That really cuts down on salary expenses and on their clothing allowance.
Xerox Parc was a demonstration of how
on
Guido Goes Google
·
· Score: 1
some people just don't 'get it.'
Xerox is the best example of people who give away the store trying to sell the butt wad to their customers.
They were so focused on selling photocopiers that any idea presented to them had to be couched in terms that they could understand. (Their 'selling seminars' were also, in my opinion, tissues of lies because the product sold itself, in spite of what those Bozos were spewing. When they got some competition the company just folded until the got some management who hadn't 'drunk the kool-aid'.)
PCs GUIs and laser printers were beyond their ability to comprehend them that it was useless to even try.
Its part of the nastier side that we/.ers don't really like to expose.
But Dvorak is such an ass-hat that we just can't help it.
In a real democracy he would be hauled in front of a tribunal forced to recite a litany of all his failed prognostications and the have his hands and mouth duct taped so he can't find anymore means to spew his bilge.
If I was nasty I'd ask him how his shares of Apple are doing...
I went to their download page and they listed Win2k and WinXP as the only 2 environments that they supported.
I own an ADM64 Linux box, a couple of Mac and a lonely old Windows machine.
I am also a 52 year old published author, a blogger and a podcaster. I figure after 25 years of doing OOP, I've figure that I've earned enough 'street cred' to tell them that a Windows only environment is not a smart move for an academic exercise.
They can't outlaw A/D conversion. Its just more efficient.
Hell, they couldn't run their industry without it. All of the production labs use it, for god sake.
NONE of their own blockbuster movies could be done without it. None of their shows could be done without it. None of their audio content could be done wthout it. None of the independents, the people who they suck the life out of could get any content produced without it.
They can't outlaw D/A conversion for the same fucking reason.
And podcasters just laugh at them.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they lie about you, then they fight you, then you win.
This is the last gasp of the broadcasters as they watch their business model fall to the podcasters.
Let them win on their turf. We don't want it anyway.
There are much more interesting pastures to graze.
for 'pay for download,' catch-it-and-pod-it, DRM-secured, flow of content.
No wonder the broadcasters are shitting themselves.
They'll have no more control of what you see, from a very limited selection of programs, coerced or even designed to maximise their profits (and fuck the audience! Its the ads that put money in the pockets of the broadcasters, not the content.)
I have a TV that gets a very limited number of stations, a digital TV receiver that is slightly less limited and I know that cable and sattelite TV are mostly just rebroadcasters for the same crap.
If I skip over seven channels or 175 channels, clicking for content, what's the diference? There's nothing on.
The sooner we polish the broadcasters off and start negotiating, for content that we actually want to see, directly from the independent content providers, that would actualy produce content that we actually want to see, instead of having snip at, shorten, product-place, censor and otherwise screw with what they want to produce, in orded to stand a chance at getting it out there.
Once we get into controlling podcast production for major projects, we'll finally break the backs of the broadcasters.
That's why I support DRM of the FairPlay variety.
It could kill off broadcasting re-re-re-runs of Nick Knolte in '48 Hours' (It had its run. Now stop it.) or 'WhoeverTheFuckItIs' in '24 Hours.'
they are beholding to a political structure which is guided by "stare decisis" and the 'net has been regulated by a point-to-point communication which has justly and effectively locked out the broadcasters by definition.
Just because you can answer RSS 'calls' from X thousand people and send them the IP address and 'feature' of a podcast that they can then opt to download, doesn't make you a broadcaster.
People have to know about these RSS feeds first. If you're a podcaster, you have make a promo to entice the podcasting community into wanting to put the web site where your RSS feed is located. For some podcasters, this can be problematic, but that's life.
The obfuscation of information is already a fact of life that the gummint're already dealing with well, as witnessen by Echelon intercepts across international borgers.
(The recent 'leak' is significant in that Bush just wanted nobody to know about the SigInt he was capturing, from whom and for whom. That's a naughty president caught with his hands in the intel 'cookie jar' up to the fuckin' elbow. Who knows how much is retirement into the lap of luxury is now assured?)
The broadcasters are dying, just dying, as media changes FROM a
centrally controlled,
extremely high-cost of entry,
FCC licenced,
low latency-needing,
limited bandwidth source,
'you have to watch it there and then' (1) type of medium TO a
broadband, (near infinite packet-switched bandwidth,)
Google to find it,
download it and listen/watch it when you want to,
packet switching type of content delivery system that we can now we get just from using the 'net.
I have a friend who, like your brother, is a gigabyte RAID owning, DVD burning geek who is getting his TV shows commercial-free from the internet or from rips over-the-air without including the ads.
But all the shows that he can get from the 'net or that he can ripp from the air waves keep getting shorter and shorter as the 'commercial' carriers snip at the content to extract more and more money from more and more commercials.
That's when the shows aren't cancelled completely to produce shows that cost less to make but can still 'guarantee' ears and eyeballs, mostly because there's no alternative (even Cable is limited to 175 chanels max.)
That means that the commectial air waves are limited to a maximum of 175 x 1,440 (252,000) revenue producing minutes of air time per day.
Compare that to the quasi-infinite quantity of commercial and commercial-free, quality content that independent producers (who right now have to compete with each other for the air time,) could sell over the 'net directly to consumers.
The broadcasters are quaking in their boots because, at some point, probably quite soon now, those independent content producers, (the same ones that are locked in dog-eat-dog competition with other to get their content aired,) are just going to find their funding directly on the 'net and then sell their content directly on the 'net, for what they need to cover their production costs.
When the content producers realize that they can do what they want, which is produce their content, leave it on a server somewhere, and solicit their viewers directly for payment to download it and pod it, look for big changes in funding for the arts.
They will start by selling their back catalog, get enough money to produce new content, and sell that content too.
The only content that that doesn't work for is sports or other competitive activities where its a timed event. (Then again, they can sell 'highlights' of any game long after the competition is over.)
Look for content to expand to horse, dog, cat and other 'fancier' shows, which are rarely, except for the largest of these, which creates an 'event', covered by snippets on the news, despite their wide appeal.
The beauty of podcasting is that the content is available for as long as the server is. And if the content is available, content producers can make money from it.
Broadcasters, with their measly 252,000 minutes per day to sell ads, must be quaking in their boots. Their economic model is dying. ClearChannel and Infinity Broadcasting won the commercial war and can put out whatever they deem fit but the audience is listening to, and watching, what they want to hear and see uncensored, on their iPods and/or other MP3 players.
(1) TiVO is a stop gap measure that achieves some time shifting of content. The problem is now the content of what is actually carried on the air waves.
I've written articles, specifications, strategy papers, essays and unless somebody was already making money doing it, they were'nt interested or couldn't understand the concept.
Later, when it became obvious that I had been right all along and investing in my ideas could have saved my employers and clients some bucks, I just laughed and shook my head.
I'm not worried about patents, copyright or IP because people just don't 'get it.'
Everything is OBVIOUS if you really think about it. The hard part is getting people to think.
There are ways to set up any system for the handling of user feed-back that can accomodate just about any configuration of triggers for events.
Some dweeb never read my 'Rovira Diagram' article and fucked everything up because he made some basic and fundamental errors when setting up his system.
The system should have been set up with entire sets of events (mouse or keyboad or bliss board or voice or touchpad or 3D-VR or whatever,) with the object-event mapping correspondence being handled entirely out of his hands.
What's wrong with Somy these days? They seem blinded by the powder residue from shooting themselves in the foot.
People only upgrade when the benefits outweigh the cost. They don't trust Microsoft. They've been lied to again and again and it hurts them.
Security has always been a joke to Microsoft and people are tired of getting sucked in to an upgrade treadmill.
Corporations HATE change. CMicrosoft keeps hange hits them in the pocketbook. My client was using NT 4.x until it got EOLed by Microsoft. They switched to Win2K, not XP, but Win2K, because the bugs had been kicked out of it.
They don't want or need all the gimracks and geegaws. They want an OS to just do what its told, just like they want employees to just do as they're told.
Microsoft can stand on its head and spit nickels and it won't salve the wounds of their users (IE is a disaster, VB is a shame, and the whole OS is ramshackle,) or make it cheaper to run.
What? You think that corporations LIKE paying millions for a series of security risks? One after another?
"Certainly it makes more sense to sell some tunes for different prices, just as movies tend to sell for more at first and then end up in the discount bin when they're old hat."
That just means there are fewer downloads per period. The space occupied on the server's disk system is damn near free. Its not like they have to remainder it to make room for newer stuff that has to take up shelf space.
You're argument is specious and superfluous.
Apple has the right idea: There's only ONE price required.
The content doesn't care about which media its bits are sent to and the store doesn't either.
Pricing by 'value'implies placing a value on the content, but its total cost is negligible, regardless of whether its a video of "Mars Attacks" or the original book "War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells.
Only one price is necessary. The revenue stream is utterly dependant on popularity, a temporary measure and cyclical in nature.(Ask an old and rare book seller.)
You're not seeing that that there are only 1,440 minutes per day.
As long as YOU don't get to pick a product, you're just arguing about the size of the dildo up your ass and how hard some creativity-challenged accountant is ramming it up there.
Until YOU are in control, the media oligoplies are going to ignore you, what you want and when you want it.
TiVO is a stop gap that doesn't really work. It might give you some control over when you take your pabulum but its still pabulum. If all that is produced is crap, you still end up eating "brown sausages".
Download it and pod it, listen to it or watch on a set hooked up to your computer when YOU want and the entire problem changes.
For the producers, it morphs from
"How do we pitch this idea so that it looks like what the advertisers want" to
"Hey, you wanna fill your ears/eyes with this? What's it worth to you?"
Leibnitz said "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." He was referring to the oligopolies which shaped what ideas were circulated in his day.
Mao said "Freedom comes from the end of a gun." He was referring to the need the Chinese had to free themselves from imperialist aggression. (This is irrelevant to the matter under discussion, but I feel very political tonight.)
I say, "Freedom of the media comes from having control over what we fill our senses with." I am referring to the fact that until we get around the oligipolies, we are just pawns in their game.
Radio sucks because we're not 'in the loop.'
TV sucks because we're not 'in the loop.'
Movies suck because we're not 'in the loop.'
But podcasting is real and can generate just as much money for content producers as the current media without costing as much because we won't have to pay for all the fucking leeches, pimps and whores.
No more canceled series because they were too distracting for the advertisers.
No more missing minutes from reruns of shows because the networks want to squeeze more revenue out of each episode.
No more crap like reality shows.
We can make broadcasters irrelevant.
Concept shows like Firefly are too hard to sell to the networks so they get ash canned and we just get screwed.
Shows are pitched in competition with each other and they're NOT pitched at US.
But if we could pay a couple of bucks (each, per episode, iTunes like) I bet we could get the shows WE want produced.
The internet effect applied to media means that we'd get exactly what we want and produced to what we can afford.
Screw the current supply-side oligopoly.
Its about time we used the internet to produce and deliver the shows we want to watch. If a lot of us want to watch it, it makes the producer some dough and we'll get to see more of it.
Let ClearChannel and Infinity Broadcasting flood the air wares with ads, they'll have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
We'll listen to and watch commercial-free content that we want, where and when we want to watch it.
It OUR 1,440 minutes a day and I want us to have control over what we do with them.
While people are puttering around with patches and kludges and crap they are not taking advantage of what their machines could be doing with the IPv6 address space and with end to end connectivity.
Stop thinking that the internet is about anthrocentric communication.
communication is kept. (Including this one since I'm typing this on the office computer.)
Your SMS messages are no exception.
Since there is no way to determine what might constitute 'insider codes' for stuff happening, you can look forward to your SMS messages hnaging around FOR-bloody-EVER!
Work for an outfit with more than fifty staff in the US? (Notice it doesn't say where your head office might be because it doesn't matter.)
Your documents, emails, SMS messages and every scrap of paper has to be kept for at least seven years. If your company has archives, like most companies, the retention period extends into the ridiculous.
Keep your missives strictly about the task at hand.
Ever wonder why your cell phone doesn't work in certain buildings? They don't want any communications outside of the reach of the recording devices.
A lot of movies get made and you wonder "WTF? How did this piece of drek ever scare up the capital?"
And for every turkey that covers the screen with its gibblets, there are some movies out there aren't getting screen play or even finding investment money.
Theatre owners and broadcasters are to blame for the entire "supply-side" mess that we're finding ourselves in.
You pour in $100,000,000 of money and it has only got 2 or 3 weeks to run when it's got to make that money back, or you can hope that it makes dough being broadcast and then comes the video rentals.
And the process of making actual movies doesn't cost $100,000,000 but the process of fighting for the screen time does. You're NOT getting your movie money's worth. Ever!
I think that the audience will be the winners what the 'internet effect' comes to movies (like its already begun to come to radio with podcasting, giving the ClearChannels and Infinity Broadcasting oligopolies of the world a hollow victory [There's no one else left standing, but the pool of listeners is shrinking, FAST!]) as its starting to with TV shows coming to the iPod.
Instead of just being viewed as passive vessels for content and cows waiting to be milked of cash, we, the audience, will be active participants in what we actually watch and listen to.
We could/should/would be funding projects, pooling resources and uniting to make sure that 'demand-side' economics get us the most bang for the buck instead of letting the supply-siders waste our money like drunken sailors on their first night ashore in six months.
Movies right now lose money because they are limited in the time they run and the extreme costs of promotion. The 'supply-siders' are in control. They make their money by creating and capitalizing on the foment that having too producers fighting for an audience with access to too few 'supply-siders' media outlets.
They make even more money and exercise more power by restricting what consumers can actually get at the end of the process. Can't stand Brittany Spears? Tough! And you can't avoid her either. And the medium costs the same as it always has despite its vertiginous drop in real value.
Enter the internet where: * on the production side, you can hunt for capital sources, produce and promote your content and distribute it for practical amounts of money, and where, * also on the production side, you can hunt for a project you feel would be worth your investment, and where, * on the consumption side, you can hunt for content of interest to you, for reviews of interest to you, and download this content for filling your senses at a time and place of your choosing.
Content, audio and movies, produced on the 'demand-side' CAN'T lose money.
They're time-shifted, media-shifted and inherently of interest to someone, either the funders who can be garanteed to be in the audience or the producers themselves.
The resources made available to the producers and content originators will reflect the involvement of the resources of the audience.
The content will remain available for download and continue to provide a revenue stream (even if its only a steady trickle) to the content producer, as opposed to the largely useless 'back catalog' of content that's being obscured by new content churned atop of it.
Slashdot Mirror
That really cuts down on salary expenses and on their clothing allowance.
some people just don't 'get it.'
Xerox is the best example of people who give away the store trying to sell the butt wad to their customers.
They were so focused on selling photocopiers that any idea presented to them had to be couched in terms that they could understand. (Their 'selling seminars' were also, in my opinion, tissues of lies because the product sold itself, in spite of what those Bozos were spewing. When they got some competition the company just folded until the got some management who hadn't 'drunk the kool-aid'.)
PCs GUIs and laser printers were beyond their ability to comprehend them that it was useless to even try.
But Dvorak doesn't.
He doesn't want anybody's knowledge interfering with his opinions.
Its part of the nastier side that we /.ers don't really like to expose.
But Dvorak is such an ass-hat that we just can't help it.
In a real democracy he would be hauled in front of a tribunal forced to recite a litany of all his failed prognostications and the have his hands and mouth duct taped so he can't find anymore means to spew his bilge.
If I was nasty I'd ask him how his shares of Apple are doing...
I went to their download page and they listed Win2k and WinXP as the only 2 environments that they supported.
I own an ADM64 Linux box, a couple of Mac and a lonely old Windows machine.
I am also a 52 year old published author, a blogger and a podcaster. I figure after 25 years of doing OOP, I've figure that I've earned enough 'street cred' to tell them that a Windows only environment is not a smart move for an academic exercise.
I don't trust them.
realize that they have slit their own throats.
They can't outlaw A/D conversion. Its just more efficient.
Hell, they couldn't run their industry without it. All of the production labs use it, for god sake.
NONE of their own blockbuster movies could be done without it. None of their shows could be done without it. None of their audio content could be done wthout it. None of the independents, the people who they suck the life out of could get any content produced without it.
They can't outlaw D/A conversion for the same fucking reason.
And podcasters just laugh at them.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they lie about you, then they fight you, then you win.
This is the last gasp of the broadcasters as they watch their business model fall to the podcasters.
Let them win on their turf. We don't want it anyway.
There are much more interesting pastures to graze.
Gee, first post.
As a Mac user I feel really lonely.
for 'pay for download,' catch-it-and-pod-it, DRM-secured, flow of content.
No wonder the broadcasters are shitting themselves.
They'll have no more control of what you see, from a very limited selection of programs, coerced or even designed to maximise their profits (and fuck the audience! Its the ads that put money in the pockets of the broadcasters, not the content.)
I have a TV that gets a very limited number of stations, a digital TV receiver that is slightly less limited and I know that cable and sattelite TV are mostly just rebroadcasters for the same crap.
If I skip over seven channels or 175 channels, clicking for content, what's the diference? There's nothing on.
The sooner we polish the broadcasters off and start negotiating, for content that we actually want to see, directly from the independent content providers, that would actualy produce content that we actually want to see, instead of having snip at, shorten, product-place, censor and otherwise screw with what they want to produce, in orded to stand a chance at getting it out there.
Once we get into controlling podcast production for major projects, we'll finally break the backs of the broadcasters.
That's why I support DRM of the FairPlay variety.
It could kill off broadcasting re-re-re-runs of Nick Knolte in '48 Hours' (It had its run. Now stop it.) or 'WhoeverTheFuckItIs' in '24 Hours.'
We wanna watch something else.
they are beholding to a political structure which is guided by "stare decisis" and the 'net has been regulated by a point-to-point communication which has justly and effectively locked out the broadcasters by definition.
Just because you can answer RSS 'calls' from X thousand people and send them the IP address and 'feature' of a podcast that they can then opt to download, doesn't make you a broadcaster.
People have to know about these RSS feeds first. If you're a podcaster, you have make a promo to entice the podcasting community into wanting to put the web site where your RSS feed is located. For some podcasters, this can be problematic, but that's life.
The obfuscation of information is already a fact of life that the gummint're already dealing with well, as witnessen by Echelon intercepts across international borgers.
(The recent 'leak' is significant in that Bush just wanted nobody to know about the SigInt he was capturing, from whom and for whom. That's a naughty president caught with his hands in the intel 'cookie jar' up to the fuckin' elbow. Who knows how much is retirement into the lap of luxury is now assured?)
The broadcasters are dying, just dying, as media changes
FROM a
centrally controlled,
extremely high-cost of entry,
FCC licenced,
low latency-needing,
limited bandwidth source,
'you have to watch it there and then' (1) type of medium
TO a
broadband, (near infinite packet-switched bandwidth,)
Google to find it,
download it and listen/watch it when you want to,
packet switching type of content delivery system
that we can now we get just from using the 'net.
I have a friend who, like your brother, is a gigabyte RAID owning, DVD burning geek who is getting his TV shows commercial-free from the internet or from rips over-the-air without including the ads.
But all the shows that he can get from the 'net or that he can ripp from the air waves keep getting shorter and shorter as the 'commercial' carriers snip at the content to extract more and more money from more and more commercials.
That's when the shows aren't cancelled completely to produce shows that cost less to make but can still 'guarantee' ears and eyeballs, mostly because there's no alternative (even Cable is limited to 175 chanels max.)
That means that the commectial air waves are limited to a maximum of 175 x 1,440 (252,000) revenue producing minutes of air time per day.
Compare that to the quasi-infinite quantity of commercial and commercial-free, quality content that independent producers (who right now have to compete with each other for the air time,) could sell over the 'net directly to consumers.
The broadcasters are quaking in their boots because, at some point, probably quite soon now, those independent content producers, (the same ones that are locked in dog-eat-dog competition with other to get their content aired,) are just going to find their funding directly on the 'net and then sell their content directly on the 'net, for what they need to cover their production costs.
When the content producers realize that they can do what they want, which is produce their content, leave it on a server somewhere, and solicit their viewers directly for payment to download it and pod it, look for big changes in funding for the arts.
They will start by selling their back catalog, get enough money to produce new content, and sell that content too.
The only content that that doesn't work for is sports or other competitive activities where its a timed event. (Then again, they can sell 'highlights' of any game long after the competition is over.)
Look for content to expand to horse, dog, cat and other 'fancier' shows, which are rarely, except for the largest of these, which creates an 'event', covered by snippets on the news, despite their wide appeal.
The beauty of podcasting is that the content is available for as long as the server is. And if the content is available, content producers can make money from it.
Broadcasters, with their measly 252,000 minutes per day to sell ads, must be quaking in their boots. Their economic model is dying. ClearChannel and Infinity Broadcasting won the commercial war and can put out whatever they deem fit but the audience is listening to, and watching, what they want to hear and see uncensored, on their iPods and/or other MP3 players.
(1) TiVO is a stop gap measure that achieves some time shifting of content. The problem is now the content of what is actually carried on the air waves.
even listen.
I've written articles, specifications, strategy papers, essays and unless somebody was already making money doing it, they were'nt interested or couldn't understand the concept.
Later, when it became obvious that I had been right all along and investing in my ideas could have saved my employers and clients some bucks, I just laughed and shook my head.
I'm not worried about patents, copyright or IP because people just don't 'get it.'
Everything is OBVIOUS if you really think about it. The hard part is getting people to think.
There are ways to set up any system for the handling of user feed-back that can accomodate just about any configuration of triggers for events.
Some dweeb never read my 'Rovira Diagram' article and fucked everything up because he made some basic and fundamental errors when setting up his system.
The system should have been set up with entire sets of events (mouse or keyboad or bliss board or voice or touchpad or 3D-VR or whatever,) with the object-event mapping correspondence being handled entirely out of his hands.
What's wrong with Somy these days? They seem blinded by the powder residue from shooting themselves in the foot.
I listen to lots of music these days, but "On a Podcast." :-)
The air wave is dead and Adam Curry has crawled from the belly of the beast to stand over the corpse with blood dripping from his hands and arms.
Microsoft has always had both problems.
People only upgrade when the benefits outweigh the cost. They don't trust Microsoft. They've been lied to again and again and it hurts them.
Security has always been a joke to Microsoft and people are tired of getting sucked in to an upgrade treadmill.
Corporations HATE change. CMicrosoft keeps hange hits them in the pocketbook. My client was using NT 4.x until it got EOLed by Microsoft. They switched to Win2K, not XP, but Win2K, because the bugs had been kicked out of it.
They don't want or need all the gimracks and geegaws. They want an OS to just do what its told, just like they want employees to just do as they're told.
Microsoft can stand on its head and spit nickels and it won't salve the wounds of their users (IE is a disaster, VB is a shame, and the whole OS is ramshackle,) or make it cheaper to run.
What? You think that corporations LIKE paying millions for a series of security risks? One after another?
Its a wonder you get any upgraders at all.
or the information (data in a context) to the fore.
What were there errors? Was it language or content?
The former is easily fixed; the latter is the cause of controversy.
Is there any difference between SMEs as to the veracity of the information?
Is the error more one of opinion?
These things matter.
Of course, you could just go the Ted Kazinski route and live 'off the grid' in the back woods somewhere.
When you're poor, suddenly your lifestyle suddenly seems less attractive.
the scratching of #2 pencils on accounting entry forms.
:-)
This is going to end the same way as Microsoft begins an project.
Microsoft is buying MTV as a loss-leader in the hopes of accomplishing something usable by the third version.
If it turns out they were wrong, they spin it off into oblivion. (Heard from 'Slate' lately?
"Certainly it makes more sense to sell some tunes for different prices, just as movies tend to sell for more at first and then end up in the discount bin when they're old hat."
That just means there are fewer downloads per period. The space occupied on the server's disk system is damn near free. Its not like they have to remainder it to make room for newer stuff that has to take up shelf space.
You're argument is specious and superfluous.
Apple has the right idea: There's only ONE price required.
The content doesn't care about which media its bits are sent to and the store doesn't either.
Pricing by 'value'implies placing a value on the content, but its total cost is negligible, regardless of whether its a video of "Mars Attacks" or the original book "War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells.
Only one price is necessary. The revenue stream is utterly dependant on popularity, a temporary measure and cyclical in nature.(Ask an old and rare book seller.)
can expect the FBI on their doorstep for violating trade secrets.
:-)
A representative said:
"Users don't need to know the details."
"This was clearly done by terrorists and hackers."
"We will find you, and we w_i_l_l kill you"
That all she wrote.
You're not seeing that that there are only 1,440 minutes per day.
As long as YOU don't get to pick a product, you're just arguing about the size of the dildo up your ass and how hard some creativity-challenged accountant is ramming it up there.
Until YOU are in control, the media oligoplies are going to ignore you, what you want and when you want it.
TiVO is a stop gap that doesn't really work. It might give you some control over when you take your pabulum but its still pabulum. If all that is produced is crap, you still end up eating "brown sausages".
Download it and pod it, listen to it or watch on a set hooked up to your computer when YOU want and the entire problem changes.
For the producers, it morphs from
"How do we pitch this idea so that it looks like what the advertisers want" to
"Hey, you wanna fill your ears/eyes with this? What's it worth to you?"
Leibnitz said "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." He was referring to the oligopolies which shaped what ideas were circulated in his day.
Mao said "Freedom comes from the end of a gun." He was referring to the need the Chinese had to free themselves from imperialist aggression. (This is irrelevant to the matter under discussion, but I feel very political tonight.)
I say, "Freedom of the media comes from having control over what we fill our senses with." I am referring to the fact that until we get around the oligipolies, we are just pawns in their game.
Radio sucks because we're not 'in the loop.'
TV sucks because we're not 'in the loop.'
Movies suck because we're not 'in the loop.'
But podcasting is real and can generate just as much money for content producers as the current media without costing as much because we won't have to pay for all the fucking leeches, pimps and whores.
and fuck the commercials and the advertisers.
And we download what WE want to watch.
No more canceled series because they were too distracting for the advertisers.
No more missing minutes from reruns of shows because the networks want to squeeze more revenue out of each episode.
No more crap like reality shows.
We can make broadcasters irrelevant.
Concept shows like Firefly are too hard to sell to the networks so they get ash canned and we just get screwed.
Shows are pitched in competition with each other and they're NOT pitched at US.
But if we could pay a couple of bucks (each, per episode, iTunes like) I bet we could get the shows WE want produced.
The internet effect applied to media means that we'd get exactly what we want and produced to what we can afford.
Screw the current supply-side oligopoly.
Its about time we used the internet to produce and deliver the shows we want to watch. If a lot of us want to watch it, it makes the producer some dough and we'll get to see more of it.
Let ClearChannel and Infinity Broadcasting flood the air wares with ads, they'll have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
We'll listen to and watch commercial-free content that we want, where and when we want to watch it.
It OUR 1,440 minutes a day and I want us to have control over what we do with them.
While people are puttering around with patches and kludges and crap they are not taking advantage of what their machines could be doing with the IPv6 address space and with end to end connectivity.
Stop thinking that the internet is about anthrocentric communication.
Its not and never was.
See http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml for a clue.
Around 30,000 dead Iraquis citizens and 2,100 dead US Citizens and a smattering of other people from other nations.
Or are we merely just talking dollars and cents here?
communication is kept. (Including this one since I'm typing this on the office computer.)
Your SMS messages are no exception.
Since there is no way to determine what might constitute 'insider codes' for stuff happening, you can look forward to your SMS messages hnaging around FOR-bloody-EVER!
Work for an outfit with more than fifty staff in the US? (Notice it doesn't say where your head office might be because it doesn't matter.)
Your documents, emails, SMS messages and every scrap of paper has to be kept for at least seven years. If your company has archives, like most companies, the retention period extends into the ridiculous.
Keep your missives strictly about the task at hand.
Ever wonder why your cell phone doesn't work in certain buildings? They don't want any communications outside of the reach of the recording devices.
Don't say you weren't warned.
A lot of movies get made and you wonder "WTF? How did this piece of drek ever scare up the capital?"
And for every turkey that covers the screen with its gibblets, there are some movies out there aren't getting screen play or even finding investment money.
Theatre owners and broadcasters are to blame for the entire "supply-side" mess that we're finding ourselves in.
You pour in $100,000,000 of money and it has only got 2 or 3 weeks to run when it's got to make that money back, or you can hope that it makes dough being broadcast and then comes the video rentals.
And the process of making actual movies doesn't cost $100,000,000 but the process of fighting for the screen time does. You're NOT getting your movie money's worth. Ever!
I think that the audience will be the winners what the 'internet effect' comes to movies (like its already begun to come to radio with podcasting, giving the ClearChannels and Infinity Broadcasting oligopolies of the world a hollow victory [There's no one else left standing, but the pool of listeners is shrinking, FAST!]) as its starting to with TV shows coming to the iPod.
Instead of just being viewed as passive vessels for content and cows waiting to be milked of cash, we, the audience, will be active participants in what we actually watch and listen to.
We could/should/would be funding projects, pooling resources and uniting to make sure that 'demand-side' economics get us the most bang for the buck instead of letting the supply-siders waste our money like drunken sailors on their first night ashore in six months.
Movies right now lose money because they are limited in the time they run and the extreme costs of promotion. The 'supply-siders' are in control. They make their money by creating and capitalizing on the foment that having too producers fighting for an audience with access to too few 'supply-siders' media outlets.
They make even more money and exercise more power by restricting what consumers can actually get at the end of the process. Can't stand Brittany Spears? Tough! And you can't avoid her either. And the medium costs the same as it always has despite its vertiginous drop in real value.
Enter the internet where:
* on the production side, you can hunt for capital sources, produce and promote your content and distribute it for practical amounts of money, and where,
* also on the production side, you can hunt for a project you feel would be worth your investment, and where,
* on the consumption side, you can hunt for content of interest to you, for reviews of interest to you, and download this content for filling your senses at a time and place of your choosing.
Content, audio and movies, produced on the 'demand-side' CAN'T lose money.
They're time-shifted, media-shifted and inherently of interest to someone, either the funders who can be garanteed to be in the audience or the producers themselves.
The resources made available to the producers and content originators will reflect the involvement of the resources of the audience.
The content will remain available for download and continue to provide a revenue stream (even if its only a steady trickle) to the content producer, as opposed to the largely useless 'back catalog' of content that's being obscured by new content churned atop of it.