Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Dwight
Is this you? Claim Profile »
6 months ago
in 2009/01/01/make-your-own-online-newspaper-with-feed-chronicle/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
Something like this has been around for a while, but it's delivered via email.
www.simplyheadlines.com
www.simplyheadlines.com
6 months ago
in Are bloggers & social networks killing the big shows? on Scobleizer
Robert,
May I be ubergeeky and quote Battlestar Galactica?
"All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
Bloggers killing trade shows? Nah. It's cost, pure and simple. It's part of a cycle.
Comdex imploded long before blogging was commonplace. Remember PC Expo? It's history, too. Many others are gone. But new ones rise to take their places.
These big shows become wildly popular. Hotel & exhibit space costs rise. Big companies spend big money, but when the economy goes south, so do their marketing & travel budgets. Big moments of chest-thumping - which is all a trade is, really - are often the first things to get cut.
Of course, you could argue that the LAST thing you should cut in a downturn is a chance to tell your story, but that's another blog post, isn't it?
Anyway, bloggers have a tendency to think the world revolves around them. They see the giant slain and figure the killer rock must have come from their sling. Not the case, at least in this case.
It's a cycle. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
Dwight.
May I be ubergeeky and quote Battlestar Galactica?
"All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
Bloggers killing trade shows? Nah. It's cost, pure and simple. It's part of a cycle.
Comdex imploded long before blogging was commonplace. Remember PC Expo? It's history, too. Many others are gone. But new ones rise to take their places.
These big shows become wildly popular. Hotel & exhibit space costs rise. Big companies spend big money, but when the economy goes south, so do their marketing & travel budgets. Big moments of chest-thumping - which is all a trade is, really - are often the first things to get cut.
Of course, you could argue that the LAST thing you should cut in a downturn is a chance to tell your story, but that's another blog post, isn't it?
Anyway, bloggers have a tendency to think the world revolves around them. They see the giant slain and figure the killer rock must have come from their sling. Not the case, at least in this case.
It's a cycle. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
Dwight.
9 months ago
in The Scoble Top Tech Blogger/FriendFeed/Social Media List on Scobleizer
Thanks for adding me to the list, though! I'm honored!
(Sorry, it's early, I can only post one thought at a time before I've had coffee!)
(Sorry, it's early, I can only post one thought at a time before I've had coffee!)
1 year ago
in What’s the Point of Protecting Twitter Updates? on Michael Koby
Different people use Twitter in different ways. Some folks use it to update just their close friends. They use it to keep just their own social circle updated with their doings.
Other people use it in a more open way. But neither one is the "wrong" way. There is no "wrong" way to use Twitter. It is what you want it to be.
Other people use it in a more open way. But neither one is the "wrong" way. There is no "wrong" way to use Twitter. It is what you want it to be.
1 year ago
in The 10 rules of Twitter (and how I break every one) on Scobleizer
Robert,
I agree, it's a different experience for different folks, depending on how you use it. But frankly, if you've got 5,700 "friends" all talking at once, you can't possibly "listen to" all of them. I think you just like collecting all those little pixilated faces.
I agree, it's a different experience for different folks, depending on how you use it. But frankly, if you've got 5,700 "friends" all talking at once, you can't possibly "listen to" all of them. I think you just like collecting all those little pixilated faces.
2 years ago
in Smart person’s debate of OSX vs. Windows Vista on Scobleizer
What No. 63 said: 'Smart people' would be too smart to waste their time debating something as stupid as this.
But ... that said ... pondering a debate team like this is kinda fun. So, I'd nominate Ed Bott for the Vista side, because he's a great combination of funny & smart, and no one knows the ins/out of Windows better.
But ... that said ... pondering a debate team like this is kinda fun. So, I'd nominate Ed Bott for the Vista side, because he's a great combination of funny & smart, and no one knows the ins/out of Windows better.
3 years ago
in Contra Costa Times looks at women bloggers on Scobleizer
Robert, you've had "theme" weeks where you limit your blogging to certain patterns or topics. Why not do a week where you only link to great, non-A-list women? And, include non-geeks, too -- women who blog on politics, life, entertainment, sports, whatever... Of course, this means you have to go out and actually find them ... But it might be a worthy exercise. Put your links where your mouth is ... or something like that.
3 years ago
in Hollywood vs. America on Chasing the Wind
Michael:
I think the notion that there aren't any cowboys who are gay is wishful thinking at best and naive at worst. ... or NFL players, firefighters, astronauts or any other of the "traditional heroes" out society holds up.
This overall discussion raises an interesting point, though, about art, artists and their politics.
Film is the dominant art of our time. Artists, in general, have always been liberal in the classic sense of the word -- open-minded, willing to experiment with ideas and themes, often in the name of a cause to seek change in the society. Then tend to encourage tolerance and want to push back at those parts of society they see as hemming them in.
Traditionally, that's how artists are. That's often a very different from the masses, who usually want to play it safe; don't want the boat rocked; and believe sticking to the status quo will keep the glue of society intact.
I think a lot of conservatives are concerned that film gives artists a giant megaphone to tout views that push harder at the envelope than they would like. But I do think that doesn't give much credit to the audience. People choose what art to partake; they mull it over, talk about it with their friends and family; accept or reject ideas as acceptable or not, then move on.
The leavening factor in all this, of course, is that films that push hard in one direction don't attract the mass audience. They garner attention from within the artist community, but the initial filter is indeed the box office. Thus, we'll always have both kinds of films -- "popcorn" movies, as critics call them, and the art films, in which artists explore unconventional ideas in creative ways.
And that's good. You want both. But I don't think it speaks to any great liberal agenda in Hollywood. What it is, is a continuation of a centuries old tradition -- it's what artists do, period. They push the envelope.
Overall, our civilization is better for that. The natural push-pull between the conventional and unconventional keeps us, in the long view, on track. It may get uncomfortably close one way or the other -- in the 1950s, the stifling feeling of enforced conformity; in the 1960s and 1970s, the spinning-out-of-control feeling as long-held norms were unraveled -- but in the end, we find the right path through the minefield ...
or Mindfield, if I may coin a pun!
I think the notion that there aren't any cowboys who are gay is wishful thinking at best and naive at worst. ... or NFL players, firefighters, astronauts or any other of the "traditional heroes" out society holds up.
This overall discussion raises an interesting point, though, about art, artists and their politics.
Film is the dominant art of our time. Artists, in general, have always been liberal in the classic sense of the word -- open-minded, willing to experiment with ideas and themes, often in the name of a cause to seek change in the society. Then tend to encourage tolerance and want to push back at those parts of society they see as hemming them in.
Traditionally, that's how artists are. That's often a very different from the masses, who usually want to play it safe; don't want the boat rocked; and believe sticking to the status quo will keep the glue of society intact.
I think a lot of conservatives are concerned that film gives artists a giant megaphone to tout views that push harder at the envelope than they would like. But I do think that doesn't give much credit to the audience. People choose what art to partake; they mull it over, talk about it with their friends and family; accept or reject ideas as acceptable or not, then move on.
The leavening factor in all this, of course, is that films that push hard in one direction don't attract the mass audience. They garner attention from within the artist community, but the initial filter is indeed the box office. Thus, we'll always have both kinds of films -- "popcorn" movies, as critics call them, and the art films, in which artists explore unconventional ideas in creative ways.
And that's good. You want both. But I don't think it speaks to any great liberal agenda in Hollywood. What it is, is a continuation of a centuries old tradition -- it's what artists do, period. They push the envelope.
Overall, our civilization is better for that. The natural push-pull between the conventional and unconventional keeps us, in the long view, on track. It may get uncomfortably close one way or the other -- in the 1950s, the stifling feeling of enforced conformity; in the 1960s and 1970s, the spinning-out-of-control feeling as long-held norms were unraveled -- but in the end, we find the right path through the minefield ...
or Mindfield, if I may coin a pun!
3 years ago
in Hollywood vs. America on Chasing the Wind
This is a fascinating and interesting discussion ... and I like how everyone is trying to keep it from careening into namecalling.
Michael: Regarding Brokeback Mountain as "degenerate" ... I think making such judgments without seeing it (or reading the original story) undercuts your credibility. I've not seen the movie, but my daughter has. A very good friend has read the book. From what they have told me, neither book nor film are about "being gay," but rather about dealing with intense emotions, feelings and ultimately acts that are not acceptable within certain norms.
Both works (the film closely follows the books) are about coming to grips with yourself and with expectations in the light of harsh realities. In a sense, it's an artistic mirror of the very discussion we're having in this post.
But because the trigger for the conflict is gayness, it's drawn the ire of people with a political agenda, or those who perceive that it is somehow promoting being gay. What the "art" is, is the author's expression of conflict between self and society. But too many folks cannot get past that -- all they see is the setup, not the overall theme.
Art often is not aimed at the masses. I think the makers of Brokeback Mountain never intended it to be seen by the same folks who'd go to see, say, Harry Potter. But they have taken a very delicate subject and treated it with intelligence and respect. I don't think that's "elite," that's just telling a story to make a point, which is very hard to do and do well. That's why it's being considered for awards.
What I'd suggest, Michael, is that you go see it -- look at it as in the interest of research, and self-education on a topic. Then come back here and tell us, once you have an informed opinion, if you think the whole point of it was to push the acceptance of being gay. You may still think that way, but at least you'll know what you're talking about when it comes to the source material.
Or, read the story, which is by the wonderful author Annie Proulx. Just reading anything by her is worth the effort.
I plan to do both.
Michael: Regarding Brokeback Mountain as "degenerate" ... I think making such judgments without seeing it (or reading the original story) undercuts your credibility. I've not seen the movie, but my daughter has. A very good friend has read the book. From what they have told me, neither book nor film are about "being gay," but rather about dealing with intense emotions, feelings and ultimately acts that are not acceptable within certain norms.
Both works (the film closely follows the books) are about coming to grips with yourself and with expectations in the light of harsh realities. In a sense, it's an artistic mirror of the very discussion we're having in this post.
But because the trigger for the conflict is gayness, it's drawn the ire of people with a political agenda, or those who perceive that it is somehow promoting being gay. What the "art" is, is the author's expression of conflict between self and society. But too many folks cannot get past that -- all they see is the setup, not the overall theme.
Art often is not aimed at the masses. I think the makers of Brokeback Mountain never intended it to be seen by the same folks who'd go to see, say, Harry Potter. But they have taken a very delicate subject and treated it with intelligence and respect. I don't think that's "elite," that's just telling a story to make a point, which is very hard to do and do well. That's why it's being considered for awards.
What I'd suggest, Michael, is that you go see it -- look at it as in the interest of research, and self-education on a topic. Then come back here and tell us, once you have an informed opinion, if you think the whole point of it was to push the acceptance of being gay. You may still think that way, but at least you'll know what you're talking about when it comes to the source material.
Or, read the story, which is by the wonderful author Annie Proulx. Just reading anything by her is worth the effort.
I plan to do both.
3 years ago
in Hollywood vs. America on Chasing the Wind
"Recent Hollywood movies celebrate values not shared with mainstream America."
Uh, all the big-name box office movies you cited as acceptable to your frame of reference are from Hollywood. So which Hollywood are you talking about, specifically? There seem to be two here...
Sorry, I think you're losing this one. You can't take one year's body of work (the "post-Kerry" statement is ridiculous) and say, "This is the way it is." Movies are in production for years; Brokeback Mountain was a story written in the 90s. You're not really taking a big-picture view.
And as someone else said, what Hollywood considers "quality" movies and what the public goes to see en masse are usually widely divergent. That's historically true -- in fact, it's true of art in general, which is why art is often subsidized, either by patrons or governments. ... but that's a whole 'nother contentious argument for another day...
Uh, all the big-name box office movies you cited as acceptable to your frame of reference are from Hollywood. So which Hollywood are you talking about, specifically? There seem to be two here...
Sorry, I think you're losing this one. You can't take one year's body of work (the "post-Kerry" statement is ridiculous) and say, "This is the way it is." Movies are in production for years; Brokeback Mountain was a story written in the 90s. You're not really taking a big-picture view.
And as someone else said, what Hollywood considers "quality" movies and what the public goes to see en masse are usually widely divergent. That's historically true -- in fact, it's true of art in general, which is why art is often subsidized, either by patrons or governments. ... but that's a whole 'nother contentious argument for another day...
3 years ago
in Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder on Chasing the Wind
Oh man. Can I ever relate . . .
3 years ago
in Little Linkage on Chasing the Wind
It will probably be up there for about a day. I rotate through them so that, by the end of the, the set has been replaced. Right now there's no archive of what we've linked to, but I'd like to change that down the road.
