Camera Obscura: recording of the Great Scott show
Wednesday, July 26th, 2006Bradley’s Almanac has a recording of the great Camera Obscura show we went to a couple of weeks ago.
Yes, that is me and Terri down in the front row in the main picture.
Bradley’s Almanac has a recording of the great Camera Obscura show we went to a couple of weeks ago.
Yes, that is me and Terri down in the front row in the main picture.
Your first thought is actually not usually your best thought. That’s not to say you should supress your first thought. If you don’t have your first thought, you can’t have a second. Just maybe hold off on sharing it and always reserve the right to edit.
That is my thought for today. Actually, it’s my second thought for today. I’m keeping the first to myself.
explodingdog.com is a longtime favorite of the Terri and Ezra show; here’s a Bostonist Interview.
Here’s the update from the employee owners on what’s going on. In brief, the Someday will almost certainly close up shop at 51 Davis Square; Mr. Crepe will almost certainly move in; there may be a new cafe somewhere else, opened by the employee/owners under a different name.
Ron Newman wrote up an excellent summary of the meeting.
In a nutshell:
Update: There’s a community meeting at the Someday at 5pm where people interested in saving the cafe can meet with Peter Creyf, the owner of Mr. Crepe, to make a case for why he should not sign the lease. Particularly helpful would be people who have suggestions of available alternate commercial space for Mr. Crepe, but all are welcome.
If you’re going to be in Davis Square for Artbeat tonight or tomorrow, you should also stop by the Someday and sign the petition they’ll have there.
I will, unfortunately, be out of town.
I enjoy reading the Xooglers blog; it’s like readingMicroserfs in installments written by the actual (former) serfs instead of Douglas Coupland who, in addition to other faults, just doesn’t get software. Today’s piece is a great crash course in the absurd world of trademark enforcement.
Aside: every year there’s always all this talk about all the new words that get put into the dictionary, but I think it would be just as interesting to acknowledge and memorialize the words that are getting retired.
Good Washington Post article on the effect that YouTube might have on campaign advertising.
If any teenager can put up a video for or against a candidate, and persuade other people to watch that video, the center of gravity could shift to masses of people with camcorders and passable computer skills. And if people increasingly distrust the mainstream media, they might be more receptive to messages created by ordinary folks.
…
Even the seemingly simple act of posting footage of a politician’s interview on “Meet the Press” or “The Daily Show” has a viral quality, because it can be seen by far more people than watched during a single broadcast.
The positive is that in such a world, more money does not mean more/better ads, deflating the corrupting influence of interest groups and PACs and large campaign donors and candidate fundraising. It is in the nature of the Internet to “treat as damage and route around”, and I think this is another case of that.
The negative is more complicated. I believe that what gives a clip viral qualities is often something that taps deeply into the irrational parts of the human psyche. Sure, the same can be said of the manipulative techniques used by current political advertisers, but somehow, that is a known evil, and at least they follow some set of standards (whether spoken or unspoken or actually regulated). I can easily imagine how a completely false but highly viral message could completely tar a candidate. The whole thing brings the level of political discourse even farther into all those murky messy parts of human nature that politics are supposed to be one defense against.
Then again, it might make no difference whatsoever. Political viral-ness may never be able to do more than preach to the choir, and candidates always may have to pay to get their message in front of people who don’t already think what they think.