15 Jun 2007 15:51 GMT
Chapter Six (7th)
Booting computer. . .
Connecting. . .
published Chapter Five (6th)
Disconnecting. . .
There is another pattern in using a grand unified media, or whatever you want to term it. That is the limit place on most of us. The limit of work energy.
If you make it nearly impossible to develop software, you do not eliminate free software. You just need to create a condition were users want the latest greatest software update ASAP to make your brand secondary, even obsolete. PPL have no patience and will go with the flow of whatever develops first out of gate - even if it is second rate and full of bugs, as is clearly demonstrated with each release of the Windows Operating System and all of its patchs and "required" upgrades, which they even go so far as to call a "Service Pack" - as though this were just a matter of comp-sci that they are pursuing here.
A new thing in media is video processing chip sourcing. It is known now, thanks to users going on battery power with their laptops, that processing video takes a lot of energy to do. And so outing the video to a lo-power chip, like a dongle or reader device, is ideal. This is something that I am somewhat pursuing in my own unique way, seruptitiously guided by other areas in the video field of things with digital tech. Not only can it save power but undermine the need found in the marketing and habitual use of the latest gadgets out of Silicon Valley were multi-processor sets are the fancy. A video conversion chip, say to convert a bigass HD video clip into a microscreen video for a portable or mobile device, also means that those of us with slower, highly dated desktops can still participate in the digi-vid culture of the day. Perhaps even moreso, given other capabilities which I may get into this week in tech in Chapter Zero for you.
I am presently disciplined to not stay here at the desktop for too long at one time. So I think I will
Powering down. . .
Back on mobile here. So in my portables (notice the plural) my audio player device unit is full of about three or more hundred megabytes of podcast. In filling it up, I deleted all of the musical contents. Also, as habit goes, I reinstalled the little OS. Thus, I have nothing to listen to, unless I want to listen to podcasts again.
And who really wants to do that? Is this what is the real meaning behind the "-cast" of podcast? That content really ultimately sux, apart from it being temporarily fixxed? Like data is an ether or something?
Recharging. . .
Hey, look at me. I am typing this in a back room while standing.
I was just going over some issues with language and thinking a lot about romance when I turned to tech. Between the original civilization of agriculture and the information age rests a pourous layer, though layer none-the-less, of the citystate and its final path barrier with information in the form of industry.
What this thought was, that relates to this moment in time with the macroculture, turned to my own personal, private matter of shifting my studio from analog tech to digital tech. I have many misgivings about this that I have somewhat gotten into in my writing.
Sharing was is key here, I considered how unique technology fits into the information individual. That this person cannot escape to the agricultural mode of near non-tech. The information individual is inextricably linked to tech. I think of how when I go for a walk, what I carry is of utmost importance and relevancy and even of differing levels of significance to myself and to those around me - even to those far away, given communication technology (which I have a unique, strong tendancy to veer away from).
Yet I am struck by the fact that this has zero point double zero to do with digital, to do with computers. For as I leave home today and tonite, I leave with my music portable or my UMPC. But yesterday it was my analog portable - my cassette player and recorder.
Conclusively, I do not believe the hype around computers. I did not buy into the desktop-WWW hype. Mobile technology is like the baton to the conductor of the orchestra. Neccessary only in the sense of the dancer in the black tuxedo, hidden in the dark hall, as all see the co-dancer in the white dress. Neccessary, yet unseen. And so mobile tech is a mirror of the macro-tech of the time.
Thus, with portable cassette players, there is a reflection that given the phonograph of that time (a triffle decade and a half ago here, folks, aint that long ago) and given the compact disk (were disk recorders were a highly restricted technology, government lobbied by the recording industry associations for outlaw status as a technology) and even given MIDI systems and the computers of the day, it was still ultimately magnetic media analog technology that was fare. Analog tech was what was really going on.
Today, the availability of so-called mp3 players, which basically just means anything other than the iPod (which would translate here to mean the updated version of teh Walkman (also branded by a highly prominent electronics company)), means that digital technology is were it is going on.
There were no portables with record vinyl media, only larger battery powered record players. And portables are generally 'lo-tech'. But if the Walkman is not seen as the predicessor to the iPod but rather the iPod as the digtial version of teh analog equivalent, this equivalency means that what is next is likely to mix the two together.
Just look at the iPod industry. Most of it has everything and nothing to do with the unit device. Instead, it is the accessories industry around the iPod that flourishes: the laniard, the case, the belt clip, the headphones, the car connector, the FM transmitter, docking transceiver, fourth pary software on PC, multicoloured casing even, and external speaker systems or home stereo systems. These are as fare to the day as ghetto blasters, component systems, EQ's, wireless headphones, the infamous RCA-plug standard, portable speakers and microphones, pretty strong (in comparison) subwoofers, and the central one-eighth inch magnetic tape cassette media, all of which tied in neatly, at least for some, with the walkman - this even after knowing the walkman was so 'lo-fi' in comparison to these other, more static, home systems.
So one is niether better nor worse anymore that more or less useful, just different, right? Wrong! One is simply more pOpUlAr.
Makes me want to scream, FUCK POP.
Call me righteously paranoid. But as I hear more and more wigs go on about the power of the Internet, about how it is the last vestige of democracy around, I feel far more critical.
The Internet has been fully divided and conquered, coincidentally or not at roughly the precise point when it was
a) officialy declared in the status of a Mass Medium
b) bombs fell on Baghdad, again.
On the left, the belief that democracy is defined by the (constrained, restricted) freedom to publish WTF you want to post WTF you feel like it and, the on the right, by being able to do this as much as is technically possible - from spammings to movie streamings.
In all of this is the perceived liberal corporate right to put data you create on your (private) computer onto a central (public) server where it can, in turn, be viewed, heard, DL'd by anyone whos goes there.
Of devilish note is the detailed fact that this is the accepted norm - to the point that the 'democracy' terminology is invoked. God and philosophy alike have granted you to put your creation on the Internet.
In another light we could be asking the question that would contrast the server from the individual computer. The individual computer is the souce of origin, the server is the place, which the left call its commons, from where one gets the data information from the server onto their individual computer. Of course, an individual computer can be a public computer in the sense of a library computer, but it is still individual to the construct of the computer (as opposed to something like a TV which can share its information with multiple users within eye and earshot of the device and its settings).
And so we are to conceive of this next generation of computernet were everything you do is broadcast to the Internet. It is kind of like thinking of talking as being a communication with those without earshot, but it is also acoustic vibration in a Universe. This new form of computernet would simply amplify this voice into past the strata of atmosphere and, thus, you voice becomely as so Godly with all of outer space too.
Employing this means that the moment you boot your system that you are a parted to the computernet through unprogrammable (i.e. illegal) automated means, likely via embedded systems. But at least you will be able to post WTF you want WTF you wish... Democracy is now defined not as word, open for argument, but by a specific technological constraint, thus no longer open for conversation.
But babbling on and on about democracy this/that is not so vital in a non-liberal globe of corporatization. One so oppositional to basic tenets of democracy is anti-liberal, the central corporation being idealistically immoral as requirement for its contiguous existence along side its partnership with liberal doctrine, organized religion, and state philosophy.
Simple response to this ongoing scenario with the militarist developed Internet Protocol base computernet is to house data as a construct for computers, not servers. Who is to state that networking require servers? Because the way it is is just the way it is, so live with it even if there are other ways. It seems at this point what those other ways need in terms of validity require no amplification since the Internet is now a Mass.
What is the computernet but a network of just these kinds of open-ended computers where anyone can access anything and everything at anytime and all of the time? Indeed, how "democratic" - as long as that is what you want. But realize that the contraint between this left and right is an overbearing taxation upon the environment and, being a global mass, the ecosphere. This point also must follow into the netherworld of secret information, never to be actualized in the mind of the Mass, lest they stop using the "democracy". Stop using the democracy, and 'democracy faulters. Thus, I am anti- or undemocratic if I can use the computernet and choose, as I really do in the context of the day, to use it. I am an enemy of this democracy. I am its terrorist to its society. This is factual, not speculative or so richly comical.
From typing on UMPC to typing now on desktop. . .
The solution seems valid. Why build a document on you individual computer when you could build the data on a server, with others for instance - this instance being, of course, the 'selling point', as it would be called in an actually business work environment.
This computernet society has been bent of late by liberal politics. But an identifying marker here is the non-presense of politics. And I mean it precisely in that non-present way. Politics not mattering seems hard to fathom for older folks these days, given the apolitical nature of highly destructive social order over the past century, I would state one lead by industrial military, ideally at least. Either way, though, we must regard this on-line document building as at first something privy to eliminating this non-political individual from otherwise participation - for example, participation in our group making its on-line document. We could see this in wiki, but it is likely to be more prominent where advertisement or some kind of individualistic and/or popular profit taking exist. This might change when the left comprehends the value in creating efficiencies on-line with regards to money transfer technology, as with integrated security-software and security-protocol.
The Power Of Text On Mobile Tech
Simply, any basic command from textual software (by which I tend to mean non-Documents textual software) on a mobile device carries important weight. You can almost use accordingly with ignorant bliss. But the weight is the important part here.
I was just in a jam between desktop and mobile here in my writing where I had a piece on desktop, followed by a seperate piece on mobile, then I wanted to start a third on desktop. I caught myself in a bad habit. My temptation was to go crazy-computercentric. What I would do is either build a new file and write the third part into it. This would demand I have a filing system established to keep track. Then transfer the middle part, residing on mobile device, to desktop, where I would adjoin the three in the order I wise, chronological to creation. This is my choice.
But this is an operation I can do with a proper text editor, which I could only get on my UMPC via third-party free software. What I do is type in my new writing, the third part, immediately after the first. Then:
0 - transfer all to UMPC
1 - insert files according to dating
2 - save to UMPC memory card
Presto, with a but.
For the whole thing to work, I must be disciplined to rountine insertion of dates. Particularly, time stamping paragraph whereupon shifting my creative process between systems of writing, as between PC and UMPC.
That is why it is so critical that I have a good degree of accuracy when I evaluate technology according to proper category. It is not so unlike biology where all life is the same, but the differences between genus, family, species and so on becomes clear through scientific reasoning. But it can be, as demonstrated here, a simple matter of that hated pratice amongst the educated class of pragmatic accuracy. Therefore, as laptop and desktop are synonymous, the difference between use is too marginal for identification - except as like some kind of, like, isotope on the elementary table, different but not so much to be a unique element (because of the all pervasive property of text, this might be a case in simile of hydrogen, were an isotope may be like a nucleide mole without any mass in its valence shell, or vice versa, as found perhaps unique to a quantum of plasma).
This isotopic text does demand conformity to the mobile standard. And that requires certain demands of battery power, battery being a swearword, the b-word. Thus I am compelled to either reconsider, again just a justification for desktop use, or to say, "hey, this shifting between fundamental elementary technologies is fucking bullshit, woman."
Powering down without transferring. . .
So after just writing out parts for the Work Music production I come to ego. It really does seem that apart from politics, there is just how one contends with ego. This does relate to music as I have a rep there.
So I guess the question becomes that with my studio closed and apart from performance, what is left to do? I am not really writing per se, as I am in my third year as a free agent - which I have never been as a guitarist (my first instrument) - and having just completed my first production as a free agent.
As I have gotten into before here in Chapter Zero, I am leaning away from writing and recording and more towards the addressing broadcast audio and music head on. Upgrading my studio to digital is a part of this situation as that technology is connected to my instrumentation. So I can at least address that here.
Basically, I have always lived by the premis that what is mine is yours. That is, there is no mine. But that is primarily were music is concerned. Other matters, what you might call private ones, are circumspect. So I guess I am confrontation with this circumspection regarding material technology property. Thus, you could play my drums and whatever - but more as to when that was more or less all I had, and at a time when making music was more uncommon than it is now - by a very long shot where I live.
I have gotten into a lot of these matters too much. But decision is hard to come by. So I am tempting to confer to get back into writing music as the only existing option. If I am to return to the studio in this way (I can return to work on Work Music, but I am referring to the continuum of living my life in music exclusively so from my studio environment) then I foresee, given past history, going underground for a few years again.
I do not know. I have never really been a free agent in this way. So I guess that is what I am really facing here. Where I place myself is where my music unfolds. I just cannot bring myself to agree with anything else on the ground here... So what of the Internet, then.
Physically, I do not see why we could not go on the way that we have. But critically, it is better to air on the side of caution. There is just too much at stake on-line this year, too much money, and too much punditry getting more active on the subject (long time coming, I would state).
Musically, this seems like the time of the listener, not the industry nor musician. What else is there?
There is still the matter of placing large amounts of data on the Internet for sharing. So one answer is that music is the broadcasting of collection, of "discography".
Wireless connectivity represents an interesting condition, far more representing sharing in text than in music. But that is kind of a given. Eventually, it could be assumed this follow the path of the WWW, when at some point a universal approach to sharing on the hotspot transpires. I just do not see this as very interesting.
Taking the wrapper off a helpful new technology.
- Left scenes as short clips instead of compiling. Much preferred.
- The audio editting I once did to force syncronization I am vereing away from. It seems that I will be doing future video work and that it will mostly involve overdubbing the audio - which is a huge relief by presents some challenges for continuity.
Hope somebody gets something out of one or more of my clips. This was one of the most relaxed fun and easy video I have done before.
Sheesh. The more and more I get away from shackling my hands to the computer, the more my writing gravitates towards increasingly simplistic computer design in which to reside. Could there be anything simpler than the memory card storage of today? But I have found this in other instances. As newly designed computer systems opt for more, I find less is more in teh survival of language.
I also see that I should give greater consideration to proofreading my writing. But, nah.
So what kind of vision exists today with the Leader of teh Free World and his minions of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?
World War 2 did have a vision: a vision of fear. Christianity holds that apocalypse and life on Earth must be irrcoverably altered as a result of its calendar reaching the year two thousand. And so as y2k came and went, we can only enter it with thoughts relating to world war, such as the present war on terror or war on drugs. American Genesis gives us the slaughter of revolution, like the Internet revolution. But in all of this rests an empire, not vision. It is often critics outside of teh Empire who envision the American Dream, the messiah of American Genesis, or American Origin Myth, as something far short of what it is characterised. There are teh people of the Empire who with great naivite humble themselves, sometimes prostrate, before the alter of American Genesis to make good of the situation - a situation the rest of the followers of the Leader of the Free World claim, like its "Empire", does not even exist. For this American, its virtue cannot be denied, comprised of the ethnic groups of the rest of the world of humankind, were the American Dream is the default of the dreams of humanity.
We are locked into a situation were culture has been entrenched in a Anglo-American business method. The spoils of WW2 give far reaching enterprise to American Capitalismo. Yet still we are to believe that only an American can lead teh globe, the planet Earth, and the world of humanity. Whether by the default of Leader of the Free World and his grandios military, the vision of mushroom clouds, or the reactionary revolution found in any individual who reaches success within the framework of American Capitalismo, it is ultimately an American, often naturalized, who has the goods on human survival. It is owning the Bomb and the antiBomb that is the only vision America can give us. The more entrenched the Bomb crowd of Americans, following the Leader of teh Free World, the greater the need for the anti-Leader of the Free World towards efficacy on the marginalized and non-Anglo and non-AngloAmerican populations. In the end, the Learder of the Free World can only hunker down in his military bunker and hide from boogiemen while the Anti-Leader of the Free World galavants about the hemispheres in open spaces as if to laud the true freedom of inherent in some sort of anti-humanity. Both support a trend that what they do they should be financially awarded for. It is the totality of a culture of death and one of the dead, entwined together as iconic serpents climbing a sword, seperate and distinct as individuals yet tails entwined. And it is always the boogiemen, always about how the one serpent calls the other a monsters, or the enemy, to be lain prey to the sword, the greater enemy of humankind.
This American sword sows dispair in culture simply manifest through its inability to extract Anglo copyright law from itself even with such "Revolution" a now tired verb from French origin with a leader whose namesake is synonymous with that one namesake of WW2. For that matter, there is no vision either. Whether it is Napoleon, Hitler, Gates versus Jobs, or the Leader of teh Free World, a vision of the future is what they sell us to convince us of their Way and it is a vision of the future that they do not possess. They possess the entrenched establishment on their side, were things move in magical-like appear to continue the charade, along with as much fanfare as is humanly possible. For some of these Great Leaders, it is fanfare of short life, therefore burning brightly. For others, it is dull but still burning, therefore burning long, and pagentry is what we are lead to believe the whole matter of humanity comes down to. That through the horrors of life - and life always seems to suck to the minds of these people - we can still rise above and have our great leader triumphantly motorcade through the streets were even the Anti-Leader might roam. It is the pagentry of a fool's democracy. The blissful fanfare of a lustful obsession for power by anymeans neccessary. And after the carriages stop and the blaring trumpets draw to a close, after the limosines have nowhere else to go but behind some brick and mortar of established fortress, and after the great nemesis who will right all of the wrongs and straighten out all of crookeds stands atop a pedestal, nakedly, and exclaims the virtue of defeating this anti-nemesis - exclaim with the utmost of eloquency - all that is left is the biggest party possible. Pagentry is only for the sake of partying on. There is no vision.
Through excessive pagentry and drama and comedy and this fanfare there remains a reality somewhere, lurking undoubtedly with what every one of these leaders has called, a terror. What could be more terrorizing to the Leader of teh Free World than any individual who would lead a free world even apart from the anti-Leader of teh Free World, let alone one apart from the Oval Office or the Golden Eagle and Swastika?
One of the ways in which this AngloAmerican business model works is a matter of contending with new designs. Part of the reason why the Internet remains such a restricted environment (I mean to imply not some paranoia on my part but an assertion that the Internet and computers could have been fairly easily engineered far more ethically than they have been, as marketed to the Masses) is that there is too much openness to the creation of new design. By restricting the Internet overall, these new designs can be flushed out and dealt with. IOW, the Internet is a controlled environment, a petri dish for private American business to circumvent these non-business developments. Thus, for those outside of this businessworld, the need to get the Internet to everyone is a frontline battle, even an imperative.
When a new development transpires, is it always does on the Web, business, often using copyright, must find challenge to secure profitmaking for its standing business model. This is actually the nature of any establishment. You create fortress around the old and therefore are in conflict with the new. Once any member of the established order finds formula to contend with this new entity, ensuring first and foremost that the bottom-line is secure, others of the establishment follow suit. This includes use of opposition, support of legal service and governmental lobby, and capitalism, as with tactics of divide and conquer, competition, and capitalist economic growth theory. And because the establishment is lately bureaucratic, it, the established order, can pick and choose a member that best exemplifies the appearance of capitulation to the public reasoning with regards to this new entity.
As the Internet provides some new shtick, how people react is more than just a metric of demographic order. How people react is perceived by the bureaucratic established order with disdain, and to be secretly, with boardrooms and backrooms, treated as hostile. The potential for threat, to profitmaking, of the bottomline is everpresent as the weakness in the system is that the bottomline remain outside of teh control of the People. Conformity of the People into a Mass, which are two different things, is an absolute. Thus, anything new like this is a threat to a bottomline that nobody knows about. It is, therefore, easy for business to convince a public that it is on their side, if for no other cause than the public does not know or even wants to know better, let alone the fact that business is not on the side of the People to begin with. Otherwise, the People would have a role in determining how to control wealth, apart from being fired from their jobs.
This activity of contending with new ideas, a threat to the business bottom-line, is not carried out in backrooms or from behind the closed doors of racist, patriarchal boardrooms. It is carried out in public. Doing so is a sign within the established order that all of the people are still being fooled some of the time. And that is all it takes to control the Internet.
Overcoming this means owning the Internet. But perhaps the greater flaw in this way of the thinking is that central common material machinery cannot be owned, cannot be private. It can be held under authority of violence, but then, so can wealth and people be held in bank or prison cage. It seems that authority only need convince people that there is no cage, that wealth needs no holding company and vault. Computernet development, dev, similar to this need only exist in the context that software and hardware is deliver in such a way that there is no perceived restriction by its individual private owner. Yet as long as this individual private owner of a desk/laptop submits ownership to the Internet through the nature of the hardware and software of writ device their ownership is without any privilege. This is a form of oppression, but its vice is a matter of deception.
"Open your mind," seems to be the catch phrase of the anti-business in all of this. And, as is the case without fail of human nature and the reality of property ownership, you are "openning your mind" to the plan of somebody else. People who do this are charlatan and two-faced alike. Their guide is prophecy. The Microsoft's and Apple's of teh globe envision the future for they have none and so project valueless vice as none other than yours and mine future. To oppose this is to read this as a threat. But if one owns ones own property, one need only see vice where there is potential threat to bottomline.
This is more than matters of how one might view things or what political view one has, or has not. Wars can be fought on these matters. This is particularly true once the bottomline is threatened by the mere existance of humanity. Or more precisely, when the bottomline is a threat to humanity and is maintained as a bottomline. For the established order, there is only call to arms. But matters can be short and fast, yeilding enormous power, or slow and long, demonstrating the dull, grey, unimpended virtue of bureaucracy.
There is no battling the Internet except to assert that it is part of the bottomline of Industry, of business. Acknowledge this or not, it does not change the reality of your ownership of your computernet device. But, again it must be reiterated, once you submit to licence and privilege of ownership - for ownership is neither a right nor privilege - you submit ownership. This submission carries no weight outside of how much you are afraid of it. It is no different than being afraid of property ownership because of some other kind of vision contrary to that of the Leader of the Free World, an anti-vision.
Individuality is always at stake. This is true and inherent whether it is a matter of European philosophy and liberal doctrine, of race, of gender. Individuality is not a product of selfish will but self-will, yet not self alone. It is of our humanity. But humanity is not individuality. If you are having difficulty navigating my language here it is either my fault as a poor writer or it is your fault as someone who has been mentally programmed to believe otherwise. There is no escaping this, as there is no escaping war once it hits you. You can write it off as irrelevant if it does not hit you and nobody need shoot you down. You may even be lauded as such, as anti-Leader or, for that matter, liberal Leader. But you are a fool.
You are a fool because you are fool for believing that human societies like these have nothing to do with the extermination of individuality. As though individuality is not some product of self control or common ownership of property but it is selfishness and self-serving of the anti-virtue. There is no society without the enslavement of individuality. This is no a sign or by-product of the existence of society. It is not a liberal matter of just trying harder so that the individual is not made to suffer quite as much as the non-liberal approach. Suffering is a scourge. Society is one of its ills, not the other way around were individuality is just a minor problem to be dealt with by its membership and restricted club and registration conformity as society fights the real battle of either
0) taking on the globe
1) taking on the Leader of the Free World.
Present hacks on the video mem card recorder:
- compatible as "solid state" memory device, some driver hacking may be required for some operating systems
- can be powered from usb
- testing for full powering from usb
- - does not seem to want to do this
- testing compatible web video web format for direct playback
- - successful playback - I think short of anything more that 30fps (frames per second), any computer video can be playyed back on from the unit device on a compatiable mem card. This is my central goal here for acquiring this technology. Thus, the only catch is converting to the mobile video codec standards.
So I am in this old OS that I haxt the living shit out of like almost a decade ago, it is were I do all of my video work... I can barely even surf the WWW from it.
Anyhow, I have my latest set of video clips running through my error test screens from using a VMCR (Video Mem Card Recorder) and working up to the hax which I am, at present, working ON. It seems that two new ideas have presented themself in my work, as I become almost permanently entrenched in video production for the coming years.
0) presenting illustrated slideshows as the incarnation of my exploration of Euro graphic novels and non-American Japanese Manga
1) adapting music multitracking techniques to video production, primarily in the form of overdubbing audio
It is this last area that I will exploring for the time being, the former wrot with too much emotion and time for me to get into without further work in private. Basically, it goes like this:
- generate video
- ensure that proper playback is handled (as non-audio video is my only experience (I was an animator), I can say that there are bugs in computer systems that when you make video sans audio, there are sometimes speed problems that come up), which just means playing back what I create every step of the way to visually confirm what I am doing
- measure the length of the video (I am not certain of the degree of variation that is permissible, but basically, video software permits for shorter audio tracks but is limited in length. So you can have the audio run out before the video is finished, but if your audio goes on (which is actually quite often the case, given a thing called, latency) it will get cut off, often literally once edits are saved into memory as file. I would not guess this, so I would just say be as precise as you can. I am always able to measure it to three decimals places of one second of time.)
- create a blank audio file of this length, to be used to record the audio dub (native data format)
- maybe try a run through, though I usually will just improvise some sort of script
- record quality audio, monophonic
- re-encode video with new audio track
Your goal in life should not be to throw away more and to throw out more - to recycle waste product and replace inefficiently burning incandescent bulbs (which may actually require less water during production) with efficient mercury vapour bulbs - but to, much more simply, make it your goal in life to throw away less and throw out less.
The Hand Of The Corporation
n073: transmissive light, aka RGB, RedGreenBlue (not chemical/reflective)
thumb - red - video media (est.approx.1982)
index - green - photocopy media (est.1986)
middlein - yellow - music media (est.1989)
middleout - blue - studio media (est.1993)
little - magenta - computer media (est.1999)
fist - cyan - optical media (est.2001)
They pretended to walk with the king to discover the kingdom, which they made into State, ran from paper. And so money became the neccessary evil.