For those of you who read my blog every once and a while, you know that the situation affecting the city of New Orleans post Katrina is something I have attempted to devote a lot of energy too, both from a real-world and academic perspective. Today I read an article that angered me quite extensively regarding the work being done to repair this broken city.

As reported on many news sites today, "despite more than $22 million in repairs, a levee that broke with catastrophic effect during Hurricane Katrina is leaking again because of the mushy ground on which New Orleans was built, raising serious questions about the reliability of the city's flood defenses." The seepage can be spotted at the 17th Street Canal in the Lakeview neighborhood. Although pictures of the levy seepage in this wealthier area of the city were abundant, leaks have been reported at numerous other locations.

This situation is infuriating on two levels. First, it is incomprehensible to me how the Army Corp of Engineers could rebuild the levees to almost pre-Katrina specifications and then be surprised that they would not be up to the task of keeping the city safe. It is evident to me that an independent source needs to responsible, either in an implementation or watchdog capability, for rebuilding the levee system as no one in our government seems willing or capable of doing so. In addition, the levees in and of themselves are not the only problem. Other measures need to be explored regarding different ways to protect the city and affectively respond to a disaster, should one occur again in the future. This is not just a city-wide issue, but one that needs to reach through to the highest levels of government. We all know that our president sat around for five days while the citizens of the city were stranded and helpless. There needs to be effective measures put in place that dictates on a federal level how the government, the state and the city respond to such situations in the future.

The other reason I am angry is something that I have heard so many times during my exploration of this issue, the suggestion that somehow in living in New Orleans, one should simply accept the possibility of a flood as catastrophic as Katrina in the same way that someone in tornado alley should accept the possibility of a tornado. Some people even go as far as to say that rebuilding or returning to the city is pointless as a result. The fact remains that, simply because the city averages between one and two feet below sea level (although obviously alternatively higher and lower in certain locations), does not mean that this is the reason why the city flooded. This entire thought process is ludicrous for many reasons.

First, we need to realize that flooding in and of itself, particularly in this case, is not in fact the "natural disaster". Rather, flooding is the resulting effect OF a natural disaster, such as a hurricane. We can identify this as an effect because its impact is completely dependent upon a particular location’s preparedness and ability to recover post-storm. The effect of flooding on the city of New Orleans was not in fact an effect of hurricane Katrina, therefore, but of a system that failed to protect or assist residents efficiently both before and for a significantly long period after the storm.

Living below sea level is a risk, there is no denying that. But suggesting that somehow residents should simply vacate the city because of the danger is the same as saying that to avoid earthquakes we shouldn't live in California, to avoid hurricanes in general we shouldn't live in Florida or other parts of the southeast or to avoid dangerous winter storms we shouldn't live in the northern most parts of the country. There is risk in living in all of these areas, but risk does not and SHOULD not translate into ambivalence from the public at large. The bottom line is weather is notoriously unpredictable and does not only strike in areas that are known for certain weather patterns or vulnerable to certain weather patterns. In 2006 tornadoes whipped through my hometown in Westchester County, New York coming perilously close to my daughter's day care center. I am not specifically sure of the history, but suffice it to say that this had probably never happened before in that area. Saying it is possible to outrun weather patterns is as ridiculous as it is to say we can predict whether or not it will rain two years from today.

That being said, we can protect ourselves. Yet that is the very mechanism that has failed the city of New Orleans, and continues to fail it to this day. The city suffered as a result of Katrina because engineers and our government made mistakes that are now being repeated. The only thing that can be done to reverse this circumstance is to completely re-evaluate the entire levee system. Supposedly that was what was being done. This report only shows that our assumptions in that regard are very wrong.

Posted by Cat at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

No Video on Flickr!, originally uploaded by Jeremy-G.

As a follow-up, here is the say No to Video on Flickr group..

Posted by Cat at 03:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For a long time there have been rumors that photo sharing site Flickr was planning to add video upload capability. While to some this sounded like an obvious and beneficial feature to include, for many other hard core Flickr users the reaction to these rumors ranged from concern that the inclusion of video would change the Flickr community in a negative way to down right anger. The reaction of these users, which seemed for a long time to be the majority or at least a very vocal minority, did not stop the development of this functionality, however. Flickr announced today that video is no longer a rumor.....it is here. Members will be able to upload 90 second video clips to the site, which, presumably, will become part of their media stream. In their release statement, as if foreshadowing what could be their biggest hurdle in the future, Flickr very specifically stated that just as they encourage "sharing photos that you yourself have taken.....video will be no different."

But it wasn't only the fear of turning into another version of YouTube or morphing into a kind of PhotoBucket that drove many Flickr users to speak out against video functionality. In fact, many users were actually concerned that the inclusion of video would change their 'experience' of the site not necessarily because it would become a destination point for silly video clips but because it would change the very nature and 'feeling' of the community, causing exclusionary video-only groups to pop-up and de-emphasizing the community's main focus around photography. Interestingly enough, Flickr itself has fought battles to protect this kind of focus before, even though their efforts angered certain other members of the community. As I blogged in 2006, Flickr enacted a policy that banned screenshots from global search results because they determined that screenshots were not in fact photographs. This policy of protecting the Flickr mission statement on photo sharing was handed down directly from the original founders of the Flickr platform, making many users wonder if the new video features have anything to do with the founders. Several users even expressed the opinion that video on Flickr is actually an effort by Yahoo to compete with Goggle Video and not anything to do with enhancing Flickr user experience.

While members of the Flickr community will likely sit on both sides of the fence of this debate for quite a while, the question still remains. Will this ultimately be a good move for Flickr? As a place on the web long thought of for its community features, best practices, forward thinking functionality and simplistic visual design, in addition to its photographs, will changing the method by which members can communicate actually cause a break down of the very fabric that made Flickr the Webby Award winner for the number one community site in 2007? Will the inclusion of video attract a different kind of user not interested in participating and communicating in the same way many in the Flickr community do currently?

As someone who has used Flickr for over two years and has long said that it is one of my favorite sites on the web, I can certainly understand the concern from users. Changing what Flickr offers to its user can change the type of user, thus changing the type of user groups created, the type of information shared, the type of communication between users and thus the community as a whole. However, all that being said, there are certainly advantages to being able to supplement conversation, information and opinions with video. And I do think that because of the way Flickr inherently operates, the ability to upload video will not immediately become the kind of feature that inundates the site with garbage and instantaneous change. As an example, unlike other sites that would have advertised the new features in bright bold red letters, Flickr only boasts a small little graphic on its home page, almost invisible to anyone not looking for it. Upon logging in, a user is presented with a couple of indications that there is a new feature, a snippet from the Flickr blog, the change from "Upload Photos" to "Upload Photos and Videos" but, in true Flickr style, nothing that disrupts the utility of the home page. As with every other new feature they have released, Flickr seems thus far to be adhering to its long time tradition of simplicity over everything else. And, the fact that these features are advertised in this way, certainly attempts to clarify that this functionality is being released FOR existing users not in a blind attempt to attract a different kind of audience. And for all of that I applaud them so far.....anything else, well, we will have to wait and see.....this could be a really amazing supplement to an already vibrant and interesting community. Let's hope thats how it plays out...

Posted by Cat at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just received my copy of Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky this past Monday from Amazon. I know I could have quite easily picked it up this weekend at Barnes and Noble, but I was lazy and truthfully quite busy.

In any case, so far I have read about half of the book and am very happy (although not surprised) to say that I like it very much. Although many of the things that Clay discusses in the book thus far are based upon stories he told in the Social Facts class he taught at ITP or things that I have already heard his opinions on (through that class and general discussions with him), the way they are presented in the book make it far from boring or re-iterative. I especially think that the way he discusses "user-generated content" in terms of sharing, collaborating and action is particularly interesting and important to digest, particularly for someone like me who is fundamentally interested in action.

My favorite thought of the book so far: "Love motivates people to bake a cake and money motivates people to make an encyclopedia. Now, though, we can do big things for love"

More to come.....

Posted by Cat at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Megan, Jadie and I just found out that we have been accepted into the second phase of the Echoing Green Fellowship competition. Echoing Green awards 20 two-year fellowships to entrepreneurs creating new social change organizations. Fellows receive up to $90,000 in seed funding and technical support to turn their innovative ideas into sustainable organizations.

We are really excited to have gotten past the initial application process. About 700 to 1000 apply yearly and 150 to 300 organizations are accepted into the second phase. It couldn't be happening at a better time either, as Jadie and I are in the very long process of converting the freeFormed architecture to Drupal.

Posted by Cat at 01:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After much consideration, I decided this year that instead of buying my daughter yet another truck load of toys, which will eventually end up decorating the floor of my apartment, I was going to invest in something a little more interesting. I had been following the "One Laptop, One Child" program for some time now. For those of you unfamiliar, the mission of this organization and project is to empower the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school-age child.

The Buy One Give One program allows you to purchase a laptop for a child in your life while donating an identical laptop to a child in a developing nation. The XO laptop runs on Linux, has WiFi, built in social sharing capabilities and has applications that do everything from painting and drawing to musical composition, taking pictures and learning programming. It also has built in video and voice recording capabilities. Designed to withstand harsh weather conditions and the daily use by children, the XO laptop features a sealed, rubberized keyboard that is resilient to water, dust, and dirt. It’s also scaled to accommodate child-sized hands and has a lighter touch than normal keyboards. Since many children in developing nations do not have access to electricity, the XO laptop is designed to be extremely power efficient. The batteries operate for up to 2,000 recharge cycles (four times the lifetime of a typical laptop battery). They are extremely efficient, contain no toxic heavy metals, and can be hand charged via a crank, pedal or pull-cord—or recharged by a directly connected solar panel.

I think the project is amazing and so I decided to buy a laptop for my daughter and lend the little support that I could afford. Plus, I am dying to check this thing out for myself. The joke is that I may end up playing with it more than her. But in either case, I think it is quite a responsible Christmas gift and I hope that others looking for a gift for a child will consider it.

Posted by Cat at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Several people have asked me recently about my thoughts on Google's recent release at the beginning of this month of Open Social, a set of common APIs for building social applications on the web. Since I have really been neglecting my blog over the last few months, I figured I would begin by discussing my (still quite undeveloped) thoughts on this project.

First, I think it is quite obvious that Open Social is an incredibly smart idea in theory. It is a set of three common APIs, defined by Google with input from partners, that allow developers to access core functions and information at social networks such as profile information, friends Information and social activities, things that would be found in Facebook's news feed for example. It also allows developers lots of latitude with respect to how their applications are created instead of relying on a proprietary mark-up language the way Facebook does. Developers can use normal javascript and html and can even embed Flash elements. But the advantage of this approach is really its ability to provide developers with one way to reach users across multiple different platforms. Initial partners include LinkedIn, Ning, Hi5, Plaxo and Friendster with developers like Flixster, iLike, RockYou and Slide already developing applications.

The problem is, however, that in order for Open Social to integrate into a platform, the platform itself has to become a 'host'. This means that instead of developers going where the critical mass of users are (i.e. facebook or myspace) they must wait for the platforms these users have already integrated their social activities into to come to them. This is not necessarily a problem if popular platforms open up to the project and many have. But what would be the advantage to the giants in social networking of doing so, particularly in the case of Facebook?

Since its release, many people have stated that this is a blatant attack on Facebook where it is the weakest, its quintessential closed nature. But it is its closed nature that has been attracting record numbers of users, particularly internationally. The integration of applications within this closed environment means that users have control over their information and social connections, while still bing able to easily utilize incredible amounts of functionality with a mouse click. And lets not forget that the adoption of applications is viral thanks to the news feed. Developers have the ability to tap into a huge user base that is already paying attention.

Now, I am not intending to sing Facebook's praises unconditionally. Any developer knows that, while creating an app for the platform is quite simple, its restrictions and limitations are incredibly frustrating at times. It has also become frustrating to attempt to reach users across multiple platforms, having to learn different APIs or method of creating applications that will work in different situations. Open Social gets rid of this problem. It also gets rid of the need for developers to find hosting solutions for their applications, something that many of the more popular Facebook apps, such as iLike, had to struggle with in the beginning when their user base shot up exponentially overnight. It also takes a lot of the strain off of the platforms themselves. Imagine, for instance, how much of a project the Facebook Developer platform was for the in-house developers.

All in all, I think where Open Social will initially have the most success is with the less popular social networks and smaller developers who have good reason to participate since Google will be doing all the heavy lifting. But I don't see this as being a Facebook killer, at least not in its present incarnation. While I am a firm believer that the future of social software is indeed moving towards a more open and less proprietary environment, Open Social is still relying on its success through integration with the proprietary. And the leaders in that field have very little incentive to join the band wagon. Developers of these kind of integrated applications, however, will naturally be excited to try out something new. But the bottom line is, developers flock to where the users are and the users are, for the time being, on Facebook and Myspace.

Posted by Cat at 09:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I guess I have been neglecting my poor blog over the last couple of months, not because I haven't had anything to write about, but because I have been tremendously busy. Between developing and designing three web platforms (one which is set for its second release on November 21st and the other two to be released in the next three months), I have barely had time to have a life :)

However, there are some interesting things that have been going on that I would like to comment on. Hopefully, I will get back into the swing of things...freelancing is a bitch!

Posted by Cat at 03:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Angela and I will be presenting Under the Level at Luna Lounge tomorrow and Saturday from 11am to 12:30pm. For more info go to the Conflux website.

Download Walking Tour Map

Posted by Cat at 01:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

*** Had meant to publish yesterday. Apparently I am a blogging slacker***

Today marks the two year anniversary of the day that hurricane Katrina made landfall and immersed eighty-percent of the city of New Orleans in water, as high as 20 feet in some areas. To mark the event, President Bush, in a disgustingly typical political move, went down to visit the city and even ventured to the still painfully devastated neighborhood of the Lower 9th Ward, touring The Ninth Ward charter school, which two years ago was under 18 feet of water. Full article from the New York Times.

The reality of this visit can be summed up by this passage from the article:

"To get to the school, the president’s motorcade crossed a canal with new white cement wall that had “Hindsight” painted in large red letters. Along the route, considerable damage was still visible, with boarded-up houses and lots strewn with debris."

However, President Bush was not the only politician that chose, two years later, to care about a city that has been virtually forgotten. Every hopeful presidential candidate seems to be jumping on the Katrina bad wagon, from Barack Obama to John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. As the Times Reports, New Orleans has become a 'new' element of the 2008 campaign.

Of course, despite my cynicism, this is good. Even Bush's little trek to the city puts New Orleans back in the news. At this stage, as suicide rates and crime skyrocket in the city and many people still have yet to see a dime of financial assistance from the federal government, any coverage of what is really happening is absolutely a godsend. But where have these 'interested parties' been for the last two years?

Posted by Cat at 02:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)