Slashdot Mirror

One of the few bright spots have been the original Curious George books

Hehe. It's interesting you should pick that example. Here's one person's interpretation, which pretty much matches what went through my mind when I reread it as an adult:

A black man, living happily in his African homeland, is tricked by a white man dressed like an English lord. Without asking about his family or his preferences, the white man shackles the black man and takes him on a slave ship to America. In the city, the black man causes a minor bit of trouble and is thrown in prison, where he gets no lawyer and has no rights (think: Guantanamo). At book's end, he is uncaged, but hardly free --- he's the very cliche of the black entertainer, a minstrel who will always grin and shuffle for his white "massuh."

Now don't go criticizing this (or me) without reading context, which makes the whole thing a lot more interesting. Here, for comparison, is that same person's precis of the story itself:

A monkey playing happily in a tree in his African homeland is spotted by a white man in a large yellow hat. The man puts the hat on the ground; George comes down from the tree to try it on. It's too big --- so he doesn't see the white man approach, Next thing George knows, he's been popped in a bag and on a ship bound for America. A few adventures later and the monkey is in New York. At the white man's apartment, he drinks wine, smokes a pipe and wears pajamas. The next morning, he accidentally calls the fire department --- and is put in prison for phoning in a false alarm. He escapes, is reunited with the white man and --- at last --- is brought to the zoo, where he lives happily with other African animals.

Now go take another look at Babar.

That Babar link explains that the children surveyed don't care about whatever deeper significance may or may not be linking in the tales - they simply enjoy the stories. Scholarship has moved a long way from the time when it was believed that the messages people take away from a story are the exact same ones that we put in. It's a pity so many people still think that other people are mindless robots and run around trying to protect children from Alistair Cookie. Instead of protecting them from being checked in and out of the TV as though it were a daycare, and a society that in so many ways encourages this kind of parenting and makes it difficult to do otherwise.

But Joao Sampaio, a rubber planter from the southern state of Sao Paulo who is the president of the Brazilian Rural Society, an agribusiness association, sees things in a different light. In his view, "the PT created a whole new model of corruption."

"There has always been corruption in Brazil, but it used to be practiced by individuals, and now it involves institutions," including entire parties and Congress, and "public money" diverted from state-run companies, he argued.

Um, have you ever heard the term "Early Adopter" ?

Here's a handy dandy, what kids? Reference!

If you're waiting for it to hit below $150, and, like DVD players which now come free with every happy meal, they will. But others still were happy to pay $300 and up when DVDs first came out.

The difference between regular cable TV, HD TV(over cable), and DVDs is huge, but it depends on your TV.

For most people, the acronyms don't matter, but, with a $1.5k price tag, they are targeting, what kids? Early Adopters. Not the majority. The majority still has to catch up and purchase a new tv. When they get it, it'll be easy. "Plug Cable A into both player and Television. Plug Power Cord into wall. Power On."

Wow, simple! Thanks to a single cable that does Video and Audio. Now, for those who don't care for that, there's other ways to go still. If you know what Dolby Digital Audio is, then you're probably going to be doing a different set up, and at that point, either you know what you're doing or you've chosen to pay someone else to do it already.

Make it cheaper? Make it durable? This is for Early Adopters, once again. It will become cheaper, it will become durable, but for most of the market, there's no improvement in quality and no reason to spend the money. The only thing will be having a single disc for seasons of a TV show, depending if they are in HD or not(cartoons especially won't need to worry, methinks, but not totally sure).

If you're not an early adopter, then you probably don't have to worry about the acronyms. Now, if you want my advice, get a nice HD compatible tv, with HDCP support, (you can ask the guy at Best Buy what you'll need), and then get a nice Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player. Then, follow instructions above(Plug cable A into Player and TV, Plug Power Cord into Wall." There, I saved ya from all those acronyms. It's very easy to do.

Almost every single one of your arguments I can use to say why computers will never, ever catch on.

Hell, acronym time:
1. OS
2. USB
3. Firewire
4. IEEE 1394
5. PS/2
6. PC
7. CPU(which, most people think is the big box that holds the other parts in there)
8. DIMM
9. RAM
10. CD
11. DVD
12. HDD
13. VGA
14. Ethernet, E-Net(ugh, hate that word), Net
15. MB
16. GB

And the list goes on. For that reason, the fact it's so complicated to set up, the fact so many things can go wrong, the fact they're never really stable, is why I doubt anyone will ever see more than 15 computers in their lifetime, if they're even around more than a few years.

Don't worry, unlike computers, the HD stuff will get easier(not sure how, maybe a wireless power for the house so there's only one cable to hook up? Or you mean the remotes? Well, people have learned to live with overly complex remotes, and working with TVs, these things are pretty good about setting up good defaults).

As far as quality, yes, there's a huge one, but you've got to have the right equipment. I'm running an HD projector at the house at 131" and there's a HUGE difference, and the most I get is upscaled DVD or cable compressed HDTV, and it really blows you away.

But, just sit tight, there's no reason to rush out and get one, unless that's what you want. Wait until they're $150, or you get a PS3 if any good games come out for it, or wait until they're like DVD players today, free with each happy meal. That's the good thing about technology, it evolves. =)

You're right - the question really is 'would you use video-on-demand on your computer', and many people seem willing. Your comment, though, ignores the fact that video on demand only works 'well' for 1 (cable) of the 3 (air, cable, satellite) common video distribution systems. It happens to work very well for broadband.

The fact is that multiple recent studies (1 with a pretty picture) have shown that very desirable demographics (males, 21-30, for example) spend a LOT of time on the internet, which means advertising dollars will shift that way, too. If you can contain that audience in long-lasting, attention-heavy communication (like, say, video over IP), then you can make a significant amount of money.

If people are already at their computers, and you can get them to play a movie with ads (before, during, after), then there's money to be made, and that's what you'll see happen. The comfort level will increase (people who spend a lot of time in their chairs will buy better chairs and bigger monitors), and while it won't replace the TV for movies with loved ones, it may certainly replace (or at least, supplement for some percentage of the population) normal TV delivery methods for weekly shows.

Incidently, the video over IP has many other advantages, like giving amateur video producers the same opportunities that traditional podcasting gives amateur radio hosts - one of the ways people have been using vobbo is not necessarily as a blogging tool, but as an amateur video broadcast - it's essentially free ($45 webcam with mic), easy to distribute (links, RSS), and replaces the hassle of things like public access television.

...It does seem that everyone I know, personally, is already either using Firefox or just the kind of person that'll probably always use internet explorer forever. Let's hope this isn't the case...

...on the other hand, it is not uncommon, according to some business theories, for products to reach a temporary plateau after having reached all "early adopters" and that the majority of users will follow after a delay. Maybe that's where FireFox is now...who knows...

I agree that it was pretty disrespectful for the NY Times to call Lula an alcoholic. From what I've seen of him, I like Lula. And if I were leader of a country, I wouldn' be surprised if I drank heavily. But are you really going to try to defend former leaders of Brazil? Like Collor de Mello? Or Sarney? That's not even mentioning the series of general-presidents during the military regime in the '60s.

Lula has earned my respect through his years as a labor leader, and the initiatives he's taken since he's been president. He's made strides in using open source in government, and has a decent record in environmental and economic issues. If I were Brazilian, I'd be pissed about a specious attack on the first good president my country had in a long time. He's more of an exception than the rule, regarding getting respect.

But I don't think much of the US's leadership either, so maybe it's just me.

So because we've done something for thousands and thousands of years we have to stay that way?

TV is a technology built on our advanced (relatively) knowledge of the way the physical world works (and our ability to manipulate said world). However, just because something is new doesn't mean it should be used to the exclusion of everything else. If it's *better* than anything else, then there may be an argument that it should be used, but in my mind, TV is not better than sitting around a camp fire talking with my friends. I get outside, I hang out with my friends, I get to look up at the stars, there's little that's better than that. . .

TV is fine for some people, but I prefer interaction with other people. I prefer being outside, playing ball, walking, riding my bike, reading, talking, swimming, doing things that keep me healthy and happy.

Once you've seen all four seasons once, you've seen em all.

Real people and situations are sometimes interesting, but on television you have paid professionals dedicated to entertaining you.

Have fun watching TV. I'm going back to my life.

Look at the world situation with HIV. Is it any different? Most people in the world until they see someone die -- in front of them -- and the autopsy confirms it was HIV... they don't believe it exists.

We see today that HIV is once again on the rise in America... because young people don't believe it's real. And in the rest of the world, HIV is a global epidemic because their education isn't sufficient for them to understand reality.

It's no surprise that ignorant young Americans (and other young people) scoff at global warming. The education of the average young person is insufficient to understand reality, including the vast amount of black and white data that shows indisputable global warming.

I know it's a tough thing to accept, but most young people, even the geeks, are severely undereducated. And what they have been taught is mostly brainwashing designed to make them a good worker focused on the small picture. The literacy of young people is almost zero.

If you have the motivation to look into the matter, I would recommend reading "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Friere --

The methodology of the late Paulo Freire, once considered such a threat to the established order that he was "invited" to leave his native Brazil, has helped to empower countless impoverished and illiterate people throughout the world. Freire's work has taken on especial urgency in the United States and Western Europe, where the creation of a permanent underclass among the underprivileged and minorities in cities and urban centers is increasingly accepted as the norm.

Excerpted from The Catalyst Centre, a Canadian organization that promotes cultures of learning for positive social change.

Obviously things are going to get a lot lot worse before they get better.