now, this is interesting. Suddenly, all those impossibly beautiful television personalities and actors are revealed to be exactly what they are: human. And, frankly, a whole lot less gorgeous in person than one expects. In many ways this isn’t a great shock, but some of the implications perhaps are:

Firstly, maintaining current levels of implausible perfection will require either cinema-grade make-up, lighting, and photography (prohibitively expensive), or a new generation of digital post-production make-up artists to almost literally paper over the cracks. Now, one hesitates to describe rotoscoping as ‘potentially cheaper’ than anything, but perhaps it can be. If so, one can envisage some celebs insisting on being post-produced only by their named artist, just as they currently insist on particular make-up and hair personnel. but this is still the high end of the market we’re talking about.

The only alternative I can see is that we’ll all come to realise just how ridiculous the whole situation is, and accept people more for what they are than for what crappy PAL/NTSC has previously presented them as. Which would, I think, be a Good Thing all round in terms of body self-image, and all that.

Finally, one wonders if the final refuge of true cinematographic glamour will be not high-definition at all. Working on the principle that it’s what you don’t show that counts, could it be that the home of the perceived-beautiful will become… YouTube?

Huh. Fancy that.