Cans of Spam, Bits of Tinfoil

I haven’t had much time to work on Tinfoil Project, but I did toss up a WordPress2 weblog, Shelley’s Tinfoil Project today.

The site is where I have fun, with whatever. It’s a virtual server, which means that I can muck the site up–but that’s okay, because it’s there for fun.

In the spirit of having fun, and testing my new USB headset on both a Windows machine and a Mac, I recorded two, well podcasts I guess they are. I don’t have GarageBand for the Mac, but was able to download Audio Recorder. For the PC, I downloaded AudioRoom CD Recorder. I didn’t do anything fancy — just talked. No script, no music, no interesting sound effects.

The first sound file is Cans of Spam and it’s dedicated to Danny Ayers and his discussions on RSS/OPML and semantic web technologies. The second is dedicated to all those passionate Web 2.0 folks and the desks they sleep under.

I’ve decided to pull the links from Tinfoil Project. I’m not sure that I am going to continue with this, or a minimum, a weblog at the site. And I also decided the sound files weren’t that good. No need to waste people’s bandwidth.

Me again. I’ve reposted the sound files, but I won’t be keeping the weblog. Now that was a mistake– I do NOT need another weblog.

(Sorry for the whistling sound in my speech — gah, didn’t know I had it)

This entry was posted in Life, Society, Technology. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Cans of Spam, Bits of Tinfoil

  1. Scott Reynen says:

    Very entertaining listening.

  2. Sour Duck says:

    Agree with Scott – and the “cans of spam” analogy really helped me understand what you were talking about.

  3. Seth Russell says:

    Ok … my spam car … do i need help?

  4. Arthur says:

    I’m so famous now.

  5. dave rogers says:

    Hey kiddo! You’ve got a great voice! I mean it. I have to say, had you not mentioned it, I wouldn’t have even noticed any “whistling.” Even after you pointed it out, it’s not something I thought detracted from the audio. It wasn’t intrusive or distracting.

    All that being said, I prefer to read rather than to listen. But I wouldn’t mind a brief audio post from time to time.

    What might be an application for you to consider, something that I think I would enjoy and perhaps others might as well, would be a narration of some of your photo essays.

    I think I’m visually biased, and if I have to listen to something, my eyes look for something to do and then it’s kind of a competition between the eyes and the ears for my attention and it’s fatiguing. Probably too many years watching TV as a kid! Maybe that’s why so many people listen to podcasts while driving?

  6. Seth Russell says:

    And I also decided the sound files weren’t that good. No need to waste people’s bandwidth.

    Not a waste at all! There was a world more in your voice than in your writing. Especially when you make off beat comments … like “Get help” … the writing could be misconstrued, the voice does not lie. I hope you do more podcasts.

  7. Shelley says:

    Thanks for the kind words and encouragement.

    I woke up this morning and thought about all the bits of me I do put online: writing, photography, technology, my design, my drawing, not to mention me, and I decided I wasn’t ready to put yet another part of me online.

    I’m also feeling a bit tired today, so maybe next week. Or I might try what you suggest Dave.

  8. Danny says:

    Heh, I found hearing my name spoken pretty surreal (you were right first time, “airs” usually, though “ay-yers” helps when a person has to write it down). But I was very, very impressed by your ‘casts. You have a wonderful voice, Caroline got a good word for it: mellow (I accidentally cued you up when I was aiming for Farmer John by the Premiers ;-). I’m pretty sure the whistling effect wasn’t actually you, just an artifact of a peaky mic – different mic and/or filtering in something like Audacity should clear it. Even with it the production quality was fine, a lot better than most of the podcasts I’ve sampled.

    I thought you made your points well (the two-enclosure trick was crafty), and very much what Seth said – a lot came across that’s wouldn’t be there in text. Also very entertaining, the funny bits delivered deadpan were a real treat (“Get Help” indeed!).

    So I do hope you’ll do some more. Again on Seth’s point, especially if you ever want to say something that might seem caustic in print, this medium would work for you.

    I listened while out walking Basildog, something I did for a while with IT Conversations. But somehow that stuff usually seemed a bit out of place out in the fields/woods, but your voice fit nicely, human-organic. Aye, I do hope you’ll do some more.

  9. Shelley says:

    Thanks Danny. Your point is good about caustic might work better verbally than in writing. But perhaps I should keep the ‘casts, but get rid of the caustic. Some nice bunny casts, with cooing doves.

    I’ve added back the post, though I won’t be keeping the weblog at Tinfoil. Don’t want to be a tease.

  10. Phil says:

    I decided I wasn’t ready to put yet another part of me online

    You’ve got a good voice and you read well – I’m guessing you didn’t have the script written out word for word, and it was all the better for it. You hesitated a lot on “I”, I noticed, which made me think incongruously of Woody Allen (at least, I assume it’s incongruously…)

    But I entirely understand if you want to save your voice for your physical world. The stuff about boundless enthusiasm is relevant here. Maybe it’s just semantics, but to me boundless suggests being boundaryless – in which case boundless enthusiasm would not only be unmeasurably extreme but would tend to suffuse your entire life, breaking down any partitions you’d set up between different areas. (Think of religious converts who can’t bear to think that their friends haven’t heard the word – or cult leaders who take it for granted that they should own their followers materially as well as spiritually.)

    But (as the second example suggests) boundarylessness is a two-way street: opening up doesn’t just enable you to let more of yourself out, it lets other people come in and get a bit more of you. This medium has enormous promise as a place for taking boundaries down, and can generate boundless enthusiasm of its own – wow, I can blog about anything! – but it comes at a cost. Once it’s out there, it’s out there – and once you’re out there, you’re out there. I know my own blogs have given me, if not sleepless nights, a couple of genuine anxiety attacks – I blogged about that and now everyone can read it… Usually it’s not particularly rational but I think it’s (at least in part) a natural reaction to losing a boundary. We need boundaries and we need to manage losing them – and we can’t tear them down too thoroughly or something will give. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the guy in your story who was sleeping at work was the same guy who ended up with a moat around his house.

  11. Seth Russell says:

    Phil, i agree, “We need boundaries”. Those boundaries are biological in nature, and not something that can be wished away, only a fool would try. But it takes courage to tear down boundaries; because then you become vulnerable. It takes courage to let your personality show through in your writing and even more courage to let more of it out in a podcast. It would be a better world if more people with quality things to express, like Shelley, would find the courage to express them. But hopefully they won’t become full of themselves and boor us with their singing like Winer did.

  12. zo says:

    “boor us” . . .two bird with one stone, Seth. way to go.

    zo