And Now For Something Completely Different

Der österreichische Nationalheld H. Maier war am Thema in der ZIB 2¹. Leider gehn seine Atomic in der Abfahrt nicht so skichallenge-extreme-mäßig. Der Hermann hält das sehr schlecht aus: "Mir hom eh viel Chefs in da Firma, die solln se onstrengan un nochdenkn"².

In der Sache hat er da wohl recht, aber, so wie ich das kenne, war es in Bregenz schon 1970 extrem uncool, sich bei Niederlage über das Material (verwachste Ski, verbogenes Wuzlerstangl ...) zu beschweren.

Hero M. hat es aber eh nicht böse gemeint. Im Interview mit I. Thurnher³ ist er wieder versöhnlich und erklärt gerne: "San halt heftigere Worte g'foin, was ma in der Öffentlichkeit ned so sogen sollt, jo, I ko mi leider Gottes halt monkmol nit so vastönn".

Monkmol leider nicht, zum Glück für unser Land und unsere Wirtschaftsbetriebe aber meistens schon. Wo doch der Hermann sicher eventuell das Geld noch braucht (Kunstkauf, Charity, Family) und die Menschen im Land natürlich die Arbeitsplätze⁴.

¹Leider haben die Kollegen die Markierungen in der Sendeliste vergessen und unsereins hatte bei der scharfen Internetzaufbereitung der (schon lange nicht mehr online verfügbaren) ZIB2 rechte Mühe.

⁴Noch einmal die Streif zu gewinnen (und dann überraschend zurückzutreten) hätte ich ihm trotz allem gegönnt.

Triple Play again

First I really and definitely did not want to do this and I verily had a bad feeling about linking to the following story. On a second though I see that I have to because the facts and reflections therein should find as much proliferation as possible. On Dec 1 '05 Mr. Cringeley (Robert X.) was not only informed (which he very often is very much) but also put forth an analysis nearly completely without any of the confoundments la plupart of the digital gurus usually shake out of their poet's sleeves.

And though, as ever for the lazy, I will quote from his posting now, I highly recommend to not be satisfied with that but to devour the whole stuff twice and really integrate it into your knowledge base.

Quote: The Problem: These concepts like IPTV and triple play (voice, data, audio-video) are heroic and scary -- so scary that the smart money is staying out of that game completely. We're talking billions and billions of dollars in new infrastructure, at least half of which will be ultimately a waste of money. Yet if you are a cable television company or a phone company in America, this is what you do. You spend tens of billions of dollars on infrastructure to better deliver SpongeBob SquarePants.

Quote: The Conclusion: Who is going to win the triple play? It doesn't matter. Who is going to win the game? Any player with deep pockets and no particular technological dependency. At this point that could be Yahoo or Microsoft or AOL or some new player altogether, but it probably means Google.

Our 21 grams: Triple Play is important because it still appeals to many in the industry and it means the largest sums of capital (maybe not the smartest money but there is enough less smart money around) to be invested into communications systems over the next years will go there. And, if there was one, larges sums of IB (investment bank), VC (venture capital), SE (stock exchange) and EP (european public) money constitute a contingent large reality distortion field that will draw and manipulate many people.

Now what Cringeley did here was not really hard to deduce, but it was well structured, focused and quite correct in its probability weighing.

To have something to say myself I'll take a prediction risk now: Google's relative dominance will probably last until 2017. I'll be old then but I'll live to see the end of it. Amen!

As ever a standard link which the good BF is always good for, the famous Lobachevsky song on mathematical research. Has alway been one of my Lehrer favourite receipts for success: Plagiarize Let no one else's work evade your eyes Remember why the good Lord made your eyes So don't shade your eyes But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize Only be sure always to call it please "research"

Corporate Tagging

James Governor on Tag Gardening (aka SW2R -> Semantic Web 2.03 Research), patterns and brand creation.

Take care: It's a corporate money oriented blog. It's got lots of buzzwords and praise of the usual suspects.

But beside that (as we think going commercial with these technologies is too early in my opinion but not in GOOG's, yahoo's and VCs') it's caring and affectionate. We like that. Sort of.

2006 - The Cluetrain Manifesto Revisited

7 years after the first publication of the Cluetrain Manifesto the skies start to clear up again and for the first time in 5 years the tinytalk editorial office and the TinyTalk scientific department after much discussion dare to repeat their erstwhile diagnosis: The manifesto form (including the most famous one) is bullshit and gurus err, all the time, if only slightly but still gravely sometimes.

An explanation: When first reading this particular manifesto by Nick Levine, Christopher Locke, David Weinberger and Doc Searls, we were exited and happy. To bring a more humane and dialogue oriented culture to industry and markets, was that not one of our wishes exactly? Only when we saw how fast many interpreters of it used it for pretension and how fast it became a BSB dropping thing and led people to try false stuff did we become disappointed and started to think about what was wrong. Our (still preliminary) guess is, the manifesto form destroys differentiation. The Communist Manifesto did just that more than 150 years ago and many more did so in the time between.

Let's have a look now:

1. Markets are conversations. Markets are not conversations. Communication structures they are, but conversations they are definitely not. Conversations take place in real life bazaars which does not imply they take place in any market. Nobody talks back to Google, Amazon, Apple or Microsoft in an even way. What the term "markets" means today is not what markets and bazaars and trade fairs used to be in some past. You talk to the universe, machines talk to machines, some conservative powerful guys in Asia, Africa and South America get the numbers on paper and fix by handshake still, traders hit computer keys or smartphone buttons, the universe and transistor clusters talk back. Google AI, come on, analyze that!

2. Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors. In reality, no matter what, demographic sectors are rightly called markets in many ways. Some products may profit from being individualized but most people in most fields rightly prefer standardized ware. Individual human beings are not stupid enough to selforganize into markets, only semiconscious large groups of people are. Humans organize into more complex and holistic things where ever more stuff but by far not every thing is handled by abstracted exchange. Market practice is only one aspect of this.

3. Conversations among human beings sound human.They are conducted in a human voice. That's correct in many ways but increasingly incorrect in others. It also has nothing to do with a clue or a train or whatever, it is mostly a trivial phrase to say. If "human" should be understood as the opposite of "juridical", "administrative" or "governmental", we doubt it helps, because a) that would be loaded with ideology and b) lawyers, administrators and the government then would be non-human. In the future and science fiction that might be the case but not right now and not on this planet. In reality this phrase is an invitation to take faking human talk a bit more serious.

4. Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived. Until now the human voice has not played a large role on the internet. The human voice has gone to mobile telephony so far. When it will come to the net, big time communications companies will start to go bankrupt. Where it is on the net it means writers think radio will make them more famous and people talking from person to person want to avoid stupid roaming fees. If easier to understand modern sentences are meant, it is not about proliferation of more "humanized" writing by everybody but about better work of marketing communications specialists.

5. People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice. People recognize each other as such from extremely complex sets of cognition and subliminal stuff including the very important aspect of sound. Voices can easily be emulated by impersonators. On the net humans recognize each other from letter-combinations such as nicknames, IRL-names, IRL-, e-mail- and messenger-addresses, telephone numbers and other ASCII and UTF-encoded IDs.

6. The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media. The internet is reinforcing communications among human beings that were quite ubiquitous in the area of the newspaper, the telephone, the radio and TV but were just not very visible to the highest elites in politics, media and academia any more. In the era of print people spent more money on letters amongst them than on magazines, newspapers and books. In the era of radio and television they spent more money on telephone calls than on both media combined. The difference is that these conversations were considered private and not public. Electronic media and especially networked computers, be they very big or very small, and granting everybody access to them, are tearing down the boundaries between private and public that print had so efficiently built up over the centuries and years from 1450 to 1877.

7. Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy. Hyperlinks constitute complex new hierarchies and dependencies.

8. In both internetworked markets and among intranetworked employees, people are speaking to each other in a powerful new way. Internetworked markets make internetworked employees write and say things the confusedness of which was unimaginable a mere 30 years ago.

9. These networked conversations are enabling powerful new forms of social organization and knowledge exchange to emerge. Computer networked conversations so far have rather amplified resimplified social imagos and expanded the exchange of awkward sexual snippetry.

10. As a result it gets boring to continue this list.

PS: Don't get us wrong, but sorry, media ecology is a tiny bit more complicated than that.

PPS: RoR is not the only solution on the planet, girls!

Our Terms of Service for 2019ff

The Prerequisites

Nearly all the constitutions in most of the countries of this world guarantee the respective freedoms of speech and of the press. Both freedoms seem to be fundamentally based on the freedom of religion. An amendment to the constitution of the United States of America demonstrates this with relatively few limitations. In Europe and Asia, tradition would demand and enforce quite a lot of buts and ifs to go with these freedoms.

So as an example of what we think - for the time being - is as good as it gets in the real world, we will cite the passage from the afore mentioned amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to conceive of and enact redress of grievances.

The freedom of pleasure on the other hand is not provided for or guaranteed by any constitution we would know of. The reason for this seems to be that the coalition of officials, officers, industrialists, smallholders and craftsmen who enacted and won the English, American and French revolutions, did not particularly like thoughts about pleasure. Why? That was because their limited analysis of the world told them that the main difference between them and the nonfunctional elite they just had dethroned was that they, the new elite, worked all the time whereas the ancien regime nobility did practically nothing but devote itself to pleasure and occasional wars.

The attitude of tinytalk in the question of the freedom of pleasure until it be ruled by a constitution or similar agreed document is:

Any woman, man or group shall be responsible to govern the freedom of pleasure individually and in a rather nondestructive way, please.

The Requirements

So, if you want to register to, read, proliferate or in any other than a completely passive way use these pages, you oughta agree to the above mentioned prerequisites. You should support the freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, redress of grievances and the nondestructive individual regulation of the freedom of pleasure.

Beside the ethic requirements and the necessity to strict adherence thereof, this publication has practically no reservations against any kind of consumation and interaction. Our contents may be stolen, misconstrued, reshaped, quoted and used in any sensible or unsensible way. For your own good just keep in mind that a lot of our stuff here is only h*a*l*f *l*e*g*a*l anyway. Caute!

The Precisions

Todo lo que me gusta es ilegal, es inmoral o engorda, not completely true, but: Todo el mundo sabe que los dados están cargados.

The Mathematically Founded Plagiarized Claim

We do have a cause though. It is obscenity. We're for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it.

To this you only need to agree to informally and without explicit expression. The gentle woman enjoys and keeps quiet.

The Small Print

To be able to take an active and visible role (to praise and to blame right here and now) the concerned party will be obliged to register with the antville user database and correctly answer the subsequent and repeated login challenges. It will then be thoroughly geolocated, deep-packet-inspected, remotely x-rayed and reserved for delayed use as an innocent victim of the 'better-products-communications' industry.