estro

In reference to my previous post:

One of the objections to scenario three is that running visual analysis and storing it in a computer rather than in human wetware is outside the range of normal and thus should be explicitly acknowledged. I don't know about that as, once a technology starts showing up in mall infrastructure, it ceases to be all that exotic.

From Saturday's San Jose Mercury News (forwarded to me by a coworker who spotted it on the front page): New digital signs target people by age and gender

We already have been inured to security camera's everywhere such that folks are no longer affronted being recorded just in case they do something illicit*. We expect data tracking on our cards at the local supermarket. Soon we will be surprised when advertisements don't change when we pass them**.

For all the big-brother worries, or claims of a lack of human connection, I am not so sure that we aren't on a path where even local indie cafe-goers expect our barista's to have at least the basic knowledge of our cafe names and order preferences after a visit or two.

*Yes, I know most of the value of a security camera's is to deter thieves rather than catch them, but I am not sure that the populace at large realized that.

** I am already sufficiently annoyed by most advertisements, I can't imagine how extra irksome it will be to have things targeted at my assumed demographic before the recognition systems get good enough that I will be getting mostly ads for things like hiking gear, leathermens, and hair products.****

****I have been running kinda to the shaggy side of late.

Chloe and Myles dragged me out last night to see Whip It; while not the best film I have ever seen, it was thoroughly enjoyable and totally worth the price of admission (given many of the movies to come out this year, that is high praise). Whip It even passes the Bechdel test with flying colors, and, as sophiism suggests, that is worth a monetary vote on its own.

I find it frustrating that I still live in a world with enough subtle gender pigeonholing in the media that merely having female leads in something other than a romantic comedy is notably refreshing. I have spent most of the afternoon trying to think of movies I have seen where most of the key personalities in the movie are female and the list is depressingly short. Ghost World, The Magdalena Sisters, and Bend it Like Beckham came first to mind. But I'm a Cheerleader, Bound, and Chutney Popcorn have being a lesbian as a key plot point. The Election (which I hated) has a majority of relevant female characters but I can't remember if the women talk to each other about things other than the guys. Same for Monsoon Wedding (which I loved). Rommie and Michelle's Highschool Reunion probably passes the test though I am not sure whether I am more surprised by this or shamed that I am owning up to having seen it.

Most of those films were only shown in indie art-house theaters.

Even when I include children's movies, My Neighbor Tortoro is the only additional film I can think of. The Harry Potter movies pass the Bechdel test, but aren't close to parity genderwise.

Really, how difficult can it be to sell a worthwhile movie with a bunch of female characters? Preferably one without a plot that revolves around their love lives.

Not particularly deep or challenging, but it is what has been bouncing around my head today:

So let us pretend that, as an art project, I dig a deep pit in a public park, but brutal sharp spikes at the bottom, then have a structure dangling a valuable object above the pit, clearly out of reach of passer-bys. The pit is clearly labeled as dangerous (and as art).

Given what I have observed of the human population at large, I *know* that a non-zero number of people will try to, but painfully (possibly fatally) fail to take the valuable object.

As individuals I believe that the folks who maim themselves trying to get the valuable object are fully responsible for their own injuries. However, if I consider the set of people who pass my creation as a discrete unit with specific traits, then clearly I have designed something intended to harm.

Thoughts?