Sunday, 01 July 2007

Podcasts: Yea, Nay, or Conditionally?

There's a poll (prominently displayed) on the site now.   (Those who missed The First Ever Acephalous Podcast, you can view it here.)  I'd appreciate if those who saw it would weigh in.  It was a little more time-consuming than the average post, but as much fun as spend quality time with the wife (ducks).  I wouldn't mind doing it again.  They would remain within the realm of parody, i.e. interviews with The Giant Head of Glenn Reynolds (with his answers plucked from his podcasts).  Doesn't strike me as a terrible idea, but I'd like a show of hands before I invest much time in it.

(The poll does indeed make the third noxious blog phenomenon I've indulged in this past week.  I pray you can forgive me.)

Jul 1, 2007 9:46:44 PM | Podcasts

10 Comments

Shannon Womack

The poll is #1, the podcast is #2, but what's third noxious blog phenomenon you've indulged in this week?

Posted by: Shannon Womack | Sunday, 01 July 2007 at 10:22 PM

SEK

Look at the poll again. All will be revealed.

Posted by: SEK | Sunday, 01 July 2007 at 10:23 PM

I. Eaton

"I Haz Talking"

?

As for a good text to voice program, why don't you try the the AT&T one? I like Crystal's voice. It's kinda a hassle because you're only allowed 300 characters of translation, but, you can could, if you were so inclined, save each 300-character .wav file and play them back-to-back-to-back on a playlist.

Posted by: I. Eaton | Monday, 02 July 2007 at 12:48 AM

SEK

That's the LOLcatz, Eaton, the third noxious blog phenomenon I've parroted this week. As for the AT&T Natural Voices, they're about $3,000 per voice, so they're a wee out of my price range. (You can't use the demos for personal purposes, and I've heard tell it's not a good idea to test their resolve.) But I'm working on it, I'm working on it ...

Posted by: SEK | Monday, 02 July 2007 at 01:07 AM

I. Eaton

Is this my.....espresso machine? How did you get my espresso machine?

Well, uh, we fuckin stole it, man.


Yeah, in making that suggestion, I kinda ignored the possibility that the AT&T people might be upset (in the legal sense) if you used their program. And besides, the droopy dog TTV voice is comic and in keeping with the LOLZ the internets self-deprecating tone of the "podcast".

I hate to be obtuse, but, if I vote for "I Haz Talking," what does that mean in terms of your 'podcasting'?

Posted by: I. Eaton | Monday, 02 July 2007 at 01:43 AM

SEK

Means I'll be interviewing people. First up: Chaucer!

Posted by: SEK | Monday, 02 July 2007 at 11:11 AM

JPool

Shouldn't that be "Can I Haz Talking?"

Stupid internet, making me know about LOLcatz.

Posted by: JPool | Monday, 02 July 2007 at 12:16 PM

Rich Puchalsky

I think that that having polls about whether to do podcasts that you're clearly already planning to do may be the tipping point where parody fake narcissism has become undistinguishable from plain narcissism. Like the mocking liberal pretending to be a conservative troll who finds himself trolling places after the real trolls have long since given up.

Posted by: Rich Puchalsky | Monday, 02 July 2007 at 01:33 PM

SEK

I'm not clearly planning to do more -- it's time-intensive, but something I could do with the wife, whose mad Photoshop skills could enhance the "quality" of the podcast immensely. Or we could watch The Wire. Either way, entertainment. I wouldn't mind doing more, however.

(Besides, I had to do something with the LOLcephalous I made, but didn't include in the cast itself.)

Posted by: SEK | Monday, 02 July 2007 at 01:47 PM

Jonathan Dresner

Oh well, if it's interviews, then I'm in. That's the only thing podcasts are really good for: conversations. If it's just one person talking, I'd rather just read it on the page: it's quicker, I can skim when it gets boring or go back if it gets confusing.

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner | Monday, 02 July 2007 at 07:40 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Professional Bedrooms Ogged linked to this New York Times article about the unusual living arrangements of the Angels' Reggie Willits: I initially defended Willits' decision to transform his bedroom into a batting cage on the grounds that it allows him to spend more time with his spouse than the average professional athlete. When the thread turned to divorce rates in academia, I discovered the actual reason for my defense. Here's my desk: Here's the bookshelf to my left: There's another bookshelf behind me, still another to my right. Yet were I to turn around, like as not I'd see something like this: Because my office is conveniently located in my bedroom. The Willits' arrangement seems natural because professional athletes share academics' engulfing commitment to their trade. A batting cage in the bedroom is no different than an office, inasmuch as both reflect how all-consuming both careers are. That said, in a perfect world, I'd have both a batting cage and an office in my bedroom, what with the former being my preferred means of relieving the stress produced in the latter.
PREVIOUS POST
Perjury, Circa 1999, Apropos of Nothing; or, New Democratic Talking Points (Greetings readers from ... everywhere. I'm upset, you're upset, but there are ways to cheer yourself up.) "Shame at the White House," New York Times (12 September 1998): The essence of Mr. Starr's case is that lying under oath is an impeachable offense even if the false testimony begins in a civil suit that was later dismissed or took place in a grand jury as an attempt to hide an embarrassing indiscretion. Mr. Starr's view holds that in a society founded on the rule of law, false swearing or witness tampering, abuse of office or obstruction of justice by the person vested with the highest legal powers is impermissible no matter how petty the subject. Robert Bork & James Rosen, "The Clinton Meltdown," National Review (12 October 1998): In that contention he has considerable support, not only from the aforementioned Miss Dowd but from many others, including, surprisingly, William Safire, who says, "If forthrightly confessed, perjury about workplace dalliance should not be enough to force out a President." In the light of the Starr Report's footnotes, calling what took place in the Oval Office "dalliance" falls just short of calling World War II a "dustup." The idea seems to be that perjury about sex is not as serious as perjury about other matters. That won't wash. Lying under oath strikes at the heart of our system of justice and the rule of law. It does not matter in the least what the perjury is about. The proceedings of a court or a grand jury take place because we have enacted laws that we want to see enforced, and we want them enforced on the basis of truth, not fiction. We do not say that we care about truth when the subject is murder or drug pushing but care very little when the subject is the sexual harassment of a subordinate or tampering with witnesses to hide adultery. That the amount of lying at trials is reaching epidemic proportions is a matter not for acceptance but for condemnation. Cal Thomas, "Burton Soars Over Clinton in Integrity," Los Angeles Times, (9 September 1998): Had Bill Clinton "merely" had a sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky in the White House, it would still have been outrageous. He still would have hurt his family. The office of the presidency would still have been sullied. But he would not have committed a potentially impeachable offense. His fate would have been left to the opinion polls and historians. But he lied about his affair under oath. And the forthcoming report by the Office of the Independent Counsel is likely to present evidence that he caused others to lie and tried to keep authorities from learning the truth. Robert Blecker, "How Does Congress Define 'Perjury'?" Wall Street Journal (9 December 1998): "Because we believe that the crime of perjury depends not only upon the clarity of the questioning itself, but also upon the knowledge and reasonable understanding of the testifier as to what is meant by the questioning,"...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments