My Wikipedia contrail (context visible when you mouse-over the links to get the title):
I typed "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" into my browser and looked to see what came up as autocomplete options--this is all of them. I'd like to see other people's contrails.
Rhapsid flower: My dream from last night, in a Helsinki bed, just before waking up at what my body thinks is 5am:
There's a fashion in the world for devoting huge effort to the construction of enormous pyramids, on the scale of the Great Pyramids in Egypt, only bigger.
There's a parallel fashion of building tiny, hyper precise replicas of the Earth, which is only possible when we can scan the entire planet in real time, and shrink the model to print it out at extremely high resolution on desktop 3d printers.
We eat the replicas.
It turns out that the way flavour happens is actually by microstimulation of the tongue by physical shape, not chemical signals at all. The pyramids are changing the shape of the Earth and that's why we build them. They make a replica taste so good that we call it the "rhapsid flower".
Opening the day at Aula (after the yoga), Donatella della Ratta talked about Arabic media, and mentioned that it was somewhat problematic because of the cultural/religious pressure against representation. Later, danah boyd referred to MySpace as, in part, a place where people don't consume media but participate in culture.
My sci-fi brain asks: What would the internet be like with no representation? Imagine a world where no technology represents anything else: All display is unique.
To skip past the answer of "but hasn't it always been so," an alternative view of the ubicomp world of sensors and representation is to say that we're using the internet to poke holes in the earth and see all the way through it: We're not seeing a copy of some data from 1000 miles away, we're seeing the stuff itself, using our supersenses. Alternatively, in the social world, we can say that websites are never reporting on a subject--they're always just personal perspectives on it, and that's a way of getting around the representation taboo.
So given my concerns with representation, and my opinion that it leads to the mass naming of things, and to the corresponding distortions and power games that accompany names (which system I call the semiotcracy), I am happy to say that I will pursue a vocabulary that has no play for representation.
Where I used to talk about the representation of a thing, I will now either state it is the thing itself, or that it is opinion about the thing--some world-state altering response to the original (maybe something that'll alter the thing itself, just as a pataphysical map exerts force on the territory). My motto: ACTS NOT FACTS.