Steve Nelson's blog
"The Office" Season 4 DVD arrives with additional Second Life footage and commentary
Submitted by Steve Nelson on Wed, 2008-09-03 10:55. NBC | Second Life | The OfficeNBC yesterday released Season 4 of "The Office" on DVD
Reitman says that the Second Life scenes scared him the most, given that you couldn't actually animate the scenes - they had to be acted out by people running the characters. Though what we delivered to Reitman were finished QuickTime files, we had the sense that he thought he was watching the action in real time; I think this is confirmed in his commentary.
He also expressed concern about how to convey the written script - Jim is a guy with a guitar from Philly who is a sportswriter - into Second Life in just a few seconds. I think we got that one. 
The deleted scenes include a great paintball fight and a funny reveal in Dwight's apartment.
The whole episode as shot ran quite long and was edited for time, so I'm glad these scenes are now available.
Pocket-to-Pocket: What individuals get the extra dollar I am paying for gas?
Submitted by Steve Nelson on Mon, 2008-08-25 11:43. economics | gasoline | oilAlthough gasoline prices have dropped of late, gas still costs me about a dollar more now than a year ago. I know the source of that dollar: it came from my pocket. But I'm less sure about the destination. Into what individuals' pockets was that dollar divided among, and over what time frame? I don't expect to know these individuals by name, but the destination story is always told in such vague terms: supply and demand, exploration, oil company profits, oil exporting countries. But some pieces of that dollar do end up, mostly quite diluted I'm sure, in the pockets of individuals
I can guess a number of them, but in what proportion and over what time period do the pennies land?
Some amount of the money must go to oil company profits, and any profits paid as dividends to shareholders ends up in those shareholders' pockets. But profits plowed back into exploration? Some of that money must go to hiring new employees who get paid, and whose pockets get a bit of my dollar in the relative near-term.
Speculators? Someone who has a futures contract to buy oil at $100 but can turn around and sell it at $120 into a process that results in taking that extra dollar from my pocket must be putting some of that dollar in their pocket. The Royal Family of Saudi Arabia? Will they split a piece of that dollar, and if so, how soon and in what measure?
I'm not looking for the "Where's George" chain that tracks the same dollar spinning around forever in the economy, but what are the first opportunities for a piece of the dollar that left my pocket to end up in someone else's.
I'll ask this on Askville and Yahoo! Answers and see what I get.
Beloit Mindset List: Class of 2012
Submitted by Steve Nelson on Tue, 2008-08-19 11:27. beloit college | college | demographicsTwo million students born in 1990 are off to college this fall the Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2012 has been released. Take a look at the cultural touchstones that shape this cohort.
Social Media: Loosening the Grips on Personal Identity
Submitted by Steve Nelson on Tue, 2008-08-05 12:44. employment | Facebook | identity | social media | Social Networking | soulI'm starting to form some ideas about online projections of personal identity and the degree to which an employer can say "yea" or "nay". Here’s a post by a fired CNN blogger Chez Pazienza that includes CNN's new "Policy Regarding Personal Writings Onlineâ€Â, where CNN spells out what an employee can and can’t say on a site such as Facebook.
In my collection of Facebook profiles of friends and colleagues I see very few that are designed to represent only their corporate side; something about the medium induces them to project a more complete view of their character in full.
Yet companies such as CNN interpret this view through a very special filter: this soul is mine.
Personal blogs by people who also happen to work for someone have been around all decade (and then some), and their mass may be mined to determine what’s in the head of any individual. But the physiology of Facebook is based on a structure that reveals more about an individual in fuller context, very digestible. Yes, you’ll see someone’s work network and associates, but alongside their college buddies, neneighbors and lifelong friends. You’ll see the business books they’ve read on the same shelf as their manga or pulp novels. You’ll see their next business conference and their next kegger. You’ll see who they work for and who they’ll vote for. You’ll see who they really are.
Among other things CNN doesn’t want you to list your political affiliation on your Facebook page, because they don’t see CNN as being a part of you, but you are a part of CNN.
I don’t think the new social media is going to work that way; I see people developing a wider sense of free agency. Their character does include their employer, but is more widely defined. Of course, CNN is ultimately free to make their own rules as to who they will hire or fire, but I don’t think that’s such a good idea.
Perhaps the middle ground (at least in the case of Facebook) is that an employer can establish standards for employees who wish to identify with the employer’s network (a Facebook-specific construct requiring a company email address). Identifying with a network is voluntary, but can also be seen as a privilege based on accepting certain conditions. You don’t accept them, OK, you’re free to express yourself, but not fly the network tag.
Is this actually a new turn of the page, has the medium changed the rules, or does the old work-life balance still prevail?
In my collection of Facebook profiles of friends and colleagues I see very few that are designed to represent only their corporate side; something about the medium induces them to project a more complete view of their character in full.
Yet companies such as CNN interpret this view through a very special filter: this soul is mine.
Personal blogs by people who also happen to work for someone have been around all decade (and then some), and their mass may be mined to determine what’s in the head of any individual. But the physiology of Facebook is based on a structure that reveals more about an individual in fuller context, very digestible. Yes, you’ll see someone’s work network and associates, but alongside their college buddies, neneighbors and lifelong friends. You’ll see the business books they’ve read on the same shelf as their manga or pulp novels. You’ll see their next business conference and their next kegger. You’ll see who they work for and who they’ll vote for. You’ll see who they really are.
Among other things CNN doesn’t want you to list your political affiliation on your Facebook page, because they don’t see CNN as being a part of you, but you are a part of CNN.
I don’t think the new social media is going to work that way; I see people developing a wider sense of free agency. Their character does include their employer, but is more widely defined. Of course, CNN is ultimately free to make their own rules as to who they will hire or fire, but I don’t think that’s such a good idea.
Perhaps the middle ground (at least in the case of Facebook) is that an employer can establish standards for employees who wish to identify with the employer’s network (a Facebook-specific construct requiring a company email address). Identifying with a network is voluntary, but can also be seen as a privilege based on accepting certain conditions. You don’t accept them, OK, you’re free to express yourself, but not fly the network tag.
Is this actually a new turn of the page, has the medium changed the rules, or does the old work-life balance still prevail?
The Consequence of Ignorance: the Julie Amero Case
Submitted by Steve Nelson on Mon, 2008-07-14 09:02. ignorance | Julie Amero | law | New Jersey | TechnologyThe case of Julie Amero in New Jersey is a cautionary tale of the consequence of ignorance, technological and otherwise.
(via Taran Rampersad's Facebook link post)
