http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eQjU94s5LU

you lack of visual design understanding and experience is showing, value– is the issue..and webcams /facial motion software is 15 years from walmart cheapo computers sold 5 years ago…

sad that we cant control our creations or that no one else can becauce you need to prove that all others are just too primitive just because one choose NOT to be part of the collective “society” or its current non primtive TRIBES.;)

Standards are agreed to for a value of ease. the individual shoudnt have to AGREE to anything in such terms of tool choice, beyond that of restricted tools that he himself SHOULD be democratically able to affect its restrictions…

and btw- last time i check we were WERE a tribal primitive society…unless you havent really been watching and its getting more tribal and primitive — technology does not make us more advanced in the value of society as i speak of.. just as motion faces isnt a NEED to be to make virtuality simulations between humans “better”-even if the goal is mass usage– its naive to think that.;)

cell phones reached mass sales before anyone added a webcam or larger screen for faces or any interface beyond some buttons, —- people communicated fine with voice..and of course adding voice to SL- a visual relations of shape media primarily..to make it better..??? more advanced..?? well we know how that worked out.

Watch out, you’ll end up in jail and your house deeded to weasels.

Tech folks give lip service to facial expressions, but as a nicety, not as an essential component to emotional interaction with other people. That’s a huge difference. I’m sorry, Cube, but even with your art background, you just don’t seem to get the importance.

“that tree limb made into a club were…interfaces tranformed BY the individual. control of tool/interface and ones use.

purpose was clear, and if the interface DIDnt work for an individual, they could stop using it, or change it….freedom of tool/interface/being augementation.”

Your conclusions only hold true for primitive, tribal societies. As soon as people are organized into more regional governments, beyond the human’s ability to travel walking in one day, interfaces require standardization, or simply because one design is slightly more efficient and gains popularity. These are external influences that ultimately share control with you – your idea that we can control interfaces is a naive, black and white one. Interface customization is a matter of gray areas limited by technological capability, money, and society’s uses and needs for that tech.

btw- THIS ia an interface ISSUE with THEADS/BLogs etc.. even in your response dusan that im am replying to, their places where plural or singular is not clear,,,, theres a group of voices/ideas colliding in the speak up… “get it” was Proks response to an idea… “power” a left over from another blogged conversation…

interaction IS being SOLD by many as better… Prok even said it was BETTER than TV watching in a post…. I question that….

you. me. them.. etc etc…

my agenda?, is pretty clear, to suggest only my pov to comemnts read and to let others agree or disagree, youre annoyed… tough. you also seem to read/see YOU way to much, in comments that are general and broader.

last words shouldnt be as important as the better words.

if one dosnet like the “power play of another” utilizing a “speak up” ive suggested “at nausuem” how anyone can stop it.

I’ve always written about the promise and peril of technology – the peril is the aggregation of too much power in the hands of too few, whether that power is the ability to addict, to scrape data, to monopolize or to ignore individual rights. But that doesn’t mean that all companies who sell always have the agenda to be evil, although I’d argue that they may have a tendency in that direction (and thus require regulation or external controls to mitigate).

But none of this makes the tools without companies/products or services behind them de facto less evil.

The tendencies towards tribe, griefing, crowd control and harassment exist in the absence of organizations without product/service. It’s not black and white, and “free and open” isn’t the only antidote to “sold and evil”.

Finally, the claims that these are all illusions being sold is condescending to the people buying them – that individuals aren’t capable, having lived their lives in a world in which companies sell products, services and interfaces of making rudimentary judgments of whether they’re being conned or not.

Power, transparency, individual vs collective rights, open vs closed, proprietary vs free, these are spectrums rather than a black and white battle between “tools for everyone with unlimited choice” vs “power agendas for proprietary platforms”.

The very fact that you have a monetary stake, Cube, in arguing against many of the things I talk about is a demonstration of how lack of transparency can go both ways, and is further demonstrated in the lack of explicit agendas (to outsiders anyways) in how open source is developed and the agendas often driving it.

You’ve said that this blog sells ‘agendas’ and then you come here and camp out, benefit from my “free” labor at little cost (other than repeating the same things ad nauseum), and can’t stop trying to get in the last word, a power grab of your own whether you see it that way or not. All about power, right? Not so hard to get.

lol interface wars…

purpose was clear, and if the interface DIDnt work for an individual, they could stop using it, or change it….freedom of tool/interface/being augementation.

modern world- not so simple to do that…

anyhow…no ones saying evil again. you read rants where they dont exist…

selling a product or service is always about agenda…. interface is now agendas tool, it has replaced advertisings “eye” of internalization of thoughts …to be the HAND EYE that LL used so astutely in its logo….

yes. its all interface. MORE interactive? not really..thats the illusion being sold. the agenda. –all about power..right? not so hard to get i would think.