When culture gets overinflated, yet refuses to pop, I want to be there with the needle. Enlightened cynics of the world unite! Express your love or hatred of things from the sacred to the mundane.
The attached picture set does not only show how the size of removable media has changed over the past hundred years, but also the ironic evolution and devolution of sound quality. Where people were once willing to listen to the Edison Cylinder as the pinnacle of recorded music, is seems the pre-eminence of the 128kb mp3 has reduced our expectations of quality to their lowest levels since then.
With EMI announcing that they will only be selling CDs to large retailers from now on, and that small stores will have to buy their stock from the “large” retailers (read: Walmart), CDs and independent music stores are hearing the death knell in the not-to-distant-future.
Gone are the days I remember of growing up at the local record store and meeting with friends, music geeks, and other pretentious community members who spent hours debating who the best drummer was. It may have been a bit sad, but it was ours. I’m certainly not expecting the Compact Disc to be around forever, but to screw over the independent retailer and pumping business to a chain like Walmart… I better not hear any more stats about how CD sales are slipping as a defense against P2P; their obviously doing their best to make sure sales fail.
Hey EMI, the Jerkstore called and they're all out of you!
we all had to say goodbye
unlimited supply – e.m.i.
there is no reason why – e.m.i.
i tell you it was all a frame – e.m.i.
they only did it ‘cos of fame – e.m.i.
i do not need the pressure – e.m.i.
i can’t stand those useless fools – e.m.i.
Sex Pistols – E.M.I.
I think Freddie Mercury would be proud of the time and dedication it must have taken to produce this - although he may have preferred some spandex be involved. Just goes to show how one can find music anywhere. It's a little bit hypnotic as well. I can't believe I just watched a tech junkyard create music for six minutes... I need help!
Through CNET's Crave, and several conventions over the past year or so, has GestureTek use-the-force hand-waving television remote come to the fore. And I cannot think of a more ridiculous idea.
Oh sure, the technology is cool, but do I really want to sit in my basement waving my arms around like I'm guiding a plane down the tarmac at LaGuardia? The traditional television remote control has reduced my inaction down to the most minimal press of my thumb. Why do I want to engage in a Karate Kid exercise every time I want to interact with my tuner?
I've got a gesture for the workmongers at GestureTek, and it involves quickly inverting an avian creature with my middle finger. I'll stick with my thumb press thanks.
As I was growing up a piano/keyboard player, Keith Emerson was a god to me. (See a wicked live solo piano wank circa 1970 if you doubt)
In expanding on my previous few posts about technology killing music, I am not-so-subtly reminded of the fact that the rumored demise of musical integrity has been greatly exaggerated.
Straight out of the gate let me plead guilty - I have a soft spot in my heart for tech blogs and podcasts. I have, however, written several times on the ourobouros-like feeding of such blogs and podcasts on each other and often themselves. This humble blogger and podcaster feels that we've stretched the envelope a bit much when 390 words can be devoted to the headline:
Deja vu all over again: Apple patent hints at tablet
Now I know that the writers at arstechnica and other like sites are prompted to pick up on even the smallest tidbit of minutae about the most arcane aspects of Apple, Microsoft or Google, but isn't a post where the optimistic highlight is "however, the company has indicated that it's at least contemplating how to best implement the idea, should the opportunity arise one day."
Let's deconstruct. 390 words that concludes, on the basis of a patent filing mind you, that Apple is "indicating that it's contemplating" a product that may be a possibility some day. I'm all for the "if/then" logic construct, but in this conclusion where's the "then"? I'm stuck with so many "ifs" in front of me that I feel like I'm at the "Obscure Films of Malcolm McDowell Festival."
The "news" of this story could be (and probably should be) started and finished with the headline. Everything else is supposition and subjectivity, which is fine, but doesn't inspire return visits. The article's tagline includes "Speculation about a Mac tablet refuses to die." Well of course it refuses to die, you keep bringing it up!
I don't mean to pick on this article or writer specifically because this post is symptomatic of a pattern that is creeping forward as more and more bloggers tend to be fighting for the same content. My thoughts, if you're going to go completely speculative and conditional anyway, knock one out of the park. How about:
"Apple was once again caught filing a patent for technology that could be used in a new tablet computer, but will more likely be used in building a spaceship capable of breaching the theoretical space/time continuum. If such a feat is accomplished, the Cupertino mindtrust could place Steve Jobs into the iStar and blast him backwards in time to the point where his current condition is/was not an issue. They would, however, have to ensure that should he interact with any Sleestacks along the way, his encounter would not result in any repercussion for the possibility of the development of the iPhone Clear which cannot be seen by the naked eye but does have cut/paste and Flash functionality."
When the Superbowl arrives every year, those of us who are even casual football fans, and many who never watch football at any other time, prepare for parties that rival Caligula's hedonism. While this is nothing new, and the tradition is certainly well-established, it has prompted a question about connections between two seemingly completely unrelated things.
I realize for some that the idea of Sunday football has become less about football and more about food, drink and friends. This is the relationship that I find so interesting. Essentially, the real reason for many people to watch the Superbowl (which is traditionally a mediocre game) is to give people an excuse to socialize with friends. With this connection in mind, some of the other real reasons we do things may start to unfold.
I thus present a lovehatethings list, based on no scientific research, and in no specific order, that I shall call...
The Real Reasons
The real reasons people read self-help books are to help moderate their insecurities. After all, if only 25% of the things in the book apply to you, there are people out there in 75% worse shape than you are.
The real reason people line up for things is to appease their demographic.
The real reason people ice fish is to drink.
The real reason people go to bars is to not be lonely.
The real reason women go clubbing is to have fun with friends.
The real reason men go clubbing is to get laid. This is also the irreducable primary for 90% of the things men do, but to save time, you'll just have to trust me.
The real reason people buy Monster Cables is because they believe cost equals quality.
The real reason we still go to McDonald's is because we were brainwashed as children to choose brand over exploring.
The real reason people drink alcohol is to forget.
The real reason that people blog is steeped in vanity.
The real reason that people podcast, in addition to vanity, is to out do bloggers.
The real reason people yell is because they feel insignificant.
The real reason people go to church is the same reason people use online social networking is the same reason people spend hours in a coffee shop is the same reason people watch Oprah.
The real reason we steal music by illegal downloading is because someone doesn't want us to.
The real reason we spend money on things we don't need is because concretizing our wealth is comforting to our sensiblities.
The real reason people go hunting is because they lack the serenity to go walking.
The real reason we buy the thing that's "new" and "improved" is more about wish fulfillment and possibility than actually belief.
The real reason the economy is so messed up is because we're lazy.
The real reason we're lazy is because action can lead to failure.
The real reason failure scares us has little to do with fear of our inabilities and more to do with our fear of others.
The real reason people laughed at that kid getting his head shot off in the back seat of the car by John Travolta in Pulp Fiction is because we're too scared to cry is the reason therapists thrive.
The real reason we advance technology is because the whenever we ask the existential questions that lead to the nature of real reason for everything, we realize we can't answer, but we hope technology will one day allow us to.
The real reason for every war of the modern era isn't borders or religion or resources, but the low self-esteem of the decision-makers.
The real reason borders still exist is to preserve a way of life that has been manufactured, packaged, imported and sold to you.
The real reason you "buy-in" is because it's too much work to "buy-out".
The real reasons that motivate our actions bely our need to avoid reality.
I never thought that I'd fear the idea of zipping around like so many characters from 60s sci-fi movies, but does this car look safe to anyone. Don't get me wrong, it's looks ultracool, but will this last five minutes on roads with ice, snow, or in temperatures of -20? Doesn't it look like one could just kick the axles right off this thing?
I certainly admire that the "all-electric three-wheeled two-seater" will apparently be ready in October '09 for a relatively decent price point of $25000-$45000 and "get the equivalent of 200 mpg and go 100 miles on a charge."
I really do admire the effort, but unless I'm driving this thing on the Salt Flats I'm not feeling too confident.
Now that Web 2.0 has become a redundant term (after all, don't we expect the web to be interactive, feeding, streaming and end-user tweakable these days) when will the terminology move to the next step up the version hierarchy.
I have to apologize in advance, because while this lovehate will incorporate many open-ended questions that I invite people to answer for me, the majority of the discussion will not revolve around the real object of my derision: version-branding everything... but I digress 3.5.
When the Web 2.0 moniker became de rigeur around aught four, more people clamped onto the fashion of the version upgradability of the name as opposed to knowing what it was all about.
Remember the first time you could easily manage your RSS feeds, or the first time you got to move widgets around a page on the fly to create a custom portal experience? Remember the first time you Dugg something by clicking a simple button that updated on the fly, or giving a thumbs-up or down to a comment? Remember seeing your first REALLY cool freaky-styley Flash interface and then getting annoyed by them like so many animated gifs and beveled buttons of the past? Remember finding websites by designers that learned how to use flash for substance instead of style? Remember when social networks opened our eyes from a history of forums and newsgroups or even listservs?
Most of us remember all of this as the nascent signs that would be the explosion of Web 2.0 and yet, to me anyway, and I'm guessing many others, that seemed so long ago. Surely we've hit the version change or the upgrade somewhere along the way. We must be at Web 2.4.6 or Web 2.0 SP-1 by now. If we're going to buy into the branding of the Web as a version number, shouldn't we be willing to run with the entire procedure?
And here's a BTW 4.6: what ever happened to the Internet? Now, I could be wrong, but didn't the web used to be part of the internet? Wasn't "Internet" the global catchphrase dropped by politicians who wanted to seem too cool for their own good. Has Web 2.0 not only usurped "Web" but also "Internet" as well? Has the term "internet" become nothing more than a series of tubes? Have the words become interchangeable due to the Web's popularity?
And just by way of a WTF? 5.1, if Web 3.0 is supposed to be the advancement of server models that are not just storage and retrieval, but of execution as found in already existing web productivity applications like those promoted by Apple, Microsoft and, most prominently, Google, haven't we breached the outer vestiges of Web 3.0 already? Haven't we started to float through the Cloud? Surely we're starting to reach some of the potential if not benchmarks that would constitute a version shift, yet no one is ready to say we're officially at the Web 3.0 stage yet, but how about 2.5, 2.3, 2.1... hell, I'd even take 2.0.1 alpha at this point because it seems no version advancement moves so slow as that which evolves before our eyes.
And so if constant evolution is actually preventing a clean division between 2.0 and 3.0, who will ultimately be the voice responsible for leading us from the arbitrary muck and mire to the magic number? Will it be something as simple as a prompt from the social networker with the most followers? A well-placed tweet that gets re-tweeted ad infinitum until, by no fault, wish, cause, or ability of our own, we live in a Web 3.0 world and the first bloggers and eager tech column writers start heralding the advancements that are bound to be present in Web 4.0.
Maybe by then it will be called iWeb or MSWeb or GoogleWeb or The People's Web Republic of the United Provinces of China or Skynet.
