...more recent posts
Here's some links in the area I'm trying to get at (see the long ramble below.) First up, if you don't know what is meant by "semantic web" check out this W3C page. But more importantly, read Jorn Bargers reasoning why xml won't get us there. I no longer think we can attack the semantic (or lack of semantics) problem at the mark up level. I think we can attack it at the bookmarking level. Something like a dmoz meets napster meets blogger kind of thing.
If you're looking to sail off the edge of the scientific map, you could start here and probably get to nowhere. If you're into that sort of trip. (via riothero.)
Here's a picture of the new Gateway (/AOL/Transmeta) Touch Pad computer. We're going to see a lot of tries in this space, but I'm unconvinced so far. I think this one falls too much in the middle space. Either you want a full fledged general purpose computer, or you want specific digital media devices (mp3 players, digital VCRs, ect...) I don't think anyone wants a low power general computing device. But we're definitely going to see. (I guess you could argue that this is a specific digital media device, the specifics being web surfing and email.)
Disclaimer: This is very long and rambling, and has not even been edited once. I am trying to get my head around how to discuss some ideas I have been having, and this is a first shot. Read at your own risk.
The November 13, 2000 issue of Red Herring is a special "intertainment" issue titled: The sorry state of digital Hollywood. With the failures of pop.com, pseudo, and the digital entertainment network (den) it seems like a good time to step back and reassess the digital media landscape. For the big players, who I guess hoped to make quick millions with their Hollywood - Silicon Valley media convergence, things haven't worked out very well. Even the small independant media producer hoping for a low cost route to the big money has found the internet to not be living up to its hype. One might almost suggest the whole thing is a bust. But I think that is a bit premature. In fact, it might be the case that the internet is living up to all its "future of entertainment" hype, but that the people focusing on money have missed the point. It may well be that there is no way to make money on digital content distributed over the internet. If this totally shuts down your web plans then I don't think you have a very good web plan.
This site is an experiment. Total costs for running the site amount to $25 a month. We committed (in a very vague, rule of thumb way) to trying to produce things for one year. I had thought that if things were still going by this point (a little more than a year, or a little less than a year later, depending on how you count) that we would be involved in, how should I say it?, producing something that more closely resembled a "professional" digital media product. Instead, we have something that, while somewhat unique from our insider perspective, is basically what thousands (or more?) individuals and groups of individuals are using the web to do: text messaging. Maybe a still picture here or there. But personal. And I would bet to many it seems like nothing at all is happening.
The common come back to what I am getting around to saying, is that when broadband access becomes more widely available, internet content will converge with more traditional entertainment media. You won't read usenet if you can be watching full screen movies. But I think we are starting to realize that this might not be the case. I can already watch full screen movies on my T.V., which is already set up in such a way that it is comfortable to do this (i.e., I can lie in bed and watch T.V., but my computer is at my desk where I work all day.) I want to watch T.V., or movies, late at night, after working. It helps me turn my brain off. We might complain that the content of T.V. is really stupid, but it may well be that is what we want. I don't want to think hard, and Seinfeld or the Simpons, or whatever T.V. you like, doesn't require you to. It's a pacifier. But the internet is different. Even very short flash (or shockwave) animated shorts are annoying to watch. There is nothing for me to do. It's too much like T.V. Internet entertainment ("Intertainment" in Red Herring speak) is more interactive. And this is the same as saying its not really like entertainment at all. And, I think it's already here.
Google is the most successful entertainment site on the web. I think this is where people should start thinking about the future of on line media. Do you use search engines for entertainment? Try it some time. Just start with a word. Maybe you've been hearing a word lately you don't understand. Maybe you want to see how others understand something you say a lot. Maybe there's no real reason, but you've just been thinking about some idea. Type it in. See what comes up. Start clicking around. Open new windows with new links. Get going in a million different directions. Follow anything that seems interesting. I guess this is called "surfing." It's best when you aren't sure where you're going. Each page may not be that great (in terms of traditional entertainment value) but the connections you make by tracing threads through multiple (perhaps never before connected pages) is interesting. It's fun even. The entertainment is not ON the web, it's IN your head, and the web helps unlock it.
Ramble alerts are now flashing for this post, so I'll try to wrap it up. Text works on the web. Information is entertaining, although maybe not like Hollywood (or any big money interest) expects. The web will not replace T.V. (or if it does, it will be the end of the web I am speaking of.) Web logs are important, although clearly not in a money making way. They are important like bookmark lists are important. They sculpt our view of the information space that is the web. I don't know where we're going, but it's not quite where I originally thought. It's not toward everyone making their own movies. It's not toward fully immerisive 3d virtual worlds. It's nothing that flashy. It's just a buch of text, and a bunch of other commentary on that body of text that serves to interconnect it all. If it doesn't look "fun" in a traditional entertainment industry way that is because the fun is in your head instead of in the packaged product. So much so, in fact, that there may never be a packaged product. But we'll keep writing and linking, and having our own kind of fun.
This has all been background to get to my new idea (which isn't particularly new, nor in any way really "mine".) I want access to other people's bookmarks. The sites you visit are like a blueprint for your on line personality. Web logs are a way to share your surfing with others. They are a way to share yourself with others, but perhaps they are too chronological. Or maybe they should be chronological (because this is fun to tune into on a continuing basis,) but the specific entries should also be more permanent. And not just as archived chronological entries. Different views on the same data sets are something computers are very good at. After a year of accumlating web log entries I feel like I am building a sort of digital brain - one that is based on my brain in the sense that it contains the things I have found to be interesting. But I need to be able to access this store of information in more sophisticated non-chronological ways. I need to be able to access it more semantically. I want my site to start to be able to communicate with me. And with other people's sites. I think this may be possible. And for me, that would be entertaining.
Here's a PDF (via megnut) from an MIT professor detailing the statistical probability that Buchanan really got as many votes as he did in Palm Beach (answer: 1 in 3,000,000,000,000,000.) That seems significant, but still the question remains as to what does the law say about situations of this sort. Lawrence Tribe (Harvard constitutional law professor with ABC news affiliations) was on TV last night making a very strong case for the legality of a Gore challenge in Florida. There is definitely precedent in the state for adjusting the vote count. It happened in a Miami mayoral election. Tribe even pointed to a recent Florida supreme court decision that seems to mandate adjustments to the vote count in such cases. He didn't exactly seem unbiased, but he is a heavyweight.
Maybe this is a good time to start looking into the purchase of your own private island.
I'm actually kind of intrigued by this election. I can't help feeling like Bush and Gore are two different versions of the same underlying thing, and so America just tossed a coin to pick it's next President. And it landed right on its edge. That's something you don't see every day. Feels about right too. I don't want either of those jokers as President, so maybe we can just drag this recount out for four years and be done with it. I keep hearing from the news media that this is an historical moment, but isn't it just that neither candidate could generate even one bit of interest or momentum, and therefore it was only a "close race" in the sense that two winless teams fighting to stay out of last place is a "close race" - it's close, sure, but that doesn't make it interesting, nor does it make it a good game.
I'm starting to see how this works. Verizon makes an appointment, but can only give you an 8:00 am to 5:00 pm window (thanks, that really narrows it down.) Then they don't show up, and not only do they not acknowledge this fact, they say they did show up and it is your fault for not being there. This happens a few times, and then when you get mad enough to start writing semi-nasty emails to people, Covad somehow "loses" your order!
"Thank you for contacting Covad Customer Care. Unfortunately, I was unable to retrieve any information pertaining to your order. I attempted to run a search in our database, but to no avail. If you can, please resend the following message indicating the Covad order number. Once we receive this piece of information, we will be able to assist you immediately."I don't think I will ever get my DSL.
What happened?
Happy Birthday MB!