Stumbled across this online Green Lantern game the other day at DC Kids. Sure it’s Kyle Rayner and not Hal Jordan. And he’s in his original outfit (not enough green and too much “metal”) but it’s the only online Green Lantern game that I know of.

See : DC Kids : Green Lantern Game.

Just read Neil Gaiman’s Anansi Boys at high speed. Loved it. Couldn’t put it down. (Unlike his “American Gods” which I never finished). Will be trying to get the audio book read by Lenny Henry. This, of course, might be the result of fond childhood memories of Anansi stories – though I have no idea at all where I would have heard them.

I read “Wolves in the Walls” for the first time to my two older boys last night. By the end of the story the three other adults here were listening intently too. They were gripped with tension and laughing at the same time. I wish I could get to the stage show.

Also just finished Peter F. Hamilton‘s Commonwealth Saga (Pandora’s Star / Judas Unchained). Hamilton’s picture of the future is in essence transhumanist with longevity and the practical elimination of death. Having said that it’s a fairly uniform picture of posthuman existance – unlike the work of Alastair Reynolds, whose work has included the tensions and interrelations between a post-humanity fragmented by the ways different groups applied technology to augment the human person. I found Hamilton’s work quite readable, while the ideas in Reynold’s are more interesting (though harder to read, I found).

Somewhere along the way I also read J.D. Frazer’s “Money For Content and Your Clicks For Free : Turning Web Sites, Blogs, and Podcasts Into Cash” – which had some good material in it – especially about building online communities.

And I finished Richard’s Burridge’s “Faith Odyssey: A Journey Through Lent”. (Greenflame: Star Lent) It was okay – though I found that the same sources (e.g. 2001, Narnia (SF?), Harry Potter (SF?)) tended to get used repeatedly. I really wanted the science fiction net cast wider (and I was probably grumpy that my favourite books, shows and films weren’t used often (or at all)) – but the weekly themes worked reasonably well to tie the science fiction references, biblical texts and reflections together.

And finally I had a quick skim through the list of 200 “top” science fiction books looked for in academic libraries to see how many I’d read. Quite a few it turns out. See Kevin P. Mulcahy, “Science Fiction Collections in ARL Academic Libraries”, College and Research Libraries. January 2006, Vol. 67, No. 1. Abstract below,

This study assesses the extent to which ARL academic libraries collect science fiction novels. A core list of 200 novels, published between 1950 and 2000, that have either won science fiction awards or been cited on “best” lists were checked against the holdings of 112 ARL libraries. Findings suggest that science fiction is not extensively collected at most libraries studied. The study also assesses differences in how novels are collected by date and by nationality and gender of author. To support in-depth and serious research in a field of increasing scholarly interest, libraries may need to reconsider their collecting practices.

Oh, and I read Arthur C. Clark’s “3001″ because Burridge kept referring to it and the other 2001 books – but it wasn’t really worth the effort.

Anyway, the bedside table is now looking a little bare.

Finishing off some introductory material which includes a (brief) survey of ways technology is viewed or defined. One thing that has struck me in this process is the number of books written about technology and technological issues that never explicitly say what the author thinks technology is. Even a footnote would be useful.

For example, I was sure I was clearly missing the section where Neil Postman explicitly defined technology in his book “Technopoly : The Surrender of Culture to Technology” It was something of a relief to discover I was not the only one (see here and scroll down). (Of course, if there is such a section and I have missed it then please leave a comment below.)

Anyway it’s been serving as a useful reminder in my own writing. Always state clearly somewhere (and hopefully early on) what your own assumptions and definitions are before launching into the discussion.

It was also a relief to discover that John Macquarrie in his book “Heidegger and Christianity: The Hensley Henson Lectures 1993-94” comments that Heidegger’s ideas about technology were somewhat obscure and ambiguous, and that that confusion had spread to his commentators too. Certainly my own notes on his understanding were confusing when I came back to them.

Working through ideas about apprehension about technology (and thinking parallel thoughts about religion). I wonder if this cartoon from gapingvoid captures something. That people don’t necessarily want a nice reason or answer to technology or religion primarily – for starters they’ll settle for peace from concern, apprehension and fear that allows them to move on in life. See gapingvoid: i wasn’t looking for answers.

Related to Good Friday – did the disciples (and others) want answers first or rather reassurance in the face of fear, uncertainty and doubt?

Couple of things of interest this week.

Firstly, Four Door Films have released the rough cut of their 90 minute documentary file “Building Gods” on Google Video. (See Building Gods Rough Cut – Google Video). Haven’t looked at it beyond the first few minutes but it looks like an interesting survey of perspectives on transhumanism. Includes interviews/engagement with Nick Bostrom (philosopher), Kevin Warwick (cyborg), Hugo De Garis (computer scientist), and Anne Foerst (theologian). I downloaded the iPod version and it came in at just over 300MB (ouch!). In the next few days I hope to work my way through it.

Also, I’ve been writing up stuff on different perceptions of technology (and definitions of technology) and in the course of that came back to the following paper. It’s one of the few I’ve seen which goes beyond identifying the gap between the ‘lay’ public’s attitude to technology (here biotechnology) and that of those who make the decisions about the technology. It includes the description of and engagement with some of the concerns raised by ordinary people that came out of individual and group interviews and discussion groups. See

Deane-Drummond, Celia, Robin Grove-White, and Bronislaw Szerszynski. “Genetically Modified Theology: The Religious Dimensions of Public Concerns About Agricultural Biotechnology.” Studies in Christian Ethics 14, no. 2 (2001): 23-41. (There’s a version online here (though with the footnotes removed).

The questions raised and unease expressed by the public

touch on deep issues concerning the nature of human personhood – indeed of human nature itself. It seems conceivable that the intensity of current controversies around genetically modified crops and foods arises in part from the fact that, in their regulation in the public domain, conflicting ontologies of the person are making themselves felt in the politics of every day life. If this is the case, then Christian theological understandings of the person may be of central analytical significance for helping throw light on what has been going on.

Feeling deluged by the thesis and the effort to get it finished (before it finishes me off )

Blog posts will therefore be few and far between for the forseeable future.

A posting on possible future audiences for comic books (and the genre) at Wired 14.04: Posts: The Gamines Love Gaiman. Coincidentally this fits with the section I’m currently reading out of “Comic Book Culture: Fanboys and True Believers (Studies in Popular Culture)” (Matthew Pustz) which is on the bedside table.

Actually, I’m not just reading for interest. I have a couple of ideas about comic books as vehicles for exploring attitudes towards technology that would fit quite nicely in the introductory material in the thesis. Just searching for that elusive footnote to add support to my excursis.

More at gapingvoid: selling more stormhoek.

From Rudi Volti’s book on technological society that I was skimming through today,

Distrust flourishes when people have no ability to participate in decisions that shape their lives, and the inability to affect the course of technological change can produce a mixture of naïve hope and paranoid reaction. A realistic sense of control, including a sense of having some control over technology, is essential for an individual’s mental health. No less important, widespread participation in the shaping of technology is essential for democracy. Technology’s benefits cannot be separated from its costs, and thus it becomes necessary to determine if the former justify the latter. If a society is truly democratic, such decisions will be made with as much citizen participation as possible. Moreover, the benefits and costs of technology are not shared equally, and once again the apportioning of costs and benefits should be done in as participatory a manner as possible.

Rudi Volti, Society and Technological Change. 4th ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 2001. (pp.14-15)

Back last September I posted about the Nature comparative survey of Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica (see Greenflame: Who’re you going to call (or rather, look up)?). Now it looks as if things are getting a bit nastier with Britannica taking out newspaper ads against Nature and its survey. See,

• The Times : Britannica hits back in Wikipedia row
• The Times : Britannica ‘still rules’ over web rival
• Independent Online Edition > Media : Wikipedia under the microscope over accuracy.

Britannica’s defense is here (PDF). And the responses from Nature are here – Britannica attacks : Nature and Nature’s responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Related link: Guardian : Reboot : Is Wikipedia a reliable source of information?

Today’s posting inspired by the UserFriendly cartoon here.