Jonathan Burow

From Collectivate Course Wikis

Jump to: navigation, search

http://www.jondb.com/temp/panoram4.jpg Please visit my group section:
Socially Networked Video

Contents

Research

Statement of Interest
The idea of Socially Networked Video is not new. However, projects using group voting and group consensus on the timeline of video are still rare. There have been no main stream theater productions that incorporated the idea of group voting. I'd like to explore the history of such endeavors and learn about the cause and effect relationships surrounding this idea, implementation as well as successes and failures of these projects. It is not certain where my research will lead me.

My research is about: Collaboration, social networking, interaction of groups separated by vast geographic distances and the common threads that they may share: Socially Networked Video.

Week 4 | Collaboration: For the Love Of It

Source: Geert Lovink and Trebor Scholz. "Collaboration: For the Love Of It." 2006. 4 Jan. 2006 <http://wiki.critical-netcultures.net/wiki/index.php/Collaboration:_For_the_Love_Of_It>.

Quote: Romantics praise collaboration. They think it must be like a love affair. Ferocious pragmatics on the other hand just chant their to-do lists. They think that they can force a genuine smile onto the "team players" faces. Such mechanical application of rules does not work! A collaboration can indeed be similar to a flirt or a new friendship. It can be an overwhelming encounter. But there is no recipe for such match-making! It is an event.

Response: This was definitely a lot to digest. I want to discuss mostly just one idea mentioned in the reading that spoke to me the most, yet, at the same time, I feel like it would do the reading as a whole an injustice. But I will focus on just that idea anyway, so for those of you who want to know what I'm referring to, it's paragraph 11 .

I definitely agree with the statement that collaboration is an event. Typically people don't see it as a moment in time, rather, a means of working in a group. As Trebor also mentions in his writing, there are some types of people that make collaboration out to being this "to-do" list that the group members assemble to defeat and once they're checked everything off the list, they're done and out. I would have to agree with Trebor in that it is an event because even though the group is assembled to complete a task, there is much more to gain individually if you can recognize the fact that collaboration is something that is actually taking place. I know this because of the work I do on my job, I'm frequently required to work with other people to accomplish tasks but I've found the best way to walk away from that "event" is with a new friend, rather than a memory of time spent. The bond between people working together in a collaborative environment not only makes the people involved walk away happier and more satisfied as individuals, but it also enhances the work outputted through this process. I think that even the project I'm working on now for this class reasserts this very notion. This project wouldn't be half of what it is now if Tom, Parker and I didn't become friends through the process. So it's all about perspective and state of mind. If you come into a collaboration expecting nothing and wanting nothing besides a completed task, then you may very well get just that; a completed project and nothing else. I, however, subscribe to the event theory, that something truly unique is taking place and everyone should try their best to walk away with a piece of that.

Week 5 | Technologies of Cooperation

Source: Howard Rheingold. "Technologies of Cooperation." (2005). 9 Feb. 2006 <http://molodiez.org/tech_coop.pdf>.

Quote: Technologies of cooperation each reflect an important shift in the structural qualities of cooperative organizations—a shift from explicit design of systems to providing platforms for tool creation and system emergence. Wikipedia, eBay, FreeCycle, Open Source, synchronous swarms, and smart mobs were not designed, but rather they emerged from the intentional creation of tools and platforms for interaction and value exchange. This is an important distinction because it also shifts the role of leadership and management from an authority who explicitly shapes direction to a catalyst and periodic intervener who sets conditions and frameworks for interactions. Two key structural issues are scalability and modularity. Cooperative technologies tend to create modules (discrete pieces/kernels of code, sub-group social networks, geospatial focal points, and multiple identities) that can be combined to create larger scale social, transactional, and networked systems.

Response: This reading, I found, was more informative to the execution of a plan than being conceptually additive to our project. I did find the words of Howard Rheingold to be supportive of what our goal for the project would ultimately become and his thoughts on social networks will definitely echo through our project from this point forward, for sure. What I found especially captivating was this section here where he's rapping up the document. As a group, we have found ourselves all gravitating towards this idea of building a community around this socially networked video. We feel as though we should "take the next step" and transform this idea of bringing people together who not only grace the presence of one another in a screening room and that's the end of their encounters with ach other, to creating a community. A community in which the site begins to develop life and learn to breathe on its own, where administrators find themselves absent and users become the lifeblood, breathing content into the very environment which they seek it. It's been done all over the web, take a look a probably he most popular one out there, for instance (myspace.com). The site has over 5 million registered members and do the creators have anything to do with the content? Not at all. They've created a means to the content only.

The notion of the management transforming into a periodic intervener is really fascinating and bewildering all at once. While the fascinating parts have already been mentioned, there is a question that both disturbs and haunts me: is the role of the administrator leaving and the power being handed down to users, or is our administrator simply learning to be a magician and slowing performing a disappearing act where he can work behind the scenes more vigorously? What if these social networks aren't becoming decentralized, but are unknowingly gaining a "big brother"? Are we further subjecting ourselves to surveillance without really being aware of it? From what I've always known, the more sites there are that have regular visitors to them, the more weight of authority they carry with them. This "weight" is to the likings of energy on Earth, it can never be created or destroyed, it just transforms from one medium to the next. So, if every person who uses the internet adds to this "weight" of authority, then sites that are accessed regularly by many users should have a lot of "weight" to throw around. Should I even bother to bring into the discussion our friend, the 800 pound gorilla which goes by the name Google? My point is, just because the "administrators" are disappearing from the surfaces of these social sites, who's to say what they're doing below the surface? The "weight" is still all there, it's just not apparent to Joe User. The only real example I can think of (which doesn't fully subscribe to my theory) is this recent news story of students being "checked" up on through facebook.

Week 6 | Tracing the Evolution of Social Software

Source: Allen, Christopher. "Tracing the Evolution of Social Software." Life with Alacrity. 13 Oct. 2004. Feb. 2006 <http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/10/tracing_the_evo.html>.

Quote: In examining the origins of 'social software' we can see the terminology for the field has moved through a sort of life cycle. There have been many terms for this type of software, some of which have taken off, and some of which have not.

Typically, a visionary originates a term, and a community around that visionary may (or may not) adopt it. The diaspora of the term from that point can be slow, with 10 or 15 years passing before a term is more generally adopted. Once a term is more broadly adopted, it faces the risk of becoming a marketing term, corrupted into differentiating products rather than explaining ideas.

Is 'social software', which just now gaining wide acceptance, destined for the same trash heap of uselessness as groupware? And, if so, what impact does the changing of this terminology have on the field of social software itself? Only the future holds those answers ...

Response: I’ll be blunt with this one, I was thoroughly unimpressed. That’s not to say that it wasn’t a good article, but I’m completely thrown by the whole subject matter itself. It’s nice to know that there is a history to “social software” but what really concerns me is the emphasis on the term. The author has several interactions with other “important” people who were involved in the development process of social software which makes it what it is today, but it is beyond me why we’re trying to package this idea into a term.

Is it just me or is it hypocritical to be critical of the “market” which they accuse of packaging terms and creating differentiated products out of them when that’s exactly what they’re doing with it? Sure, it might not look that same, but let’s break this down. The entire article is really dedicated not to the history of social software as it seems, rather, to the definition of it. What do we know about defining an idea? You’re giving it definition (adj) which, whether inadvertently or not, creates boundaries for it. The reason “groupware” become a commodity, a name to brand a common product with, is because it eventually associated itself with a definition. Obviously a word can’t just decide how it will be associated, but this particular word owes it’s definition the thinkers who sat around and wrote about what it could mean.

Seriously, let’s get past the whole worry about the market thing and focus on the idea. The market exists for one reason, to make money. If the market deems a term favorable to associate with their products, then whether anyone likes it or not, products will take the term representing the idea and once again, make it a commodity. I personally don’t see this as a problem. If people want to pay for “social software”, let them. The existence on such transactions has no bearing on the core of the idea and that’s what makes it what it is, not the shape of the box we can fit it in.

Week 7 | Sight, Sound, Motion : Applied Media Aesthetics

Source: Zettl, Herbert. Sight, Sound, Motion : Applied Media Aesthetics. 3rd ed. Wadsworth, 1998. 3-17.

Quote: ...[Y]ou, as the media communicator, must make all your decisions within the context of sound ethics—within a basically moral frame of reference.

Response: Applied Media Aesthetics was broken down into five encompassing categories: Definition, contextualism, context and perception, medium as structure, and finally, method. The author of this piece, Herbert Zettl, broke down each piece into simple to understand terms and even supported his arguments with quotes, diagrams, and “real-world” examples. While the arguments the author makes are strong, I did feel that some of the points made were objective.

One such point was made when the author discusses the personal responsibility of the content creator. The author suggests that using key components of imagery, such as lighting, 2D and 3D space, and sound, the creator of content can actually skew the perception of the audience in such a way that the audience isn’t even aware of their bias point of view being delivered to them. Zettl sates, “this is why you, as the media communicator, must make all your decisions within the context of sound ethics—within a basically moral frame of reference.”

There are two reasons I find this statement objective; for one, who decides what is moral and what isn’t? The only standards for morality, to my knowledge, stem from religion, but even so, there are many religions which do not share the same morality and who can even say that the “media communicator” even subscribes to a particular religion? This dilemma makes way for a wide range of “morality” to apply to the content they are creating. What’s adequate for one person may not be for another. Secondly, and probably more importantly, this suggestion of responsibility may hold true to certain venues of media, however, when it comes to advertising, this plea holds no water, “anything goes.” With advertising, the goal is to make competitors look bad (even if it means doing something “bad” to prove it) and to glorify your own product (most likely more than it deserves). Granted, not every company trashes another company to promote their own product (it does look bad sometimes) but regardless, they're still trying to make their product stand-out amongst the competition and they'll be willing to distort the truth as far as it will go without completely breaking it to make that image in the minds of the audiences.

Another thing I see constantly on television and in print advertising are metaphors or analogies that might not even have anything to do with the product but they manipulate it to sell it. For instance, there was an advert for a Canon camera in a magazine and the image was split in half. On one side was a dreary lonely little slide all in black and white and on the other side was an image of a roller coaster taken from the center of a spiral with a full load and in full color. The ad claimed that it was the same picture taken with 2 cameras, one a competitor, and the other, the new Canon. Obviously the Canon brings things to life (sarcasm). But it only goes to show what when money is involved, it doesn't matter what the “real” truth is; it's all about the “truth” being implanted into the minds of the audience.

Week 8 | Back to Plato’s Cave: Virtual Reality

Source: Zettl, Herbert. "Back to Plato’s Cave: Virtual Reality." Mar. 2006 <http://pages.pomona.edu/~ajc02002/Documents/Strate%20Communication%20and%20Cyberspace%20notes.doc>.

Quote: I am especially concerned about the freedom of choice within the deterministic parameters of computer-programmed virtual reality and the potential existential dilemma of decision making in an environment that offers a virtual sanctuary in which choices bear no consequences.

Response: What’s interesting about this piece by Herbert Zettl is that the very first paragraph in the notes is the most striking to me. As soon as I read these words, I thought to myself, this is it; this is what I need to respond to. I was tempted to stop the reading right there but I managed to get through the whole reading and those very first words were still the ones rattling my brain. What’s so interesting about it? – Let us see, shall we?

Zettl’s words echo truth, not only to me, but to an entire world of concerned parents and educators. The are two distinct sides of importance to look at here. On one hand, there’s this notion that, yeah, decisions made in the “virtual world” don’t affect the real lives we lead, however, on that same token, let’s move the emphasis to the games part – there are NO games that our decisions can affect our external, real, lives. The first problem is the one which concerns parents. Their kids are being exposed on a daily basis to a platform of pseudo-realistic engagement and interaction with virtual characters that they can ultimately decide to kill, rape, or a multitude of other unheard-of, ghastly things. And the clincher – their actions bear no consequence. This careless action platform is becoming breeding grounds for children who are constantly transferring their “game attitudes” to real-life interactions. Kids are acting relentless and thoughtless. However, this side of the coin doesn’t concern us so much as the other. Our particular project, SNIVY, attempts to shift the game arena from consequence-less, to consequence-integrated. We’re taking the typical model for “social networking” sites, such as myspace.com and facebook.com, and adding a twist. Friendships no longer exist in a realm of create-the-bond-and-forget, rather, they involve a complex interactions with each “friend” to maintain the bond between them. The whole site will work off a point-based ranking system which will give users incentive to maintain their friendships; if they do not, their once-friends become acquaintances and their points become depreciated. It’s not certain how the high-ranking friends will become rewarded but their will be something in place so people can really understand the consequences of their actions.

While this solution doesn’t create a direct link between the cyber and physical realms, it does offer and indirect one, which incurs an effect on the users relationships with their friends. Hopefully this, if anything, will be meaningful.

Week 9 | Review: Jumpcut.com

Web Site: Jumpcut.com

Description: Jumpcut.com is a product of MiraVida Media, Inc., based in San Francisco, California. "Mira Vida" can be roughly translated as "look at life", and we built jumpCut to help you show off your life, your interests, your friends, and your creativity in a completely new way.

If creating a movie or a slideshow and publishing it to the web seems like a challenge, we think you'll find that jumpcut makes it easy and fun. If you've been wondering what to do with the video you shoot with your snazzy new camera (or your phone), jumpcut is the perfect place for you to be creative. If video isn't your thing just yet and you just want to make cool slideshows with your pictures, jumpcut is still the best place.

Finally, a free online location where you can use all your media, create great looking movies and publish to anyone you choose. There's nothing else like it.

Review: I have to say, I am going to enjoy the next few weeks taking on a “peer review” process. I always thought it best to take a multitude of ideas, tie them together where possible, and build upon them to create your own unique and successful project. I would say that our project is considerably different than most sites out there but there are some underlying concepts which remain the same and are critical to creating successful social software.

Jumpcut isn’t such a unique idea, really. The idea of creating a pool of user submitted video clips and allowing others to take those clips and recompose their own video is an interesting concept but I feel it lacks in the quality department. The problem I see is when it comes time to make a “recomposition”, there's no continuity in the video stream. Surely an injection of text or spanning audio across a sequence can attempt to bridge the gaps, and surely a few pieces of video can be stuck together to form a seemingly meaningful combination, but I feel as though most of it just won’t work. A lot of the videos I previewed were mostly complete items in themselves so it almost seemed awkward to “remix” them.

I will say though that the web-software used for composing remixed videos, from a programmer and designers standpoint, is put together very well and appears to be a tight package. I would strive to make our own project meet such criteria for cleanliness and ease of use.

On a last note, this project does remind me of some other works out there already (which is why I said it’s not completely unique). Off the top of my head, there are two that I can think of, one being the website that showcased the “new” dodge charger which allowed users to take segments of a commercial and reorganize it in their own taste. The other, another car company, Chevrolet, just recently came out with a competition which users could assemble their own commercial with a cache of video clips of the new Tahoe coming out. The second one made the news because a lot of environmentalist activists made clips trashing the use of the vehicle, citing pollution and gas-guzzling among other issues.

Week 10 | Review: opensourcecinema.org

Web Site: opensourcecinema.org

Description: This site has been developed by Brett Gaylor, with the goal of creating a remix film community for the collaborative production of a feature documentary currently in development with The Documentary Channel and The National Film Board of Canada. As well, the hope is to encourage and support other film makers to use collaborative filmmaking techniques.

Review: Open Source Cinema – clever idea, but what does it mean? After doing a little investigation and scouring the site, I came to simple conclusions; one, it was a nice idea, two, it flopped, big time.

The problem with this site is that there’s no user base. Not enough people are interesting in contributing to the project. I think the reason for this is because it’s very open ended and lacks direction. According to Brett Gaylor, the founder and moderator of the site, it was intended to serve as a community where people can “Rip – Mix – Burn”. What does that mean? Well, he wants users to download videos from his site, use their own software to repurpose it and possibly introduce new content and then collectively, a cache of videos would naturally build. It wasn’t stated as to how the final piece would actually come together but the end goal of the project would be to have a full documentary following the issues surrounding copyright and culture. The concept of the site itself addresses this issue quite well. This project remind and subject matter remind me of one of the first instances or “remix”ing that made headlines everywhere. There was a guy by the name of “DJ Danger Mouse” who put together a whole album of remixed audio mostly by the Beatles, mixed with rap music titled The Grey Album. This stuff isn’t new.

The site has a welcoming appearance but as soon as you begin to wander around the site it’s easy to see it’s a ghost town. The ‘’’ONLY’’’ content on the site is all submitted by the sites creator. Sadly, I think the only thing to take away from this site is a good lesson on what NOT to do. What’s worse is that this site isn’t even new, I simple whois query reveals that this site has been around since 2003.

Week 11 | Review: StatementStation

Web Site: StatementStation

Description: unknown

Review: I wanted to review this site because the author said that their work was “SNV-like”. SNV, as in Socially Networked Video, as in SNIVY, as in my project. I’m not exactly fluent in German, well, ok, I don’t speak any German (except “eat your dinner”, my father taught me that one!) so I couldn’t located an adequate description of the project, but I’m going to make my attempt at interpretation of the project anyway.

Unfortunately the site has non-working code, however, from what I can get to work and from what I can make inferences about, I see that it is indeed “SNV-like”. Before we blow the whistle on our project, however, let’s examine why. It turns out that this project is actually more like a cross between jumpcut and our project – minus all of the features from both. StatementStation is merely a listing of video content, prearranged, in which clips can be selected to “play”. Based on the clips selected to play, your final video will be those clips, playing in the predetermined order. I could be wrong, because I couldn’t actually get the whole thing to work, but that’s how it seems. Where this project seemed to have left-off is right about where the concept of our non-linear video project begins. Not to be boastful or anything, but that’s exactly what it is, take it or leave it.

The one fundamental element that all of these non-linear video projects on the net are missing that ours embraces is the social engagement. Our medium embraces, and won’t even function without social networks. Socially Networked Video is a tight integration between non-linear video and networking, which I think really sets us apart from the rest.

Week 12 | Review: Ning

Web Site: ning.com

Description: Ning is a free online service for cloning, customizing and sharing Social Web Apps.

Review: You know what’s great about this site? The name – Ning! It’s short, sweet, and catchy. That sounds like a good thing, right? I’ll respond to that later. But aside from this name, this site offers a few unique experiences that make it like none-other.

Essentially, this site allows any user to create an account and create his or her own social software. What I find especially interesting about this arrangement is that the idea of social software creates a type of positive feedback loop here. On one hand, people are corporately producing applications together (with the ability to clone each other’s applications) and yet at the same time, it’s the same people who are using these social software devices. Simply brilliant. Of course, there’s not a perfect 1 to 1 ratio when it comes to developers and users because simple people just won’t get near the creation end of the spectrum, however, loop exists and it is flowing. How do I know it’s flowing? Let’s recall that “unique” and “catchy” name, Ning; I tried to make one of my own apps real quickly to get an understanding for the operation of it all. I thought I was being clever tring to take the name “happe”. Ning.com uses sub domains for each application created so my domain would have been “happe.ning.com”, however, I found out shortly after hitting submit that the name was taken. No worries, what about “whatshappe.ning.com”? – TAKEN, “light.ning.com”? – TAKEN, “greasedlight.ning.com”? – TAKEN. I tried many more, but to no avail. The site, it turns out, is flooded with spoof applications that exist only for the purpose taking one of these witty names. I finally scored with “thinklight.ning.com” (which will probably become nothing just like the rest of them!)

All names aside, this site is really thought provoking and set up nicely. We too, for our project, devised a simple, short, memorable name to be known by, snivy.com, which will hopefully catch on once we get the “word” out that we’re here.

Week 13 | Review: Cooperative Painting Project 2

Web Site: Cooperative Painting Project 2

Description: unknown

Review: This is another one of those projects that doesn’t really have a formal description. Cooperative Painting Project 2 is actually a proof of concept demonstration using a new “canvas” tag built into new HTML rendering engines. It combines that new technology with another fairly new technology commonly know as AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript And XML). Together, these two powerful scripting languages deliver an almost real-time networked painting canvas. Users can draw on the same picture together from anywhere around the world all at the same time. It’s no Photoshop, however, the experience alone is worth the visit. I literally spent 2 solid hours drawing a coloring a figure with several other people (although I had no idea who they were…heh).

There is another project out there that is extensively more developed (although it’s not using canvas, it uses flash) but it delivers a similar experience. This social software is known as DrawBall and has an extensive user base. What I find exciting about both of these projects is the fluid nature of them. Every time you re-visit the site, it’s never the same. Such a feat requires not only a large user-base, but users who will continue to come back. This is particularly an important goal for SNIVY. We want to create the software that creates the community but we would like the community to be able to grow on its own.

Week 14 | Review: Hour: 720

Web Site: hour720.com

Description: Hour:720 is an independently developed Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG), currently being created by two people, Shawn Rider and Steffan Del Piano. In development since the Spring of 2005, Hour: 720 hopes to push the limits of the MMORPG and create an exciting massively multiplayer experience for its users.

The Hour: 720 project is intended to provoke interesting social situations, played out in the safe-zone of the game world. The emphasis is not on gaming dexterity, and the pace of the game is relatively slow. Rather, the focus is on deliberate decision-making in an environment where loners bear little chance of survival. To succeed in Hour: 720, gamers must work together to plan and execute their actions. These decisions might be mitigated by a wide variety of physical and social circumstances, making the struggle for survival an enlightening as well as harrowing experience.

Hour: 720 is provided free for all to play, and will remain so for the duration of its lifespan.

Review: Hour: 720 isn’t actually available for testing or viewing at this point in time. I did, however, have the pleasure of talking to its creator, Shawn Rider, and had a chance to really get a feel for what it’s about and how it’s going to work.

Just as a brief overview of game play, this is how it’s going to work: the first 15 days the game is live, all users who register and join the game will enter on an island full of flesh-eating zombies who want to kill them. Anyone registering after the initial 15 days enters the island as a rescue worker. The rescue worker gets paired to another literal person who joined on the first 15 days and becomes their personal rescuer. However, on the 30 day marker, the entire island gets destroyed by a nuclear weapon causing the entire system to restart at square one. The plot sounds familiar, doesn’t it? From a gaming standpoint, it’s fresh (especially for an MMO)! I love it!

It’s a very involved game from a technical standpoint but I’ll just skim the surface of it to give you an understanding. This project, as many others, uses a combination of PHP and AJAX to deliver a pseudo-real-time effect in game play. Users will be able to interact with each other and have an effect on the outcome of each other’s characters. From what I can remember from my conversation with Shawn, I believe you can even kill other players. I won’t say anymore about what can and cannot be done because I’m really just not sure, we’ll have to wait until the beta is released! What’s also unique about this project is that it’s completely web-based, a first for any MMORPG. There’s no need to install software, slower computers can handle it, and you can theoretically log in to play from any computer, anywhere! The graphics won’t be overkill, from what I understand they will be simple 2D graphic representations of characters and environments will be generated server-side from a simple set of images to create a multitude of different ones.

If there’s anything SNIVY can take away from this project it’s the user interactions with each other. Right now there’s a simple subset of interactions that can take place but we’re looking at create a much more complex relationship model to really make friendships something totally different than your cliché social networking site.

Other works to look into:

Development

***** FYI: Development got bumped in favor of Research. *****

February 16, 2006 Data, Death & Desire Workshop Presentation Companion Site

February 4, 2006 Well, it appears that we have a new method for logging our research, a bit stricter but more organized and uniform throughout the class so I'd have to say that it's a good thing overall. Anyway, that also means you'll be seeing less "blogging" from me over here simply because a large portion of what I was going to be blogging was the research I was going to do and then my responses to it. I can definately feel the heat now though; this class is actually forming some substance and direction. Not that I didn't think the way it was before couldn't work, it's just now, as Trebor was alluding to, it's harder to slip through the cracks. I'm still trying to figure how in the world I'm going to make it through this semester (4 prouction classes in one semester is a BAD idea). Well, I made it 3 weeks, hopefully I can stick out out the next 15 weeks...

January 29, 2006 Well, here I am, at it again. I've been doing a lot of research, both on a technical level as well as a developing a foundation of theory for the work we'll ulimately end up "putting out there". I'm really excited about this project, the only thing that concerns me is that I'm in 3 production courses this semester so I'm going to be EXTREMELY crunched for time (as if I wasn't already) and I may have to put all my personal endeavors on hold this semester (freelance work). Either way, this project can and will achieve a like-state of the vision I currently hold for it (hopefully my other work won't have to suffer too much because of it).

Anyway, I read halfway through Trebor's book excerpt, Collaboration: For the Love Of It, and I plan on finishing the reading tomorrow. I had a slightly difficult time getting through it mostly because I think the reading starts in the middle of an idea (I'm pretty sure it's just an excerpt) so I kind of felt like I was missing something in the beginning, but it does apply the work we are doing. Also, I'm not sold out on any-one server yet, Palabre seems like it will offer a little more flexibility for what I want to accomplish but on the same token, Oregano is much more mature and developed (but it is lacking on the DB-end of things). I'm having a hard time settling on one and I'm still looking around for more options but most servers either closed up shop or cost money, neither of which are of use to me.

One of these days I'll settle on a server...I hope. And lastly on the agenda, Tom Peters and I will be sitting down sometime soon to draw up a final draft of our data structure (because he'll be working on the server web based administration) which will enable us to take our next step and begin developing the actual software. Hopefully by that time Parker will have already set us up with a few clients who would like to use our system and we can pick their brains as far as what type of features they'd like to see available to make their content more feature-rich. Well, that's it for now, as more delopments occur I will be posting. Over'n'out.

January 19, 2006 This is where I will be occassionally making postings. That way I don't have to keep track of a blog and a wiki. So, check back from time to time to see what's on my mind relation to Death, Data, & Desire as well as our particular project, Socially Networked Video.

Links

Retrieved from "http://wiki.critical-netcultures.net/wiki/index.php/Jonathan_Burow"