Well, I don’t know where you live. But someone does.

This site plots your location on a blank canvas – you can see the rough outlines of the US and Europe forming already. Spread the love.

I’ve always been a huge fan of Sam Brown’s illustrations and I’ve posted them on this site before. Go buy his book. It’s great.

Cell phones make sense. No matter how annoying they might be to some people and regardless of the quirks of the early technology, they are an irrefutably logical step in personal communication. It simply doesn’t make sense to have a phone number associated with a building. We don’t call buildings – we call people.

We have good cell phone coverage where I live and the pricing of cell phones vs. land lines make a home phone line unnecessary. So, I have a cell phone, and as of next month, no phone line at home. The only trouble with this is that I don’t need, or want, to take most phone calls while I’m driving or waiting in line at the grocery store. My options are quite simple; I can turn off my phone or not answer it. I have an answering service and caller ID (even if I don’t pick up), so I can quickly return calls when appropriate.

Now, part of the reason I have a cell phone in the first place is to take time-sensitive calls for work in emergencies. When the server room is on fire (note to clients, this is just an example), it doesn’t matter that I’m at the grocery store.

The solution follows quite naturally from the problem. We need (I realize I’m abusing the term ‘need’ here) a way to gauge the priority of individual communications. Priority could be based on two factors. First, my ranking of the caller – I can give certain callers a higher priority letting some into my ‘inner-circle’. This isn’t enough though. Sometimes a caller I’ve deemed ‘important’ might be calling for an unimportant reason, or vice-versa. The caller themselves also needs the ability to rank the importance of a call.

There are at least two different key factors of an ‘important’ communication. First, how important is it? Are you asking me to go to the movies or are you telling me that a family member is ill? Second, how time-sensitive is it? Can I finish brushing my teeth, or will that be too late?

Right now, in order to vary the demand placed on the recipient we need to vary the medium of communication. If I have a query for someone but don’t need the answer immediately, I courteously give them control over the timeline of our exchange by sending them an email. They will receive it, and have the freedom to reply when they want, without me waiting on the line for them. This is a courtesy.

If I want something faster, and the medium is available to me, I use instant messaging. This way, I can know that they received my request immediately and they know that I’m waiting for an answer. Still, they have the freedom to reply or not too, but there is more social pressure for a reply, since they know that I know that they know I’m waiting (say that again).

If I need something immediately, I phone. I’m on the phone with them and they need to either reply to my request or tell me why they won’t. This is an imposition and I only do it when I need to (or, of course, when I want to chat with someone or hear the sound of their voice).

I would like the ability to choose my level of imposition, the level of demand for immediate reply, regardless of the medium. I want to be able to tell my technology that I’m really enjoying this album and that I don’t want to be interrupted, unless one of the people that I know understand when I do and don’t want to be interrupted has good reason to interrupt me.

We’re getting used to the idea that we don’t always have to meet in the same location in physical space. We’ll also get used to the idea that we don’t always need to meet at the same location in time. Friends of mine run a business that involves frequent short and simple phone calls. A move to email allowed them to cut the cord, so to speak. Rather than having to be near the phone all day, constantly interrupting their activity, they are able to choose time to respond. The most important factor is that the customer still has control. If they need an immediate response, they can still call. However, most don’t need an immediate response and are quite happy with an email. Sounds simple, but it can make a big difference in how you spend your day.

People hate cell phones because jack-asses talk loudly and obnoxiously while in the line at the grocery store but mobile personal communication is a good thing. Skeptics often ask, why do we need to be able to check out stock prices when we’re on the beach? We don’t – and I won’t. But I do want the freedom to be able to be contacted and to contact when and where I want to. The key is control. I want more precise control over my privacy than being in my house and not being in my house.

I’m sure smarter people than me are working on this somewhere, but here’s a brief summary of what I want from my communications technology:

• The ability to broadcast my status – so you can tell if I’m sitting next to my computer/phone or if I’m indisposed (in the shower).
• The ability to override status – “I don’t care if you’re busy – your house is on fire.”
• The ability to provide different levels of access (to myself) to trusted individuals. This requires each person to have their own device or some other means of being uniquely identified.
• Control, control, control. Ability to control wh0 knows what about my presence and status. Ability to ignore people without them knowing I’m being ignored (and, by extension, the possibility of being ignored and to knowing I’m being ignored).

A few simple examples of steps in the right direction:

• Instant messaging status (If I’m away from the computer for a few minutes, you’ll know not to expect an immediate response).
• Instant messaging user groups (My mom sees I’m online, but my boss doesn’t).
• Caller ID – changed the way I used the telephone.

Wanna bet that by 2025, we will receive intelligent signals from outside our solar system? Put $2,000 where your mouth is and go do it!

Co-founded by Wired’s Kevin Kelly, LongBets.com is a forum for those of us with big ideas and money to burn. For example, inventor/author/futurist Ray Kurzweil has bet Mitchell Kapor, founder of Lotus, $20,000 that “a computer will pass the Turing Test by 2029.“

See the open bets and bets on the record for a glimpse into some neat ideas by some interesting people. Betters so far include blog-dude Dave Winer vs. NY Times-dude Martin Nisenholtz and Microsofty Craig Mundie vs. Lord-Google, Eric Schmidt.

These are a selection of the ’emoticon’ graphics included in Microsoft’s Windows Messenger, and AOL’s ICQ.

The left column comes from Windows Messenger – included in Windows XP.

The right column is from the latest version ICQ, (perpetual) beta 2002a.

Uncanny.

To my great wonderful joy, I was pointed in the direction of a cover band called The Moog Cookbook. These Space Rockers cover classic rock songs and some new (circa 1996) pop stuff.

They reduce Green Day’s “Basketcase” to slinky elevator muzak. Some other AOV favorites are Black Hole Sun and Hotel California (which I would like to add features the Popcorn lick at the end).

I totally dig this stuff, the Nirvana cover had me flailing my arms in an attempt to dance. This was only ever previously achieved by Joy Electric‘s Moogy* antics.Does anybody know of any other Moog rock like this?

* I like saying Moog. Moog.