Posts filed under “Television”
NYU Professor Clay Shirky asks, "What are you doing with your Cognitive Surplus?"
"I was being interviewed by a TV producer to see whether I
should be on their show, and she asked me, "What are you
seeing out there that’s interesting?"
telling her about the Wikipedia
article on Pluto. You may remember that Pluto got kicked out of the
planet club a couple of years ago, so all of a sudden there was all of
this activity on Wikipedia. The talk pages light up, people
are editing the article like mad, and the whole community is in an
ruckus–"How should we characterize this change in Pluto’s status?" And
a little bit
at a time they move the article–fighting offstage all the
while–from, "Pluto is the ninth
planet," to "Pluto is an odd-shaped rock with an odd-shaped
orbit at the edge of the solar system."
I tell her all this stuff, and I think, "Okay, we’re going to
have a conversation about authority or social construction or
whatever." That wasn’t her question. She heard this story and
she shook her head and said, "Where do people find the time?"
That was her question. And I just kind of snapped. And I said, "No
one who works in TV gets to ask that question. You know where the
time comes from. It comes from the cognitive surplus you’ve been
masking for 50 years."
So how big is that surplus? So if you take Wikipedia as a kind of unit, all of Wikipedia, the whole project–every page, every edit, every talk page, every line of code, in every language that Wikipedia exists in–that represents something like the cumulation of 100 million hours of human thought. I worked this out with Martin Wattenberg at IBM; it’s a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but it’s the right order of magnitude, about 100 million hours of thought.
And television watching? Two hundred billion hours, in the U.S. alone, every year. Put another way, now that we have a unit, that’s 2,000 Wikipedia projects a year spent watching television. Or put still another way, in the U.S., we spend 100 million hours every weekend, just watching the ads. This is a pretty big surplus. People asking, "Where do they find the time?" when they’re looking at things like Wikipedia don’t understand how tiny that entire project is, as a carve-out of this asset that’s finally being dragged into what Tim calls an architecture of participation.
Now, the interesting thing about a surplus like that is that society doesn’t know what to do with it at first–hence the gin, hence the sitcoms. Because if people knew what to do with a surplus with reference to the existing social institutions, then it wouldn’t be a surplus, would it? It’s precisely when no one has any idea how to deploy something that people have to start experimenting with it, in order for the surplus to get integrated, and the course of that integration can transform society.
The early phase for taking advantage of this cognitive surplus, the phase I think we’re still in, is all special cases. The physics of participation is much more like the physics of weather than it is like the physics of gravity. We know all the forces that combine to make these kinds of things work: there’s an interesting community over here, there’s an interesting sharing model over there, those people are collaborating on open source software. But despite knowing the inputs, we can’t predict the outputs yet because there’s so much complexity."
Fascinating stuff . . .
Gin, Television, and Social Surplus
Web 2.0 conference, April 23, 2008 http://www.herecomeseverybody.org/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html
How would you like to have this attachment on your TV ?
"RealScoop utilizes leading voice analysis technology to analyze statements made by public figures. The BELIEVABILITY METER™ analyzes each video second by second, displaying the real-time results in a color-coded manner from left to right. The most believable statements are green, gradually turning red as they become more questionable.
Here’s what it looks like in action:
If I were philosopher king, I would mandate that be installed on every television set.
Yesterday, I noted how pokey and bug laden the videos are on CNBC.com, saying "I sure wish CNBC would get hip to embeddable flash media, like
BrightCove. The klunky old windows media players crash all the time. (I
don’t understand why they went with this 10 year old technology)."
At least CNBC — crash-prone, buggy, ugly and slow — will play on a Mac.
The Bloomberg video — also crash-prone, buggy, ugly and slow — is Windows only! I can play the video, but not the audio, on a Safari or Firefox browser for OSX.
And speaking of bugs, Bloomberg is the one of that odd collection of web based video that can’t/won’t be captured by a screen grab on a Windows machine. That means that any Bloomberg video you see here (like this one) is the result of watching and coding it on a Dell in the office, than grabbing the (silent audio) video part on the Mac at home, and combining the two.
Don’t you want people promoting your brand and your content?
Its not like Bloomie doesn’t know what embeddable flash is — if you go to this page, their promotional video is not WMP — its flash based! No loading delay, no glitches, just straight up video.
Hey Bloomberg.com & CNBC.com:
You folks are paying for the shooting, editing, storing, hosting and bandwidth usage of all this video. I assume you actually want people to see it — to sell subscriptions, to roll adverts, to brand your product. You are spending all of this money for a product that sends people running in the opposite direction.
Every time I post a video from either of your sites, I get email telling me it crashed their browser, or even worse their computer. It is slow, ugly and to be blunt, unprofessional. Your online video product is in fact damaging your brands. (CNN/Money’s video auto roll is another bit of annoyance, but we’ll save that for another day).
Of all the major Financial media that run video, only WSJ and NYT seem to have gotten it right.
Um, its 2008. Can we get with program? The embeddable flash video is circa 2006. Can you find it
in your business models to only be 2 years — not 10 — behind the
technological adoption curve?
For our UK friends who may not have access to TDS: several moments of lighthearted hilarity:
The Daily Show on Bear Stearns:
Stephan Colbert on the Economy:
Aasif Mandvi reports on the Bear Stearns bailout while experiencing gravitational altitude correction:
I talked to guy about 300 feet ago . . .
This is my annoyance of the moment: Why are DVDs a DRM-locked proprietary platform? When I purchase one, why can’t I use this on a convenient, portable device such as my iPod?
What a pain in the arse it is to rip a DVD: Frist, you need to use several products (MP4
Converter, Handbrake, Ripper); 2nd, it takes forever. 3rd, and its illegal to do so.
What brought this about recently was The Simpson’s Movie — actually, more of an extended 90 minute episode. I saw it with my nephews (with me snoozing thru parts of it).
However, going through the extras, I started listening to producer/writer commentary. Unbelievably entertaining stuff, like a terrific radio show with several very funny people cracking each other up. I would have liked to put on the iPod for the train, but no such luck.
I can rip the basic movie, but not the special audio commentary. Anyone have a clue how to do that?
The Complete Guide to Converting DVDs to iPod Format
iLounge, November 21, 2005
Rip DVDs To Your Mac To View On AppleTV And iPod.
Mac360, Friday, April 13, 2007