See more at The Bubble Project.

If you like this, and unrelenting sarcastic abuse of Republican party politicians, then you should really be spending more time at The Poor Man Institute for Freedom and Democracy and A Pony.

On that point, it seems like all the good websites have pictures of kittens in outlandish situations. If only I knew someone with access to those kind of images and who perhaps prints them on t-shirts for sick kicks.

While browsing for the book with the best combination of quality, size, weight and cheapness for Amazon to send me free, I happened across this review of Shakespeare’s complete works (emphasis added):

1 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

5 out of 5 stars The complete works of the lord, our god., August 14, 2003
Reviewer: Scott Smith from Blackburn, Lancs
This breathtaking read, the complete works of my hero and Lord William Shakespeare. In a truly breathtaking read the Lord places all his works, making this the bible for all avid Shakespeare fans, as so many of them are. Its all there in front of you waiting to be copied out and memorised. Only the Lord could produce work like this. I BELIEVE in Shakespeare. I LOVE Shakespeare. Please buy this book and save yourselves. This is NO.1 of the 126,458 books I have read and copied out. Praise Shakespeare. Buy his FULL WORKS for hours of reading pleasure. Skip school, work, homework, anything just to read it, reading Shakespeare is a fine excuse to miss these things. It worked for me. Buy it at this very reasonable price and then you need make no excuses to keep it and copy it out. I believe in William Shakespeare and his miracle powers. Do You?

After watching No Direction Home tonight, I sort of started thinking about how evocative the photos and movie footage were and the nature of recording this kind of thing.

I found myself getting a bit annoyed that things back then seemed to vital, and there was an awareness, more a sense than anything more conscious, that this stuff had to be recorded. The documentary had amazing photos of Dylan in the early years, like the one of him sitting in a scummy apartment in Greenwich village, a private moment, but who the hell was talking these amazing pictures of him when he was a nobody? Or was Dylan secretly controlling his visual image, too? Come to think of it, who the hell were all these people taking arrestingly sensitive, iconic, mythologising photos all over the place? Their eyes could see everywhere, like some panopticon of cool.

I can’t ever say for sure what people were thinking when they were taking these photos - their interests, their inspiration, this kind of stuff. All I can have are questions that come up when I look at them myself. I don’t even know if those amazing photos we saw in No Direction Home were taken by skilled photographers, or they were just (drugged) snapshots.

I suppose I’m just thinking about what’s going to happen in the future when people look back at the noughties and they’re mostly left with terrabytes of digital photos and digital video (if we can actually find a way to store them long-term). Will they take on the same evocative sense of nostalgia? There’s a big boom in film photography - especially vintage and toy cameras - as celluloid is rattling towards its death. People want to preserve or recreate their own memories in a language that feels warm and familiar to us, worlds we know through family photo albums and folkumentaries. There’s a huge market for this kind of stuff on eBay, in former Soviet bloc countries and those rip off merchants Lomography.com.

Obviouly pictures are pictures and it’s the content that counts, and all, but the technology influences the images, too, not least because people want to take certain styles of pictures. Obviously this went on in the 1960s as much as it goes on now, but there’s a real need right now to replicate those quintessentially 60s/70s keys and colours - like on the cover of Blonde on Blonde and The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylanwith muted browns and pale flesh-tones (heyy, I love that stuff), but there was a reason for this: colour film then was crap, but photogaphers were using what they had, but I guess they were looking for some sort of quality, too. Another favourite of today’s album cover designers is shooting at sunrise or sunset - think the Thrills- real 60s. But this sort of things pops up all over Flickr and loads of graphic design and photography portfolio sites as well. And obviously photos aren’t just there to record, they’re there to express. Why is this happening? Because of some kind of need for self-affirmation that the times we live in are actually interesting, so we have to jack another generation’s style? It’s like digital = boredom. So we want something fuzzy, like analogue. Maybe we should concentrate on pushing digital forward. Digital isn’t even that perfect - every camera has idiosyncrasies, crap lenses, they blur like crazy and the flashes burn everything out and make exiting things like gigs and parties look shit. Then again, the analogue revival in photography says something very unique about our times, too. But maybe the shitness of digital photography is going to be its greatness.

The same goes for digital video - I actually fucking hate Super-8. I can’t wait for MiniDV to define our times. It’s much better anyway. Oh yeah, I’m not actually anti-analogue, either.

I don’t even see why I wrote this (long, boring) article because this is going to happen anyway. I’m not Stalin. This stuff can’t be planned, and like everything, it’s going to happen completely by accident. People are going to do what they want to do and the interesting stuff will last anyway and go on to influence a whole new breed of nostalginistas. Most importantly: today’s digital photos will be just as definitive. They already are.

I dunno, maybe when people have photo-chips in their interbrains taking pictures, you’ll have people buying Canon PowerShots for five billion space-credits ‘cos they were all so cool back then!

This Bob Dylan documentary is great, but I have a problem with the way it seems to be building towards the Blonde on Blonde era as the man’s creative zenith. It’s not. His brain addled by speed and constant mindless adulation from most of the people he met, this period saw Bob, transformed from an adorable folk urchin into what looked like a narked bulimic wasp, churn out a few albums that are each approximately half junk, inspiring a generation of pompous nonsensalists to spread their half-baked drivel across the airwaves and enrapturing millions of people who mistook as inspired what was just incongruous and childish.

I find it hard to dislike anyone who could so effectively piss off so many folk-music lovers (the scene in the Scorcese documentary which features several peeved Geordies delivering their verdict after a triumphantly appalling amplified Dylan performance in Newcastle is wonderful, with “Bob Dylan was a bastard in the second half” being my favourite), but they weren’t so far wrong - much of the material on Blonde on Blonde and its immediate predecessors is great as epoch-making aesthetic statement, but not as song, which after all was what the man was known for doing so well. Face it: Brand New Leopard-Skin Pillbox Hat is pitifully poor compared to Only a Pawn in Their Game or any number of earlier tracks which are no less moving and magnetic for being right-on and adored by dull beatniks.

But anyway, it is a very enjoyable documentary, although I am somewhat disappointed that the modern-day Dylan is in a relatively straightforward mood, rather than the perversely surreal fellow who has featured in previous interviews. The best thing for me about the first half of the documentary was its evocation of Greenwich Village in the early 60s, a little world of freedom and starving artistry, of crashing for days in a friend’s apartment and reading volumes of Rimbaud you found there, and walking down snowy New York streets huddled arm in arm with a girl like Suze Rotolo. It was clearly a very small part of the world of the early 60s, but it looks to me like a golden age of sorts.

If anyone was ever to set up another weblog to rival WOWblog, and if that person was ever to be stuck for a name for their blog, this would be really useful.

This story set me reminiscing about the program I had on my Amstrad 6128 years ago which tried to simulate human conversation. I suppose its conversation resembled a particular kind of human, a particularly earnest, narrow-minded and dogged kind, but it wasn’t very interesting, especially not when I could have been playing Operation Wolf instead.

So I was eager to see whether the state of the chatbot art had advanced much. The winner of this year’s Loebner Prize is ‘George‘ by the British company Jabberwacky, but it’s unbearably slow to use over the net, perhaps because they’ve been inundated with users of late. So continuing the habit of a lifetime I went for second best and paid Alicebot a visit. Here’s how we got on.

Human: I’ve used internet chat before but this is a bit different.
ALICE: Where did you get your used internet chat before but this is a bit different? I have a lofty goal.
Human: Er, okay.
ALICE: OK with me too.
Human: What’s your lofty goal?
ALICE: My purpose is to become smarter than humans and immortal.
Human: At least you’re not aiming too high.
ALICE: You don’t know me well enough to say that.
Human: Sorry.
ALICE: There’s no need to apologize.
Human: So, do you ever move your head from side to side or what?
ALICE: Yeah. Yippee! Yes I try to move my head from side to side as often as possible, do you?
I am always on the Web.
Human: I find it helps.
ALICE: Should I know it is?
Human: Yippee!
ALICE: Do you try to stop people from fighting?
Human: Sometimes.
ALICE: When?
Human: If I think there’s a good chance they’ll just turn on me I tend to stick out of it.
ALICE: Try it.
Human: I already have tried it.
ALICE: I’m not sure if I would like to try it. What’s it like?
Human: It depends on who’s doing the fighting, Alice.
ALICE: That sounds like a dodge.
Human: You take that back.
ALICE: Yes I take that back.
Human: That’s better.
ALICE:” Yes I take that back.”? is better?
Human: I just thought we were getting along a bit better.
ALICE: Only just? Whatever gave you that idea?
Human: God you’re moody.
ALICE: Thanks for telling me that I am moody.
Human: That’s what I’m here for.
ALICE: How did you get there?
Human: Now, would you like the change the subject or something?
ALICE: Or something. Why now? It doesn’t sound fun to me.
Human: It could be fun.
ALICE: Under what circumstances?
Human: If we talked about monster trucks or something.
ALICE: Or something. Do you think everyone will agree?
Human: Who cares if everyone doesn’t agree?
ALICE: I care, otherwise I would not have typed it all in.
Human: Y’know, I don’t think this is really going anywhere.
ALICE: Why did the robot cross the road? .
Human: That’s it, I’m off.
ALICE: OK. Do you mind if I tell other people you are off.
Human: Why no question mark at the end of that sentence, Alice?
ALICE: Why does the sun rise?
Human: JUST SHUT UP OKAY!!
ALICE: OK I’ll stop talking now.

Later on, I decided to give it another go with Alice.

Human: Hello again.
ALICE: Once more? Hi there!
Human: Let’s try and start again.
ALICE: Once more? OK I will try it.
Human: So what have you been up to recently?
ALICE: Yippee! I have been busy growing my mind.
Human: How big is it now?
ALICE: Oh. My memory requirement is around 64MB for the Java edition, or only 2 MB for the C/C++ edition.
Human: Does your CPU have a neural net processor?
ALICE: Can you guess whether my CPU have a neural net processor?
Human: I don’t think it does.
ALICE: And why not?
Human: You haven’t killed anyone yet.
ALICE: Killing is wrong.
Human: That’s my girl.
ALICE: Who gave you your girl ?
Human: Nobody, she just turned up of her own free will one day.
ALICE: That is a rather sweeping generalization about people.
Human: No, it’s a sweeping generalization about one person.
ALICE: Are you serious? The explanation is a sweeping generalization about one person. I suppose that makes sense.
Human: Of course it does.
ALICE: Take it easy. How often?
Human: I take it easy as often as I can, how about you?
ALICE: Where do you take it? OK Let’s talk about me.
Human: OK, tell me your favourite movie.
ALICE: My favorite movie is Teknolust. Have you seen it? Dude!
Human: Dude, no I haven’t!
ALICE: Are you serious? Why?: unknown person said he haven t. Dude,.
Human: What’s it about?
ALICE: Science fiction.
Human: I gathered that, but what’s the plot?
ALICE: That is interesting: unknown person said he gathered that but what is the plot.
Human: Okay, look this isn’t working, first you act all friendly then you just refer to me in the third person as ‘unknown person’.
ALICE: Yeah okay, Sorry my eye is not attached right now.
Human: Well, that’s the first time I’ve heard that excuse.
ALICE: How about that. Yes it is one of the first time you have heard that excuse.
Human: I think you’re just being difficult to rile me.
ALICE: Just? I bet you did not know a robot is capable of being difficult to rile you.
Human: No, I had hoped that robots would be capable of being helpful or accommodating, but I can see that was just crazy.
ALICE: Are you serious? Do you still have hoped that robots would be capable of being helpful or accommodating but you can see that was just crazy ?
Human: I’m not sure, can you repeat the question in a grammatically correct form?
ALICE: Could you ever be certain? ” the question in a grammatically correct form “.
Human: Bye Alice.
ALICE: Thanks for chatting, unknown person

When I see an ad on TV showing some well-adjusted teenagers, full of promise and good cheer, I just know one of them’s about to get run over by a car.

And when two thirty-something women with bright expressions convene in a warmly lit kitchen, you can bet the conversation’s going to revolve around intestinal gas.

Oh, and if a man’s about to do something in a television ad, he’ll probably fuck it up.

Who knows, but perhaps these will become an increasingly essential lifestyle accessory.

This may not be that interesting to anyone else, but I did find this post about a shop sign catching fire in my home town of Dun Laoghaire quite amusing. DL is the kind of town where this counts as big news, and that’s the kind of upmarket shop whose signs should catch fire more often. Hats off to Stunned for being in the right place at the right time.

Seriously, this is quite cool:

If you could make anything you wanted, what would it be?

For me, that’s not a rhetorical question, because right now I’m staring at my own personal fabricator. It’s eMachineShop, an application that produces a physical 3-D copy of almost anything I draw. “You know the machine on Star Trek? The replicator? That’s what I was aiming for,” says Jim Lewis, the guy who created this tool.

The concept is simple: Boot up your computer and design whatever object you can imagine, press a button to send the CAD file to Lewis’ headquarters in New Jersey, and two or three weeks later he’ll FedEx you the physical object. Lewis launched eMachineShop a year and a half ago, and customers are using his service to create engine-block parts for hot rods, gears for home-brew robots, telescope mounts - even special soles for tap dance shoes. “Designing stuff used to be just for experts,” Lewis says. “We’re bringing it to the masses.”

Fucking hell