Mixed Media: or why it is better not to have artificial boundaries

About: get a life ! aka the medium is the message

I would like to generalize the fields of our attention and call them "screens".   So let's look at a few of these different screens:  starting with a social screen ... what is in that screen, well certainly you are in it, your actual physical body.  Your friends and family is there too.  It is interactive, you greet, shake hands, talk, pet, give and get, help and cry, scold and praise, etc etc.   Now let's jump to another screen ... say the TV screen ... what is in that screen, well for the most part it is not interactive.  There we have The News, all of the drama of politics, and also our fictions which we love to passively watch.  Next lets talk about our computer screens ... those we didn't have 20 years ago ... but now we do.  That screen, is also interactive

Tags

  1. item 15154
  2. mixed media
  3. medium is message
  4. common logic
  5. tbl
  6. tivo
  7. item 18377

Comments


Seth says
MR 2012-02-16 13:56:58 15773
seth 2012-02-16 12:40:57 15773
M 2012-02-16 12:18:15 15773
MR 2012-02-15 10:55:15 15773
Isn't it wonderful that M$M & the new media can spread lies & confusion faster & faster than ever before? Flashmobs & twitter & coordinated attacks can spread panic & revolutions without ever a thought interrupting the willing receivers in the minds of the youth &/or the hypnotized public. Now imagine no hardware necessary or required to plug such brains into the matrix.  WOW!


Mind control is a common paranoia.   Remember those huge radio towers that loomed over P2 on the south side of San Francisco ... i  fantacized/thought imagined that they were starting to beam though control through them.  The fun part of those fantasies is when they dissolve into nothingness.  Mimes do happen faster and faster ... and reach more and more people.  That in itself is good enough reason not to "go for" the first bull shit meme that enters your brain pan.  We should be spreading knowledge and techniques of ascertaining better and better truths ... rather than wasting time with BS.
I am not paranoid.  Faster media is spreading lies just as fast as truth. In an election year I'm betting on more lies than truth - your results & point of view may vary. Not everything is a meme. Not everything is a paradigm.  Both of those words are overused. Might just as well call something a wallaby as we used to to kiss something off as unexplainable.

t doesn't matter at all what you call a thing ... call it a meme, call it a trend, call it a craze, call it a message ... doesn't change it ... doesn't change anything about it.  

I think we agree, these messages and their effects are circulating faster and faster in  this modern mobile age.  Don't believe what you hear ... be cautions ... don't let too much of the pattern you think you recognize grab hold of you so much that you can't just back away from it and breathe. 

And, of course, I'm not saying that you are any more prone to those effects than anyone else.  Me, i've never believed that things happen the way they go down in what you call M$M ... i've seen too many cases reported where they get it wrong.  I like the Internet instead ... there you can go find whatever view of a matter fits in with the rest of your Weltanschauung ... or try out a different view ... you can listen for what patterns work for you.  So as things change in our culture, we loose some things, and gain other things, some things become safer, and others more dangerous.  It's not something that bothers me.   Me, i'm just trying to remove barriers in the space which block things that could otherwise happen for me and mine ... make things more accessible.  What i hate, what really bothers me, is when those blocks are put there for some ass holes profit or short sighted interest.   That is what i define "mixed media" to be all about.

Seth says
M 2012-03-10 10:01:00 15773
Selective spending would be more effective if it were clearly distinguished from boycotts AND there was some kind of way to give feedback to the companies - perhaps the mechanism of a badge of some kind would work.

i don't know ... seems to me this is something the telecommunication companies themselves would need to see as in their best interest ... i don't know if launching an agenda to force cooperation on them will ever happen ... certainly not from my own efforts.

Mark de LA says
      Hardware & software evolve & at some point software can't evolve if it is backward compatable - FastBlogit is a good example doesn't work with Chrome (fwd compat.) .  Hardware is even harder to deal with since innovation usually changes plugs & chips etc. If you expect such things as software & hardware to evolve like biological beings you may have to wait quite a while.  If you want to sell to large corporations etc. you need to hold to some kinds of standards like IEEE. I suspect that you are really not techically qualified to determine the extent of work it would take to make iPads & iPhones compatable.  Would you try to hold back apple until it solved those problems first? Maybe develop the human port first & make everything else compatable first? Maybe you can get in on the after-market business of making such things compatabie.
     I'm not feeling the pain yet. I'm thinking that there is perhaps too much media.  It's good & then there is the bad. I really like YouTube.   TRUTH has suffered in election media spreading faster than ever & may elect a president who is more like the Manchurian Candidate. Presumably that has not yet happened yet, but how would we know?


Seth says
source: M above
I suspect that you are really not techically qualified to determine the extent of work it would take to make iPads & iPhones compatable.  Would you try to hold back apple until it solved those problems first? Maybe develop the human port first & make everything else compatable first? Maybe you can get in on the after-market business of making such things compatabie.
In this case we are not talking about making iPads, iPods, and iPhones compatable with each other.  They actually are amazingly compatable with each other ... though there are some notable walls.  The problem is the connection to the 3G (or 4G) cellular network.  Thing is when we bought our iPad we had three choices: (1) purchase a cheeper model direct from Apple that had only WiFi, (2) purchase a more expensive unit from Verizon which was locked to their network and could not ever be switched to another one [this is what we ended up choosing], or (3) purchace a unit from ATT which could not be switched to any other network either.  I should have been able to purchase the pad from Apple and then go to any provider and get the firmware to interface with their 3G network. 

You can delve as deep into the reasons for it going down like that, but i will guarantee you they were not technological but rather were related to business contracts and inevitably to the some company trying to defend their turf.

And, no silly, i would not hold back Apple just because the rest of the telecommunications industry is still in the defend their turf mode.

Seth says
M 2012-03-09 11:05:21 15773
seth 2012-03-09 10:57:10 15773
M 2012-03-09 10:25:56 15773
MR 2012-02-16 19:59:38 15773
Can you distinguish between blocks put somewhere in communication on purpose & those that are there because technology has yet to make all electronic things compatible?  For example Apple was always on it's own with the hardware where as IBM PC went open. If you come up with a unique, patentable product do you think you should make it compatible with all your competitor's stuff ?
Still no answer here.  I would naturally applaud your initiative if I didn't run into your "artificial boundaries" thingy. Where are they that they are not natural & waiting for technology? TV is evolving real fast right now. So fast that it might out pace the advertizing industry. I just don't get it.  As an aside, if you project your initiatives as positives & not a correction of something wrong you generally get better feedback, imho (of course).

I would call a boundary "artificial" where it can be trivially removed, and is intentionally not removed because some entity thinks they are profiting by its existence.   Notice that "artificial" means created by man.  These are boundaries which we intentionally throw into our space ... there being no technological reason for that ... just usually business reasons ... but not exclusively business reasons ... they might also be boundaries which have precedence in law or religion.  These are thing for which if we change our language or thinking or laws can just be swept away.
Interesting generalist answer. Can you find and instantiate something from the real world preferably in technical context rather than religious or general communications of your artificial boundary?
There are a whole lot of examples in the telecommunications industry.  There is no technological reason why cell phones (and smart phones) cannot be manufactured and sold designed to connect to any mobile network.   In fact some already are, in the sense that you can swap sim cards from one network to another .. but you do end up with a lot of gotchas where you cannot.  Ipads and IPhones are a notorious example.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-10 11:39:47 15773
M 2012-03-10 10:01:00 15773
Selective spending would be more effective if it were clearly distinguished from boycotts AND there was some kind of way to give feedback to the companies - perhaps the mechanism of a badge of some kind would work.

i don't know ... seems to me this is something the telecommunication companies themselves would need to see as in their best interest ... i don't know if launching an agenda to force cooperation on them will ever happen ... certainly not from my own efforts.
Well, I'll have to start a website myself then since it is so missunderstood. A company whose product is selectively bought could boast a badge with a count of the number of buyers who offered a positive reason for buying their product over another whose business practices are adverse.  Perhaps requiring a BitCoin to register or something to keep it honest. Might be kewl. It would be a different kind of advertizing. It has nothing to do with telecommunications companies except in so far as they bring the web to people. 


Seth says
M 2012-03-10 09:54:03 15773
seth 2012-03-10 09:38:19 15773
... the same goes for people.  Creating some artificial boundary, linguistic or otherwise, between yourself and the people around you does not necessarily (or even usually) improve your life. 

Lately i have been looking at people's lives as channels ... why not listen to the world in sterio ... why just through your own devises?

... mixed media, eh?
Back off on the weed a bit dude!

Well the whole mixed media project is kind of all about alternative consciousness ... what's it's not about is politics ... and what it opposes is RWG ... and what it respects and tolerates is otherness .... your apparent adgenda notwithstanding, dude.

i wish i could find a reasonable source of weed these days so that i wouldn't need to seek a criminal ... but sadly i haven't toked a good joint since the 80s.  When i was in the warehouse and thinking about this i was stoned part of the time ... but, like i said, now the passionate neon edges have long since fallen away.  I want to take another look.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-15 09:07:49 15773
MR 2012-03-13 00:14:13 15773
seth 2012-03-13 00:10:14 15773
M 2012-03-10 13:05:22 15773
seth 2012-03-10 12:37:10 15773
Incidentally i want to be very clear about this.  RWG is one of the artifical barriers to mixed media
The RWG is not artificial it is built into the human's selfhood - your very mention of it is an example as is mine for mentioning your mention -> to infinity & beyond.


Well i think the RWG is much more artificial than you give it credit.  Sure it seems like a instinctual behavior ... the behavior of competition ... that has evolved and grown as humans have grown.  But by and large it is just a bad habit.  Did you know that there were cultures where it is not even practiced?  I read about that somewhere ... quite a while ago ... and I wouldn't be able to find it easily with a Google ... maybe it was in a book by Margaret Mead ... not sure.  Also women in a group are far less competitive ... far more cooperative ... far less prone to insist on being right at somebody's expense of being wrong ... and that might be an easier Google to establish.  Also from personal experience i have found that some people are more prone to the behavior than others. 

So in the sense that is just a bad habit ... perhaps harder for some to break than others ... it is still a behavior to choose to do or choose not to do ... as such i think that the term "artificial boundary" applies.
Nope! QED
It is unclear to me why one would start playing RWG in the middle of talking about how it feels not to play it.
This has been explained already as automaticity - self always wants to be right (not wrong... etc)! Don't focus on the game part of the RWG - it is serious business to the self.  This is not a Games People Play thingy in the sense that transactional analysis was written. If it were we would all be zen masters or selfless whatevers.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-10 12:07:48 15773
M 2012-03-10 09:53:11 15773
seth 2012-03-10 09:33:10 15773
M 2012-03-09 16:12:25 15773
OK, now it's making a bit more sense to me.  What do you want to do about companies who think their technology is superior to others? Sooner or later Apple, 3G, Verizon, AT&T & the rest may have universal compatibility of some sort. What that does is make them utilities & commodities which ends up being the end of innovation.  Unless you think others should vote on your business plan all I see is the freedom to develop & do better than your neighbor. Apple's Macintosh software has been & except for one instance been incompatible with any other hardware. How about the Android platform is that open enough for you ? You have the right to do selective spending. You may not always have the right to get your way.

Companies agreeing to cooperate does not necessarily (or even usually) stop innovation.  In fact it frequently increases innovation by creating synergy and increasing the entire market.   Watch the develoment of HTML5 if you doubt this. 
great as long as they, themselves are the ones wanting to cooperate. Use selective spending to encourage it.

Well in the case of HTM5 ... and the internet in general ... it was the companies themselves getting together in the W3C and ICANN and establishing standards.  Companies complied because they saw it in their own best interest.  I don't think that selective spending was involved ... can't remember a single case of that.
Market forces is a less conscious form of selective spending. There is always some kind of force in choice - I propose to be conscious of it & treat it as a vote pro/con toward the company you are doing business with.


Mark de LA says
... Seth above
i wish i could find a reasonable source of weed these days so that i wouldn't need to seek a criminal ... but sadly i haven't toked a good joint since the 80s. When i was in the warehouse and thinking about this i was stoned part of the time ... but, like i said, now the passionate neon edges have long since fallen away. I want to take another look.
  1. Get some cancer - the more painful the better - may also need some chemo for effect
  2. Go to a state like California with cannabis legal for medical purposes
  3. Get a doctor to prescribe you some
  4. Buy some outrageous weed or bakery items (preferably) from a cannibis clinic
  5. Get high!!
  6. ... goto step 3 & repeat. (or find a cancer patient who will share)


Seth says
M 2012-03-10 13:08:25 15773
seth 2012-03-10 12:07:48 15773
M 2012-03-10 09:53:11 15773
seth 2012-03-10 09:33:10 15773
M 2012-03-09 16:12:25 15773
OK, now it's making a bit more sense to me.  What do you want to do about companies who think their technology is superior to others? Sooner or later Apple, 3G, Verizon, AT&T & the rest may have universal compatibility of some sort. What that does is make them utilities & commodities which ends up being the end of innovation.  Unless you think others should vote on your business plan all I see is the freedom to develop & do better than your neighbor. Apple's Macintosh software has been & except for one instance been incompatible with any other hardware. How about the Android platform is that open enough for you ? You have the right to do selective spending. You may not always have the right to get your way.

Companies agreeing to cooperate does not necessarily (or even usually) stop innovation.  In fact it frequently increases innovation by creating synergy and increasing the entire market.   Watch the develoment of HTML5 if you doubt this. 
great as long as they, themselves are the ones wanting to cooperate. Use selective spending to encourage it.

Well in the case of HTM5 ... and the internet in general ... it was the companies themselves getting together in the W3C and ICANN and establishing standards.  Companies complied because they saw it in their own best interest.  I don't think that selective spending was involved ... can't remember a single case of that.
Market forces is a less conscious form of selective spending. There is always some kind of force in choice - I propose to be conscious of it & treat it as a vote pro/con toward the company you are doing business with.

What is the distinction between voting against a company by not buying its products and a boycott?  If you advertise not to buy from a company, you are boycotting.  Yet you seem to be against boycotting.  So i am totally confused.

On the other side, purchasing you product from an alternative company would be just promoting every other company in the industry.  That's kind of hard to do, is it not?

Mark de LA says
Where you have a choice buy from the company you support whose business practices you can align with not just the one whose product is cheapest or glitzy advertized.  Consciously choose.  Boycotts are mob-think & main-slut media hyped. For example there are several commedians & performers & face personalities whom I will not watch & whose advertizers I will not patronize because they do not align with my values any more.  You could call that a personal boycott, but it is not part of any organized media campaign nor a crowd shouting at something. If you can't figure it out by now & all the stuff I have said about it http://fastblogit.com/tags/selective%20spending you prolly never will, Seth.


Mark de LA says
BTW YouTube channels meets FaceBook with a FastBlogIt entry point might meet some of your requirements.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-12 08:53:11 15773
I was just trying to tease out what you website would do.   The badge might be a logo which shows the number of comments.  It would hyperlink to a page that retrieves the  comments from a  database of all the comments ... most recent on top.  Anybody clicking on the badge could not only see others comments but also stick their own on top to add to the total shown on the badge.  That page would be sharable on social media.  It could be enhanced with information composed by the owner of the original badge. 


Could you use the pinterest.com site to satisfy your intentions ?
Well you got the point Seth, but the pinterest site is a bit too visual.  I was thinking of something more technical looking like votesmart.org or opensecrets.org BUT, it would really have to be simple for people to use almost the simplicity of facebook.  Even FastBlogIt seems to complex for most people except cartoonists. It would also have to distinguish itself from the many spammers touting products on all bulletin boards - hence the Bitcoin or some other ID/product uniqueness requirement.


Seth says
... so yes, you could add the requirement that you can pay to validate a comment.  i would caution against using bitcoin just because then you will have almost nobody being able to easily use the service.  i'm pretty sure there are more popular and currently used micro-payments schemes available.  for such a project to ever catch on you need to make it not only simple to use but also not throw high hurdles that must be jumped. for example, you could allow levels of commentary where anonymous would be the lowest, registering an email (or other identity) would raise the level of the comment, and a micro-payment would escalate the users comment to the highest level.   you also need to figure out what happens to the money and why.

Mark de LA says
Yes, it is a spur of the moment idea needing a lot of fleshing out. I wonder if it would just get lost in the sea of advertizing gimmicks.  Quibids being one of the worse to show up - I still don't know how they get away with the false advertizing aspect.


Seth says
seth 2012-03-10 12:07:48 15773
M 2012-03-10 09:53:11 15773
seth 2012-03-10 09:33:10 15773
M 2012-03-09 16:12:25 15773
OK, now it's making a bit more sense to me.  What do you want to do about companies who think their technology is superior to others? Sooner or later Apple, 3G, Verizon, AT&T & the rest may have universal compatibility of some sort. What that does is make them utilities & commodities which ends up being the end of innovation.  Unless you think others should vote on your business plan all I see is the freedom to develop & do better than your neighbor. Apple's Macintosh software has been & except for one instance been incompatible with any other hardware. How about the Android platform is that open enough for you ? You have the right to do selective spending. You may not always have the right to get your way.

Companies agreeing to cooperate does not necessarily (or even usually) stop innovation.  In fact it frequently increases innovation by creating synergy and increasing the entire market.   Watch the develoment of HTML5 if you doubt this. 
great as long as they, themselves are the ones wanting to cooperate. Use selective spending to encourage it.

Well in the case of HTM5 ... and the internet in general ... it was the companies themselves getting together in the W3C and ICANN and establishing standards.  Companies complied because they saw it in their own best interest.  I don't think that selective spending was involved ... can't remember a single case of that.

Here is a good example of the kind of cooperation that can happen between companies who are working in the same domain.  I have always been in admiration of how much cooperation happened and is still happening in way the Internet gets designed.  Incidentally, anybody can get involved to whatever degree they want.

Mark de LA says
Yes.  The Web is a place where cooperation is needed & desirable. It would be wonderful if we could develop a style of doing business & an entire  economy which I used to call a Synergy of Individuals. As a matter of fact what bubbled up the other day is economic theory based on such just last week. What would happen if competition - a meme which has worked unbelievably well in the domain of freedom to produce innovation were to transform into such:
Our logo at one time was intended to imply a dynamo of synergistic energy of individuals cooperating.  With multiple companies in an economy the results could be absolutely amazing.  In Japan, though they called that Keiretsu which, in a way, turns into monopoly.
This, of course, has little to do with the RWG except that individual people are involved.
I still like the logo but I would remove the Common Logic out of it.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-15 17:25:28 15773
MR 2012-03-15 16:55:19 15773
seth 2012-03-15 16:18:30 15773
You won't be getting any purpose statement from this tag room.  It's not that kind of a project.   It doesn't even know where it is going.  It is a synthesis ... something in the making ... a creative opus, perhaps ... definitely not an analytic top down kind of project.  It is a reaching for something.
Kewl! When it finally finds something to do let me know.

don't hold your breath.   i doubt that "it" will ever be something to do.  Originally mixed media was a novel i was writing as i was moving from space to space at P2.  this is just kind of a resurrection of that.  i'm not sure whether it will ever end up as a real opus of sorts.  right not it is just a way for me to focus a certain kind of my energy.
Hmmm... not much of a need for a logo for that. Could put a big questionmark between the arms of the CL logo & center on that.


Seth says
MR 2012-03-15 16:10:58 15773
seth 2012-03-15 15:27:13 15773
MR 2012-03-15 10:23:22 15773
seth 2012-03-15 09:59:17 15773
Yes, i am talking about synergy .    I'm just saying that RWG gets in the way of that.

I still like the logo ... you can interpert the separate instances of cricles and angles pointing up as different individuals ... then the over all reaching out is the whole dealing with or percieving the world.   It works ... maybe i should use it for the logo of my [tag mixed media] project
I was kinda intending to use the logo stripped of the words Common Logic, which is already another corporation somewhere, & devote to the whole economic theory. I still confess I don't understand where you are going with mixed mediaA statement of purpose would be wonderful.  The logo I designed is also a quadrupal ampersand - you should know that as well.
 

Fine, i removed my usage of your common logic logo.  Thanks for another great example of a lack of cooperation.  All hail the Zen of RWG

... & your fuckwadness!  I actually had another idea which would take the basic quadruple ampersand and add different symbols at the 2 ends for different purposes (divisions) & perhaps a symbol between the arms.  Perhaps a coin between the arms for economics & the selective spending 3-foldness, lightning between for communications & something else for politics. I just didn't want it put to a use I don't understand. I put a lot of contemplation into it at the time. Still, all in all, I have no idea of your purpose because of your current anti-Zen grinding of axes.

Not a problem, really .



Seth says
seth 2012-06-13 14:07:04 15773

 an example of companies fighting and segmenting our space for some confused delusion that it increases their profit in the long run.  thing is ... they can't sustain the artificial boundary for too much longer ... eventually mirroring will just slip around the block ... don't wait for the government to unblock it.




... and here is another, perhaps more dastardly, example.

Seth says
Another example of yada yada ya can be found here and tweeted here as follows ...



Seth says
M 2012-07-09 13:11:24 15773
Why is it any of your business? Maybe there is no demand for the Simpsons outside of the hours & hours of repeats & Comcast On Demand. It is Fox & the creator's contract & business. I suspect like most TV programs that there is a contract to deal with & if it wasn't part of a contract then such is still to be negotiated if there is a demand.   I can get & have used most of the Food network's recipes at http://www.foodnetwork.com/
 

Yep the food network's recipes are online ... but not the video's of the cooks actually making them ... those video's do enhance the knowledge being imparted.   I am not a big fan of the Simpson's either ... but i would like access to old South Park episodes ... then i could used them to mock you more precisely and directly .

It is my business just because if somebody is being stupid and not profiting by it and if at the same time that stupidity withholds information from me ... then i would like to get the  awareness of that out there ... perchance somebody will notice ... perchance they will learn how not to be so stupid ... and shucks, that might even be good for the economy. 

Incidentally there is certainly a demand for this stuff ... hard for me to even question that.  Also sometimes the very availability of content enhances the demand for it.   Of course, if your thing is to stay in a rut, you cannot easily conceive of how it could be otherwise.

Seth says
M 2012-07-09 07:49:17 15773
seth 2012-07-09 07:06:01 15773

Here is another example ... media companies being stupid ... leaving loads of money on the table ... locking their content in a vault where nobody can see it.   Where is the profit in that?

more discussion on Facebook here.



I think the guy who wrote the Forbes article just doesn't like copyrights.  He's talking more about releasing something into the public domain than streaming.  I don't know how streaming controlled by something like NetFlix or other would lose anything except reduce the revenue they get by reruns. Anyway, I think the creator is the one to make such decisions, not bloggers or those who write "executive orders".  Notice how the writer used the phrase "If the government were to pass a special law or executive order to seize some privately owned intellectual property I would complain loudly that it represented government overreach." as if executive orders are now acceptable as laws.  No loss on the Simpsons anyway - never watch them.

Well i think the author of this piece was being not just a little bit tong in cheek about  government intervention ... as was i with my ... (lol) ...

That said you do bring up the crux of the matter when you say ...
source: M above
"I don't know how streaming controlled by something like NetFlix or other would lose anything except reduce the revenue they get by reruns."
... I do think that something like that worry is behind the copyright owners decision.  What i am saying is that they are being shortsighted ... with the modern internet there are plenty of ways to monetize content ... many are doing that and perchance making lots of money. If you hang out  on youtube i'm sure you have spotted that.

Thing is the old traditional networks are reluctant to give up their strangle hold on content ... they fear that letting people choose when and where they view it will mean that they can't use it to make money.  It will be a big fight to get them to learn to do it right.


Seth says
source: M above
Anyway, none of this bothers me enough to warm up my give-a-shit button long enough to push it before the fuck-it mood intervenes.
kudos ... i feel the same way .... nice way to put it ... can i quote you?

For me it was just an example of the topic of this item ... which is why i posted it here.

Seth says
M 2012-07-09 15:13:29 15773
Why don't you put up a fan page on FaceBook & see exactly how many people want whole episodes of the Simpsons. Keeping a whole history of episodes of various series seems a bit overkill.  I'll bet you can find some on Amazon.com in DVD. I found several seasons of House there.  Anyway, none of this bothers me enough to warm up my give-a-shit button long enough to push it before the fuck-it mood intervenes. While I have never actually watched an entire episode of the Simpsons I have actually watched about 4 episodes of South Park which is only mildly amusing. It's mostly for cult followers. 
You might enjoy some of this series which is apparently in line with your politics: http://www.mtv.com/videos/beavis-and-butt-head-season-9-ep-12-whorehouse-going-down/1676256/playlist.jhtml
Good example ... note also how they got to push Bing for their efforts .  Who knows maybe more and more media outlets will discover how to make money this way ... and then more of their shit will become available on search and at the click of a mouse ... regardless of what screen you happen to be watching.

Seth says
M 2012-07-09 12:44:26 15773
seth 2012-07-09 10:37:07 15773
M 2012-07-09 09:58:22 15773
seth 2012-07-09 08:33:45 15773
Incidentally you don't need Netflix to stream content ... all you need is a server capable of the bandwidth.  That's another aspect of this that the traditional networks and cable companies are worried about. 
Netflix was the only one I could think of that monetizes it besides Hulu etc. Some YouTube is monetized & some not, although I suspect that over half of that is non monetized.  When copyrights begin to mean nothing then a great incentive for commercial artists will disappear until of course the threefolding idea gets implemented. We are at least a few incarnations away from that, though.The Internet propagates the idea that content should all be free.  Methinks you are as ever Don Bozo Quixote, railing against imaginary corporate consipracies. My one experiment with Danya's Bread & the Co-op in PJ2 showed me that people will take if the opportunity looks like freebies - even when it is not.

Well I am in no way opposed to copyrights ... to the legal enforcement of a producers right to control access to their content.   So "Methinks you are as ever, Don Magor Quixote, railing against an imaginary" straw man.

There are many ways on the internet where content is being paid for and the more those are exploited the more reliable they will become as a method to support artists and producers of content. 

What i whale against is controlling access to content in a way that does not work either for the producers or for their audience. 
Nobody's controlling content - you should probably run some of your theories by Glenn Beck.


So then why are the Simpson episodes not available on the Internet?  Why are the videos of the  recipes from the food network not available on the Web ?   They are being witheled because somebody thinks it is in their best business interest.   But those people are mistaken.  They will make more profit if they find a way to release the content on the streaming web and still make money on it. 

Seth says
seth 2012-07-10 12:54:55 15773
M 2012-07-10 12:16:12 15773
seth 2012-07-10 11:26:59 15773

Another example ... more analysis here.

interesting how DirectTV is taking the "contract dispute" to facebook to rally support ... that's new.
If you don't like the way a company is doing business vote for another with your $$$ - it works every time.

that actually does go without saying. 

In this case i'm thinking the dynamics could be a bit different.  Viacom, i believe, is not the producer of the content ... they merely distribute it (but i am not sure there) ... methinks the producers, who are probably getting only a small percentage of the increase ... should look for a more reasonable distribution channel.  That would be another example of your selective spending.  (see my comment here)

And still another dynamic is involved here.    I doubt that Viacom is raising prices and bundeling only through DirectTV ... they must also be doing the same for Comcast and Dish.  Where these media distribution companies have a monopoly by virtue of exclusive contracts, there may not be a consumer choice ... except of course not to pay for the bundle and not get the particular content of their interest.

Seth says
I'm thinking this is a good thing!  Let Viacom et all go ahead and get as stupid greedy as they want.  It just hastens their demise ... there being far more efficient means to distribute content!

Mark de LA says
I think directv is agressively going after comcast customers with door-2-door campaigns. They dropped by my house a couple of weeks ago.  It's one of those things called competition & contracts with the networks. The more you regulate from a single point the more prices go up & jobs get lost. Let the customers who are pissed off choose something else.  If a channel like MTV raises its prices to the carrier there are other choices of carrier. This sort of stuff was going on in NY several years ago with Time Warner Cable. I think even last minute stuff surrounding the SuperBowl was threatened. Look it up if you are interested, I'm not so much.


Seth says
source: DIRECTTV
EL SEGUNDO, Calif., July 10, 2012 – DIRECTV customers were left without Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and 14 other channels today, after Viacom dropped its networks from DIRECTV at approximately midnight EDT.
If i had invested in DIRECTTV i would be super pissed. Wouldn't you?

The other aspects of this is why the price on those same channels did not also go up for Dish and Comcast .... anybody know why Viacom is singeling out DirectTV ?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Mark de LA says
I'm unclear what you would do with imbedded audio hyperlinks.  Got an audio mouse in your back pocket?  Youtube evidently embedded hyperlinks at the end of Lindsey Stirling's http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0g9poWKKpbU :


Seth says
M 2012-07-11 13:54:20 15773
Your shit is too general to make any sense or use out of it. For me it is like you like to write off as "too obvious" or what I call an abstract generalization without substance. Come out with examples which have been costed out & a full business plan that could be implemented where a company refuses to be compatible with some generally available devices, but could be & rake in a lot more dough because of the compatibility. Often a company does not want to become compatible with another because the other is inferior technology.
Then too look at fastblogit which was abandoned long before FaceBook but refused to go the distance to be compatible with other browsers & online editors & do what was necessary to compete in the marketplace.
 

Well i would love to drill down into an example  "costed out & with a full business plan", unfortunately to do that i would need to get into some heavy industrial espionage not to mention having a whole lot of spare time ... not something that you should expect to happen.  But that is not really necessary for my awareness ... all that is necessary for my purposes is for me to prove to myself that there is no technological reason for the incompatibility.   As to a practical useage of this philosophy, you would need to be in a position shape a product ... other than that, i can see not practical value for you.

But look at it from the other point of view ... the more the synergy, the less the walls ... and the more the walls the less the synergy.  This is all really about synergy ... and in this particular item, the lack of same.

Hey, i ran out of energy on fastblogit dev ... given the total lack of market penetration, more energy put into that would have been fruitless.  What would have useful then would have been learning ways to penetrate the market.  I'm thinking now that is mostly about what other people you can connect with.  Apparently we were not connected to the right people ... the people who were in a position to really help ... the same applied to CyberMind. 

Strangely enough i'm toying with another proposition as we speak:  a practical hyperlink between audio media and the web.  Am already connected to Danny Ayers who invented a way of encoding any text into beeps ... now i need a connection with people who are anxious to write an Android/iOs listening app.  I really do want this thing to happen.  It would be mixed media at its finest.

Seth says
Yeah when you upload a video at youtube you can put hyperlinks in the description.  Those only show if somebody is actually watching the video at the  youtube website and is at a computer browser with a mouse ready to click on them.   But what if you were at another website that had embedded the video ... or what if you were watching it on your TV screen.  If the beep tone is embedded right in the content, then any devise listening will get notified and can go there.

Here is my example of an embedded beep link.

Seth says
M 2012-07-11 12:19:09 15773
seth 2012-07-11 11:44:46 15773
M 2012-07-11 09:13:51 15773
I think the whole premise of your item is mostly absurd. The pace of innovation & delivery of content has skyrocketed since the iPad & iPhones. To expect every port & channel everywhere to instantly become compatible with every other one is absurd. Notice how Apple's proprietary systems seemed to spawn innovation & how the IBMpc turned into a commodity with little innovation for the last 20 years. It's natural evolution. Notice how the web outpaced CyberMind. It's all natural evolution in a free (becoming ever so less) economy. Try to force compatibility & you end up with IBMPC's (or whatever the latest commodity parts package from China is called) - IBM sold the Thinkpad to China.  Things become compatible when it makes business sense & the companies can hand shake in a friendly, synergistic way. Sometimes companies get bought & sold in the process - matched & merged.  I'm sure that if you are thinking about some way for things to be more compatible, the companies themselves are already thinking or working on it - if it makes business sense; conspiracy theories notwithstanding.
 

Well i think that people should assume that being compatible, even with their competition, almost always makes business sense in the long run.  Shutting out the competition sometimes does work to a short term advantage ... but in the long term it just motivates the rest of the market to go around your artificial boundaries ... so when they do  ... and inevitably thy will ... you find that your entire enterprise looses market share.   Of course nothing like this is binary and as all business strategies, timings  and evolutions, there will be exceptions.  Thing is if people think first of what is best for their customers ... they cannot loose ... when they put their own profits above the best interest of their customers, they do risk their long term future.

This is not really a conspiracy.  Each business man follows his own instincts ... if those instincts are focused on fighting the competition and next quarter's earnings report, then they naturally might knee jerk the wrong decision.  Then too when a given technology becomes superseded the industry will naturally turn to tactics which extend it's life ... no conspiracy necessary.
You are still missing the point, I think. Not everyone can practically become compatible with everyone else.  It takes time & investment.  Just because YOU think they should be compatible NOW does not mean it makes sense.  A company that wants to remain in business has to consider future evolution & the costs associated with making changes.  You still think companies are consciously refusing to evolve?


Well it is a given that, as you say, "Not everyone can practically become compatible with everyone else.  It takes time & investment" ... it is really hard to miss that obvious fact.  

This is not about ME or what I "think they should be compatible NOW" or about what I think "makes business sense" .... this is about what every consumer would opt to purchase.  Oh sure, some might place brand loyalty above their own best interest at some time ... but if the brand continually tries to corral them into transactions which are not in their best interest, eventually they will rebel. 

You seem to be writing me into a fiction where i am personally crusading against some sacrosanct business principal ... and/or misunderstanding same.  To understand what i am actually doing here in this item you really do need to just flush that presumption out of your mind ... nothing could be further from the truth ... that would be a fruitless effort.  This is just me becoming aware of how technology develops,  gets deployed, and how the chaos of human instincts affect that and how these pesky unnecessary walls grow and are sustained.  My claim is that were businesses to change some of their philosophies, which you seem to be defending, their markets would actually grow faster and the rest of us would also be less frustrated by gotchas.  It is just part of my study of mixed media.

Seth says
source: M above
They are just as worthless without an audio mouse as a bar code is to someone without a scanner. Also audio is a linear medium & works differently than 2-d pictures.
QR codes have become very popular ... they are cropping up all over the place now ... they are hyperlinks from a 2D graphic space into the Web, they are used outside of the web to get the client into the web.  Beep links are exactly the same kind of thing getting the customer from the linear  sound he is listening to into the Web.  Just like the QR code, the assumption is that the customer always carries his mobile device with him and it is there to assist in the reference.  That is not a bad assumption to make ... and if you have been out in public recently it is hard for me to see why you would disagree.

There is actually one advantage that the audio hyperlink has over the graphic one.  The graphic requires you to point your camera at the code ... the audio one only needs to be listening in your pocket all the time.  I realize that does open up a whole other can of worms .. but hey ... we are cruising into the 21th century, not the 19th.

Mark de LA says
MR 2012-07-12 09:05:50 15773
seth 2012-07-12 08:39:50 15773
Yeah when you upload a video at youtube you can put hyperlinks in the description.  Those only show if somebody is actually watching the video at the  youtube website and is at a computer browser with a mouse ready to click on them.   But what if you were at another website that had embedded the video ... or what if you were watching it on your TV screen.  If the beep tone is embedded right in the content, then any devise listening will get notified and can go there.

Here is my example of an embedded beep link.
Yep I already commented about the beeps.  They are just as worthless without an audio mouse as a bar code is to someone without a scanner. Also audio is a linear medium & works differently than 2-d pictures.
BTW the noun is device the verb is devise - both will pass a spelling checker (just saying). 


Mark de LA says
It may work, the telephone lines still beep to connect to your telephone address at least for land lines.


Seth says
MR 2012-07-13 08:45:04 15773
seth 2012-07-13 08:04:38 15773
We don't need no stinking Cable Bundles!

The consumer should be able to select from whatever channels are published.  The set top box is capable of monitoring who is watching which channel, and how long, and of sending that transaction information back to the cable provider.  The provider should use that info to divvy up the revenue from the consumer's cable bill or even pass a cost directly back to the consumer.   

We really do not need Cable and Dish companies deciding what we can watch on TV !
Fascinating thoughts. So whose set top boxes, cable equipment, dish equipment, satellites &ct. are you going to use?  Who maintains all that equipment.  Whose business model would you like to destroy?  If you turn the availability of programs into a utility who will invest in better programming? There was a free TV app several years ago which went nowhere on the Internet because the programs were shit. When the choices end up in the millions then what? Who selects? Right now my Comcast has hundreds of channels I don't watch. You still seem to be tilting at the windmills of successful businesses.  You might also destroy advertising models & the Nielsen ratings etc. Catchy phrase "no stinking cable bundles" not withstanding. I suspect though, (I could be wrong), but maybe you should understand a business before you try to change it.
 

Mark asks some question ...

Q: So whose set top boxes, cable equipment, dish equipment, satellites &ct. are you going to use?

A:  The current boxes should be just fine. The settop boxes already have the capability of sending who is watching what channel and when back to the provider; but the providers would need to reprogram their boxes and change their billing software.  Granted that would be a big step for their IT departments.  When a company like DirectTV is being faced with mass exits and a dying customer base, they might just  find that to be a good investment.  Then too, if they could pull it off, they would be in a position to market "increased choice" to their customers ... giving them a leg up on the competition ... eh?

Q: Who maintains all that equipment.  Whose business model would you like to destroy?

A:  I don't see who maintains the equipment changing at all.  If you have a comcast box and a comcast cable comming in, then they would continue to be your provider.  Same for Dish and DirectTv.   The only thing that changes is the "bundling business model".  Lets say currently $20 of your cable bill goes back to motivate the content producers.  Instead of Comcast dividing that according to their behind the scenes contracts with channels, that same sum would be divided according to what actual people actually chose to watch.

Q: If you turn the availability of programs into a utility who will invest in better programming? There was a free TV app several years ago which went nowhere on the Internet because the programs were shit. When the choices end up in the millions then what? Who selects? Right now my Comcast has hundreds of channels I don't watch.

A:  Producers of content will be paid directly by their audience.  You will have a free market.  If people want to watch shit, then more money will flow into shit.  Alternatively if people get turned off by shit, then the money will flow elsewhere.  I guess i don't really understand your question ... or you don't really understand my proposal.

Mark de LA says
Networks have long ago lost trying to control the content of TV news since the Internet & cable news became viable. It has been years since I watched the nightly news on ABCCBSNBC... cable news is something else.  I prefer cable to dish for quality.


Mark de LA says
BTW, just thinking out loud, but blackouts look little different than boycots to me.  If I were to boycott everything I don't like on some TV channel or network I would never watch. Similarly since most of what is on the Internet is similarly disposed & repeats what is on TV I would have to close that out too.


Seth says

Real time switching between streaming media and the Web should be just this easy ... watch the youtube .... one three-fingered gester on the mousepad to switch from desktop to desktop.

Here the thunderbolt jack was connected to a HDMI adapter to a DVI adapter into a 22" monitor.  I've also done this on a flat screen HDMI.   I selected a live streaming service of cnn from the web ... and in the other desktop updated my blog as you see here.

Seth says
MR 2012-07-13 17:54:35 15773
Think comcast has 22+ million active subscribers per month?  Anyway, given your gratuitous Romney bashing I will wish you good luck & stick this project in the pissing against the wind category - not wasting any more give a shit on it.
yep, i hyperlinked to where somebody already had answered that question over at ouora (see above).

Seth says
MR 2012-07-13 13:41:12 15773
I'm just arguing against fucking with a successful business model. I have no problem with big corporations or small ones. If you want free shit & tons of small stuff watch YouTube. They already have a model that works but is increasingly monetizing.  Then too it involves advertizing for the good stuff. Can't bypass advertizing & expect user fees to lessen the cost & availability of good programs. In the advertizing model the advertizers pick up huge parts of bringing programs to the eyeballs. I rarely watch something not on my DVR - I just wonder how long that will last.  There is very little I would watch for 99cents a program.


I don't see how advertising would need to change at all ... this does not affect that.  For example,   I think we pay about $60 for cabel TV here ... of that i'm guessing $20 goes back to pay for basic cable.  So under my plan Comcast would take that  $20 and distribute it to the actual channels i watch in proportion to how long i watch them.  If i watched the Comedy channel for 1/20 of the total time i watched the basic cabel TV channels, then Comcast would rebate $1 of my payment to the Comedy channel.   

Thing is this formula opens up even more interesting possibilities.  It could be like a ceiling on how much "free" tv i get.  If i go over the ceiling, then i would see overages on my bill.  Also it allows for an easy way to pay for specific premium content ... like  newsroom on HBO ... don't make me pay for all of HBO when i only want to watch that one program every week. 

You're the one who truly fucking up the system with your DVR ... now where do i get me one of those?

Seth says
MR 2012-07-13 16:29:36 15773
seth 2012-07-13 14:26:36 15773
MR 2012-07-13 13:41:12 15773
I'm just arguing against fucking with a successful business model. I have no problem with big corporations or small ones. If you want free shit & tons of small stuff watch YouTube. They already have a model that works but is increasingly monetizing.  Then too it involves advertizing for the good stuff. Can't bypass advertizing & expect user fees to lessen the cost & availability of good programs. In the advertizing model the advertizers pick up huge parts of bringing programs to the eyeballs. I rarely watch something not on my DVR - I just wonder how long that will last.  There is very little I would watch for 99cents a program.


I don't see how advertising would need to change at all ... this does not affect that.  For example,   I think we pay about $60 for cabel TV here ... of that i'm guessing $20 goes back to pay for basic cable.  So under my plan Comcast would take that  $20 and distribute it to the actual channels i watch in proportion to how long i watch them.  If i watched the Comedy channel for 1/20 of the total time i watched the basic cabel TV channels, then Comcast would rebate $1 of my payment to the Comedy channel.   

Thing is this formula opens up even more interesting possibilities.  It could be like a ceiling on how much "free" tv i get.  If i go over the ceiling, then i would see overages on my bill.  Also it allows for an easy way to pay for specific premium content ... like  newsroom on HBO ... don't make me pay for all of HBO when i only want to watch that one program every week. 

You're the one who truly fucking up the system with your DVR ... now where do i get me one of those?
You can rent one from Comcast for 15 bucks a month. The model is complex. Your measly distributed $20 for what you watch isn't worth shit. Why not study Hulu http://www.hulu.com/plus?src=sem-plus-google&cmp=205&gclid=CN2nuvzml7ECFaMaQgodIEHnCQ I don't know whether they still include the advertizements or not.

$20 x 22,525,000 = $450,500,000 ... not worth shit?   I guess you been paling around with Romney a lot, eh?

But i guess you meant it was cheep enough to me ... yeah i don't have any complaint ... except that i'm paying for a lot of channels there which i never do watch, while at the same time not getting to watch some channels that i do want to watch.

Seth says
Video of Tim Berners-Lee on this topic ...




 

Mark de LA says
It is kinda dry in a British sort of way.  What did he say that stood out for you?  Frankly rather than just anyone or everyone having the right to say something on the web or write it on whatever web exists,  I hold it a much more important human right or necessity that everyone learn or know how to read & write. (& have a toilet)

Seth says
seth 2012-07-13 12:44:30 15773
MR 2012-07-13 10:43:46 15773
Yes, I do.  In a nutshell it is pay by the nut for entertainment.
You may not understand how bundles get created & why.  It is similar to how movies themselves get made. Notice all the various groups produce, distribute & put their names on the work you watch; see the beginning or end of a movie. When it costs massive amounts of money to produce a piece of art you need to recoup some of that by some means. We'll see how streaming media works things out.  I use Netflix for some movies but they are not the first-run ones yet otherwise the cost would go up. I prefer the market rather than top-down dictums from any place they show up.  Good luck with your initiative. Not all programs are worth the same unit price. The fallout from Apple pricing songs for 99 cents (?) is yet to be appreciated.  Comcast has PPV as well which I don't use because the cost is not worth it - too much other stuff to devote my eyeballs attention to.  BTW, the surest way to make changes in media distribution is to create your own & become successful at it.


This different business model would not mean less capitol would be available to produce content.  Yes, perhaps  content for which there was little demand would get less of the pie ... but why should the system be setup to subsidize the uninteresting.  Good content will get more proceeds, not less.  Strange to see you arguing against a free market for attention.

I also prefer the market rather than top-down dictums.  It is also strange that you see this proposal ... actually  it's more of a prediction ... as a top-down dictum.  If it happens, then some media distributor like Comcast, Qwest, directTv or Dish would need to grock the wisdom of an alternative like this and implement it ... then if that proved successful, the rest of the companies will have to follow suit ... or die.  Hopefully you didn't  presume that i would have been proposing legislation or regulation. 

Thing is, with network TV  loosing market share every year ... at some point the shit will hit the fan ... like the tweet says ...




_____________________________________________________________________

Viacom, DirecTV, And The Future Of TV Blackouts ... so now we see the Viacom channels restored to DirectTv.   The blackout was successful as DirectTV went to social media to bring pressure on Viacom.  Apparently we are going to see more and more of these fights as cable companies and producers fight over a dwindling market.  I think this is the beginning of the end of networks strangel hold over content.  Let the long tail of the internet as source will prevail

Seth says
seth 2012-07-22 13:17:04 15773
M 2012-07-22 12:05:43 15773
IMHO, they should work more on the quality of the content & less on seeing the same shit everywhere; your mileage may vary!

Well i don't have any control of, and scant effect on, the quality of content ... the most practical thing i can do is to select what i interact with.   Also it is important that i can interact with content comfortably and within  the rhythms and behaviors of my own life.  With the internet we obviously have a fantastic selection of content to interact with ... but that is not true with network broadcasts.  Yet in many households network broadcast is the sine qua non of where you "consume" the world.  I'm trying to change that for my household.  To do that, my own control and effect must be on par with the content provider ... just like p2p.  That is just the revolution that started with Gutenberg, then the Personal Computer ... working towards just people interacting with each other and their culture, when and where wanted or needed, with nothing obstructing.

... but, of course, let's not get stupid about it ... "Blood-Drenched, Berserk CEO Demands More Web Videos" ...






Seth says
See this is what i'm talking about ... Full episodes of Chopped available from the net anytime ... anywhere ... any screen :)))  Kudos food network ... why did it take you so long.   Now all i got to do is figure out how to project it on my the big screen when i'm in a TV watching mode ... laying in bed with my better half ... not sitting up at my disk.   We are truly making progress here!



Seth says
M 2012-07-27 13:03:21 15773
Yeah i like Apple stuff too.  Am looking to update my MacAir (Airlene) to Mountain Lion soon.  The TV mirroring i'v already kind of tried, though not through Apple TV (which costs $99) but direct through a cable ... so i can put anything on the Mac up on the big screen ... only prob is i have to switch the input via the TV remote.  That also works on the monitor on my desk.  Thing is i refuse to be a one vendor family ... so i got a Nexus 7 coming in the mail.  I hope to be able to control the TV/internet via that ... but may need to wait for Google to rework Google TV.  Getting these guys to play together is kind of fun. 

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-08-16 09:43:31 15773
M 2012-08-16 08:54:18 15773
seth 2012-08-16 07:21:29 15773

source: macobserver
Apple is currently in talks with U.S. cable television providers to adapt the Apple TV device into a full-featured set-top box for viewing and recording live television, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal late Wednesday. The proposed device would merge Apple’s existing Apple TV online and local streaming capabilities with TiVo-like functionality for live television.

An Apple set-top box would act as an alternative to digital television receivers and digital video recorders that most cable subscribers currently rent from their cable provider for a monthly fee.
...


The USB port on the Xfinity/Comcast box isn't even usable.

I doubt that the USB port on the xfinity box will be involved ... rather the coax would be attached directly to the apple tv box and the comcast box would be thrown in landfill.   It's interesting to note that Google has a similar box (in this case a globe) but it is more pricey ... ~$300 to ~99 for apple.  I wonder if the cable companies are going to allow both competing "boxes" to replace their settops.   The one thing i do resent would be a monthly fee for tvo ... why should i pay to record whatever i want to record ... do you know the justification for that ?
Yeah, I was just pointing out that Comcast box has a for future expansion which they are not taking advantage of.  I doubt Comcast will let some other company get their cable channels without cost. In the last 2 months they raised my bill $30 & as yet I can't figure it out.


Seth says
source: M above
I doubt Comcast will let some other company get their cable channels without cost.
Well certainly not ... i found no hint of that.  The story said that Apple was negotiating with the cable companies ... so this is cooperation.  Whatever revenue that comcasts gets ... from subscribers ... from broadcasters ... from advertisers, would obviously not be affected at all.   The only thing that is affected is the electronic switch that sits on top of the TV box ... looks to me that you would now have a choice of where to purchase it ... also that there will be some competition as to who can program that switch and control it's logic and its gotchas.

See Also

  1. Thought RFC - Common Logic™ with 277 viewings related by tag "common logic".
  2. Thought The Medium is the Message with 223 viewings related by tag "MixedMedia".
  3. Thought Venus with 138 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  4. Thought Noticing Crossing the line with 110 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  5. Thought about: SeriTD - comment 65611 with 79 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  6. Thought The relationship between RingsTrue and Resonates with 75 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  7. Thought I can walk and chew gum with 72 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  8. Thought Put something Beautiful in your mind today! with 58 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  9. Thought Taking control of our media with 51 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  10. Thought Babbleing 1 with 40 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  11. Thought #TCL #TrueCommonLogic with 31 viewings related by tag "common logic".
  12. Thought Connections with 22 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  13. Thought Mixed Media with 12 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  14. Thought The Leviathan (Chapter 1) with 9 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  15. Thought To BE or NOT 2 B ? Is There a Question in There Somewhere? with 7 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  16. Thought Loui Jover: Interesting Art Style .... with 6 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  17. Thought One of the last emails from Larry Dodson with 4 viewings related by tag "common logic".
  18. Thought The CSS font-size statement does not work on the MacAir in Chrome with 4 viewings related by tag "item 15154".
  19. Thought dramaturgy with 3 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  20. Thought Just Because ... with 2 viewings related by tag "common logic".
  21. Thought Get a Life ! aka The Medium IS The Message with 1 viewings related by tag "item 15154".
  22. Thought Mixed Media & The RWG or How to think in Stereo with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  23. Thought Bitter Nation with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  24. Thought Where are ALL the Fucking Answers ? with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  25. Thought Modern Life is not about things! with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  26. Thought Integrating big screen TV with Internet and Mobile with 0 viewings related by tag "item 15154".
  27. Thought House of Lies with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  28. Thought My ... with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  29. Thought about: No One Can Make the Perfect TV, Not Even Apple with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  30. Thought Real Communication with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  31. Thought Similarities with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  32. Thought [title (16031)] with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  33. Thought Libertarian sense of Community? with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  34. Thought Mixed Media with 0 viewings related by tag "mixed media".
  35. Thought about: amazon echo with 0 viewings related by tag "item 18377".