Charlie Rose

futurevisionaries  04/22/2011 08:25 PM Report

Tim,

Can you help or know of people or companies that can help?

I need to save global FUTURE brands for and by the global people and countries.

My name is Kent G Anderson .

I see where 12 years of my life's work and ideas can help all people in all countries. My goal is to share the global Brand FUTURE... Future is design like a country and people's ideas are the global product. For more information about me and global people FUTURE google Kent G Anderson. My web page is www.futurevisionaries.com .

FUTURE sm/tm

925 N Griffin

Bismarck,ND

58501

USA

milmntec@btinet.net

JohnGelles  01/07/2011 11:53 PM Report

We rarely address each other in this commentary or the SHOW. That is probably a good thing. REMant tries and succeeds in being the fist to write. Never the best -- but often first. I leave a lot of typos in my text. Disgusting. Editing before submitting is required. I never do enough of it. Charlie never reads the comments -- they would make him sick. Now that's not true. He probably reads some.

The Los Angeles market is currently screwed up. PBS has got the show we mostly watch on Channel 24 at 11 pm. But Bloomberg carries it more than once -- and if you miss it there is the net.

Although the show is better than ever, the Decline of American Hegemony is a terrible thing to witness. With Buckley and Galbraith dead, the Rose middlebrow audience should maybe have died with them. If I had my way, Krauthammer would have a half hour Rose would too. I would watch both shows. To their left we would have the Galbraith brothers. They would have a half hour. Ninety minutes might be enough. I'm supposed to have life. Or mayhbe do some chores.

JohnGelles  01/07/2011 11:27 PM Report

What is the issue Wu enlightens? Do we really care if enough people "get the word" for government to rule or business to make a sale?

Of course we do. But we don't want bad government to rule with evil intent and an iron hand.

And we don't want business monopolies to sell crap and kill all competition in the cradle.

The Internet ans Web have become our newspapers, yellow pages, reference books, college, university, radio, TV, church, photo albums, calendar, address book, notepad, organizer and bane of our existence.

I hate them with a passion. I'm addicted to them. They have me by the ying-yang. And unless they treat me with the same respect they give to kings and billionaires, I'll hate their guts forever and hope to see them die.

Or do I have that backwards? When I was young I used to say the telephone was democracy to the nth. Any person with a dollar or two could call any other the same as our betters could call each other -- or nearly the same.

With real net neutrality anyone of us will be able to "broadcast" into the fog horn noise in cyberspace where no one is ever heard. What good is that? None.

If we want to listen instead of talk, read instead of write, things are very different. The whole intellectual English speaking world can watch Charlie Rose for free! That is really great. Net neutrality protects us in our good fortune.

The real problem is how to invent a force that will incubate competitors to Charlie Rose to make his type of show more effective every day in bringing desired reform to every major system that at the moment in FUBAR.

Net neutrality is a beginning. The Newton Minnow cure for the vast wasteland of TV, Radio, Internet, Web and the American congress, courts and executive branch, is not yet in sight or just over the horizon.

It was all told in Bible with the Tower of Babel. hat to do about it? Hold a second. I'm working on it. Hot dog -- I think I'm about to birth the anti-Babel principle I've search for all my adult life. It isn't net neutrality or castration of any type: it isn't peer review either. It certainly prizes genius. It's not nature's evolution. It's not exactly Ray Kurzweil's Singularity. It's in a league with the human hand developed by the inventor of the two wheeled transporter that looks like an old fashioned lawn mower (whose names I can't recall). The hand was made for wounded veterans and is nearly as complex as the original it replaces.

Well Charlie is forever in pursuit of the next new thing. One night on the SHOW we will see his head explode. There is no way any of us can be a renaissance man today. The cosmos has been contained in the codes of scientific thought just enough to leave us frustrated as we see the apple and decide to have bite and know how it tastes.

salgadoce  01/07/2011 08:41 PM Report

The internet is a medium; the analogy I like to use is a road/highway system.

In order to get to the places (content) we want to get to, we have to get in our cars (devices, hardware) decide which entrance ramp we are going to take onto the information highway (will we access through Google? Bing? Facebook? Wikipedia?) and eventually find our way to the desired content/destination.

Google's business model is simple. They want you to use their entrance ramp to gain access to the highway and thus to the content destinations; but while you're waiting to merge into the greater traffic, they have set up information vending machines (advertising) all along the ramp. That is, they give businesses preferred access to the billions of consumers/content-seekers that have decided to enter the content market through Google's ramps.

Same with Facebook. That network/community has 500 million souls that access each other's content through the FB platform/ramp. Facebook and Google aren't interested in content per se, but how one accesses content.

And that is where the dangers of monopoly come to bear on the situation. When companies commoditize the medium of exchange, whether it's Internet search, or whether it's money/credit, it leads to bad things.

If a bank doesn't give you credit, you are shut out of the market, shut out of commerce, which basically shuts you out of society.

In the Internet's case, it's not so much that you will get shut out of the market entirely, but that you will only be allowed to access the content that is owned and operated by the 'controllers' of the medium. So you will depend on the bank to give you money to go buy the content that the media companies produce, which lead to them owning your labor, and eventually your mind.

gjkilley  01/07/2011 03:44 PM Report

Mr. Wu hit the nail on the head and verbalized my sentiments. Mr.'s Gates and Jobs want to control all aspects of everything concerning computer tech. Taking the "hamburger" analogy, they want to charge $10/hamburger and bun and will not allow anyone to add ketchup, mustard or pickle. It's a take it as is proposition. They live in their own "little" world isolated from the real world. That was why Microsoft was chastized by congress for not refusing to aid China in restricting access and tracking disadents. It was more important to made a few dollars than protect human rights. With power comes responsibility.

REMant  01/07/2011 12:35 PM Report

This was good, but I don't think monopoly arises out of an engineering supremacy. When M$ was confronted with evidence of its monopolizing, Gates said the govt did not understand competition, and he was right. There's long been a model of the life-cycle of cos, called the wheel of retailing. A restaurant, for example, makes its reputation selling cheap take-out burgers, and in a fit of hubris creates a complete menu for all tastes, finding, however, in the process that it must raise its prices, when a new burgers-only competitor undercuts them and steals their basic market. This usually prompts such a conglomerate to hastily return to first principles. I don't recall whether Adam Smith saw this in particular, but it does seem to be implied in his free trade model of specialization and price competition. What is troubling about the loss of net neutrality is that the Internet, like telephone lines or spectrum, can provide the means for a "natural" monopoly. Saving that, the cause of monopoly lies with those monetary policies that fund mergers, on the one hand, and create moral hazard and maldistribution on the other. It is surprising, incidentally, when studying technologies, to see how quickly they develop along with their various applications. If memory serves, the average speed of the 1911 Indianapolis 500 winner was 75 mph. Radio had barely begun when TV was developed. In fact it had basically been invented before the turn of the century. IMHO, far too little attention is given to technology as the driver of economic improvement.