Technology-Based Social Change

Too connected? by Scoth · 2005-12-23 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

I miss the days when I could go out and have a nice dinner without people yammering on cell phones, tapping on PDAs, talking about computer problems, etc. Sometimes I think people are a little too connected and socially technological these days.

I'm sure there have been positive effects too though.

Re:Too connected? by pete6677 · 2005-12-23 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem is that some people do not use good judgement about the use of technology. They must forget that their cell phone has voice mail and that they don't necessarily have to answer their phone every time it rings. Some people just naturally have poor judgement and don't think about why they shouldn't be yapping on the phone during a meeting/concert/church or other place where quiet is expected. I think eventually social manners regarding technology will catch on, and shouting into a cellphone while ignoring your dinner companion will be considered to be about as rude as picking your nose at the table.
Re:Too connected? by travail_jgd · 2005-12-23 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Rude people will find a way to be rude, technology or no. The people on cellphones would just be having loud conversations with someone in their company. Some of the folks using PDAs would have their little black books, or planners, or folios with them. Teens always find a way to be loud (been there, done that :).

Sure, there's bad with the good. Technology hasn't changed human nature, it's just a visible scapegoat.
Re:Too connected? by metlin · 2005-12-23 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

The relationships between humans become more superficial, as technology-induced connectivity goes up.

You miss body gestures, nuances and postures and become completely dependent on technology to get to know a person. I mean, you communicate at least as much on the phone and on IM/e-mails as you do in person; and while they maybe fruitful communications, they just aren't the same.

Heck, I communicate with my room-mates over IM far more than actually walking down to their room and talking to them about something. While it certain has benefits, it also has downsides.
Re:Too connected? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-12-23 06:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

You miss body gestures, nuances and postures and become completely dependent on technology to get to know a person.

In other words, the rest of the world becomes just like I've been all along. I've got Asperger's Syndrome (NOT self-diagnosed) and I always felt weird growing up. No wonder I'm far more verbal in text based communications than in real life.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Too connected? by Animats · 2005-12-23 06:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've seen couples in Palo Alto coffee houses where both people had laptops up and running. Twice in the last two weeks. They were dating, not having a business meeting or doing homework. Seeing half a dozen people having a meeting in a coffee shop, laptops at the ready, has been going on for a while. But now people are taking all this gear on dates.
One good-looking young couple had in use, between them, two laptops, two cell phones, a Blackberry, and a graphing calculator. Plus at least one iPod. But no annoying ringtones. They're using the gear, not showing it off.
Re:Too connected? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 06:26 · Score: 0

Cell phone companies in india dont yet offer voicemail feature. They dont have a concept of voicemail or answering machines.
Re:Too connected? by geekoid · 2005-12-23 06:27 · Score: 1

As long as people don't talk louder on there cell then they would to someone there dining with, how is it a problem?

How loud do the people where you live tap on bdas? jeez.

How is talking about computer [problems any different then Car problems? TV problems? etc.

The problem here, my friend, is you.

Unless you mean people you are dining with. In that case, they are just being rude.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Too connected? by joeldg · 2005-12-23 06:42 · Score: 1

well, it used to be that being "into" computers was a geek thing and would socially isolate you (usually to the computer lab)..

go to any computer store now, you have all the cool kids in there fawning over the latest computers and if you don't have a computer you are considered strange.. And I read an article a while back about meeting women while computing and what computers are considered cool...

how funny the switch...

--
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
Re:Too connected? by Scoth · 2005-12-23 06:48 · Score: 1

I was meaning, occasionally, people I'm dining with. Otherwise, yes, people do tend to talk more loudly on cell phones than they do in person. Another thing I've noticed is people seem to go on at length about more personal things on the phone, often with the aforementioned loud voice, than they would in person. I really don't need to hear about my table-neighbor's irritable bowl syndrome while I'm eating. No idea what causes that partcular phenomenon but I'm sure I'm not alone in experiencing it.

I guess the annoyance with computer problems comes partly from my technical background, and people who tend to both go on at length about it without understanding it, and others nearby who go on at length about it as if they understood it. I expect anyone specializing in anything might find uninformed commentary on it displeasing.

I readily admit my problems :) I'm rather problematic. Much more interesting than being dull.
Re:Too connected? by tylernt · 2005-12-23 06:54 · Score: 1

I think many people are more "verbal" in email communication because of the pace. Face-to-face, dead air is a sin, so you're pressured to blurt half-cooked thoughts before they're done baking. In an email, you have time to think about how to word things so they sound somewhat intelligent. You can also edit things if you don't like the way it came out the first time, something that's impossible in voice (or IM, for that matter).

Asperger's or whatever, I think many people just don't think quite as fast on their feet. At least, I don't. :)

--
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
Re:Too connected? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-12-23 07:05 · Score: 1

My point was- for me in person, in real life, is just as much guesswork as e-mail. Verbal clues, posture, body language- these all go right over my head, they are meaningless to me. That's one of the determining factors between REAL Asperger's syndrome and the self-diagnosed variety. It can be a real headache (in more ways than one, another symptom for me is migraines) trying to figure out emotions- thus I'm much more comfortable with the emotionless nature of asynchronous text based communication.

As you say, even IM destroys the asynchronicity aspect- and thus I stay away from it.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Too connected? by mooingyak · 2005-12-23 07:18 · Score: 1

I have a 5 year old who currently is diagnosed as PDD-NOS, which will probably later be changed to either Asperger's or something in the same territory. I've been considering setting her up with an email account to try communicating with her (she's been able to read for almost 2 years now), as face-to-face conversation can be so difficult sometimes.

As someone who's been there, would you recommend this approach?

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Re:Too connected? by hesiod · 2005-12-23 07:23 · Score: 1

> I miss the days when I could go out and have a nice dinner without people yammering on cell phones, tapping on PDAs, talking about computer problems, etc.

Boy I miss the days when I could go out to a nice dinner without people yammering to the people across the table from them, forks and knives scraping against plates, talking about politics, etc.

Is it the talking that bothers you, or the phone's ringing? That's the thing that gets me. I realize that people have a tendency to speak louder into a cellphone than they need, but they are inconsiderate jerks because they are speaking loudly, not because they are speaking into a phone. Some people yell across the table: they are no less inconsiderate, IMO.
Re:Too connected? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-12-23 07:26 · Score: 1

Had it been available 30 years ago, it probably would have helped with me. I could read by age 3 also, but the real big plus will be in teaching her to type; many of these disorders come with associated nervous system disorders, which makes learning to write difficult at best. Be sure to turn on the spell checker in whatever e-mail program you choose for her; us early readers are word-recognition types and therefore sometimes learn to spell incorrectly from misprints in books.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Too connected? by hazah · 2005-12-23 07:31 · Score: 1

I'm no expert, but I wouldn't recomend that. She will need to learn how to communicate face to face eventually, and as her parent, you are in the best position to help her. If you're going to avoid this, there's no telling how/when she may learn, if she can learn at all from others (will they be as patient as you?). I also think you should be open with her, and explain, in plain english what she can expect. "When ppl roll their eyes, it can mean they are frustrated" or "If they stare into space, they are thinking about something" things like that, that would help her at least know *what* to pay attention to. From my limited understanding of these "conditions" (I hate that term), this is pretty much a textbook lesson, but I'm obviously not assuming it's that simple.
Re:Too connected? by PriceIke · 2005-12-23 07:50 · Score: 1

> Face-to-face, dead air is a sin, so you're pressured to blurt half-cooked thoughts before they're done baking.

What a great way to put it.

--
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Re:Too connected? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 07:58 · Score: 0

Verbal clues, posture, body language- these all go right over my head, they are meaningless to me.
I don't know much about your condition, but I am curious about something - can't you learn these by memorizing what they're supposed to mean, even though you may not be able to make an emotional connection to them? Why didn't the people treating your condition give you, say, a list of them for you to learn?
Re:Too connected? by LordSnooty · 2005-12-23 07:59 · Score: 1

how funny the switch...

And note what it was that helped technology & computers to cross that line... when they became tools to do everyday tasks, like make calls, send messages to keep in touch with people. Computers only became cool when they were all connected up.
Re:Too connected? by mooingyak · 2005-12-23 08:01 · Score: 1

I'm considering it for occaisional communications, not 100%. There are times when I have absolutely no idea what she has or hasn't understood. My thoughts on the matter are that if she CAN effectively communicate via written means, then it might be an excellent outlet for her to express herself sometimes. As near as I can tell, she has NO means of clearly communicating many ideas to people.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Re:Too connected? by pembo13 · 2005-12-23 08:05 · Score: 1

I think you need a Caribbean getaway, yes I am from the Caribbean.

--
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Re:Too connected? by Valar · 2005-12-23 08:05 · Score: 1

You see this all the time in the vicinity of colleges too. People are hanging out, on basically social occasions, but with gear in tow. I honestly don't think it is such a bad thing. It eliminates the need for tons of polite small talk, which no one really liked to start with, and you might just figure out that you have mutual interests.

Two people go to work on a group project for calculus, bringing laptops in tow to type up the report, use mathmatica, etc. Everyone is awhile they take a break. On one break, person A loads up some foo. Person B says "Oh, you're taking foo-ology? I'm a foo-ology major!" Person A: "Me too, what do you think of Prof Bar?"

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games
Re:Too connected? by mooingyak · 2005-12-23 08:07 · Score: 1

She can type (hunt & peck, but that's enough). She even gets the puncuation. She likes to put in www.nickjr.com, though it's in her favorites now so she doesn't type it anymore. The word recognition I've seen in action, it's occaisionally very confusing when she tries to use a word that she's never heard but has only seen written. The usage is usually correct, but the pronunciation can be a little funky.

Thanks for the info. I may just try this.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Re:Too connected? by bitspotter · 2005-12-23 09:08 · Score: 1

Move away from California. ;p
Re:Too connected? by mildgift · 2005-12-23 09:59 · Score: 1

Photography and film used to be for geeks too. It's a pretty technical field, and movie companies still have a big staff of techie people. The perception about it, however, is very different.
Re:Too connected? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 10:04 · Score: 0

It seems to me that people who know the least about technology are the ones who misuse it. My least tech savy friend answers his cell phone EVERY time it rings no matter when, where or what the situation is. And, technology allows me to spend more time with my kids. I'm keeping it!
Re:Too connected? by Moofie · 2005-12-23 10:55 · Score: 1

Why are you so worried about what other people do? I've got a good idea on how to improve society. Mind your own business.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Too connected? by Julian+Morrison · 2005-12-23 11:55 · Score: 1

"Sometimes I think people are a little too connected and socially technological these days." - Stuff and nonsense.

The problem isn't too much information or too much connectivity. The problem is rude people who impose their gadgets on others. This isn't something that calls for special technological manners. The principles can be generalized quite easily from the stuff your mamma taught you when you were five - like, don't talk loudly in a public area, and don't ignore the people you're with.
Re:Too connected? by ejp1082 · 2005-12-24 07:48 · Score: 1

I've done this and continue to do this - my laptop comes along with me pretty much anywhere I go socially, at least when I can reasonably expect to find a wi-fi connection. If my friends and I go to a coffee shop, we all have laptops, and essentially wind up surfing the web together - IM'ing links back and forth, chatting with people not present, and talking with each other at the same time. It's fun, it's convenient, and I daresay it's the norm for the current generation (a few years younger than me) that never knew a world where everyone didn't have their own cell phone or their own computer (or laptop).

And yeah, I've had dates like that too. If you just get together to hang out, the laptop is a part of it - not much different than watching a movie or TV with your date.

With regards to the many complaints of the annoyances brought about by technology - I think another poster nailed it when it was said that people have always been rude, technology just lets them express it in new ways. I get annoyed by obnoxious ringtones and the such too, but then I also get annoyed by any number of behaviors that have nothing to do with technology - yelling, poor hygiene, people that stand in the middle of a busy footpath, etc. So I have an easier time placing the blame where it belongs - people, not the technology.

Personally, I keep my cell phone on vibrate when I'm out in public, and I never raise my voice to talk on it - I'll step outside or resort to text messages if I have to. When I have my laptop in a coffee shop, I either have the volume muted or I'm using headphones. I don't believe I annoy anyone around me with it; the technology is fine when used appropriately.
Re:Too connected? by Busy · 2005-12-24 11:28 · Score: 1

It's true! I always get lots of dates when I promise to break out the graphing calculator!

--
Think of someone with average intelligence. Now think 1/2 the world is dumber than that guy.
Re:Too connected? by The+Cydonian · 2005-12-24 12:06 · Score: 1

Heck, I communicate with my room-mates over IM far more than actually walking down to their room and talking to them about something. While it certain has benefits, it also has downsides.
That's why I video-conference with my roomies.

--
More than mere navel gazing.
Re:Too connected? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-12-27 09:13 · Score: 1

I'm glad I came back to answer this- got caught up in a flame war and then Christmas and didn't get back here right away.

I don't know much about your condition, but I am curious about something - can't you learn these by memorizing what they're supposed to mean, even though you may not be able to make an emotional connection to them?

Yes, that's the primary form of therapy- created in the last 10 years or so. It's also similar to what most of us who were born far earlier came up with on our own- but think of it as a BASIC program in your head- everybody you see, every phrase you hear, every body posture you see has to go through a conscious IF-THEN-ELSE set of conditions. It's tiring at the very least- and it's so complex that without help and tutoring, it's downright imposible to pick up anything more than an approximate model on your own.

Why didn't the people treating your condition give you, say, a list of them for you to learn?

Mainly because I wasn't diagnosed until I was 30- and by then, I already had a somewhat accurate list of my own.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Girl gamers? by mister_llah · 2005-12-23 05:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

This could mean good things for the gamer guys... but something tells me that the author (whose photo looks rather mousey) ... won't be as lucky as others...

Poor guy!

--
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/

Re:Girl gamers? by decipher_saint · 2005-12-23 05:42 · Score: 1

Girl-gamers are an important technological breakthrough for gamers who want a mate that won't complain about multi-hour, semi-social gaming sessions.

--
crazy dynamite monkey
Re:Girl gamers? by SnowDeath · 2005-12-23 06:14 · Score: 1

Hate to break it to you, but girl-gamers are still girls and demand being taken and such just as much as non-gamer girls... I know, my girlfriend is a gamer.
Re:Girl gamers? by metlin · 2005-12-23 06:21 · Score: 1

Heh.

That female was talking about having guns in the sims. Seriously, what's the point of Sims again? I mean, isn't it a lot easier to live your real life than live it out in a virtual world?

Heck, if there were guns in the Sims, it'd have been a lot more interesting. Form gangs, fight evil couples blah blah.
Re:Girl gamers? by GungaDan · 2005-12-23 07:23 · Score: 1

"and demand being taken and such"

*muffledgiggles*

--
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!

Article hopelessly incomplete by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 05:34 · Score: 5, Funny

Says absolutely nothing about porn

Re:Article hopelessly incomplete by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 05:58 · Score: 0

Maybe he's trying to get lucky with the girl gamers? Regardless, I'm disappointed he fails to mention the rise of horny young men.
Re:Article hopelessly incomplete by hesiod · 2005-12-23 07:29 · Score: 1

> I'm disappointed he fails to mention the rise of horny young men

Do you really think young men are more horny these days than they were before? I don't think so. I believe it's more socially acceptable to talk about how horny you are to anyone and everyone. Unless you meant "rise" in another way, in which case I prefer not to comment.

Not to mention Podcasts: returning to old tech by goldenglove · 2005-12-23 05:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Seems we're also reverting back to old technology while developing new ones: Podcasts are simply unregulated radio, only the more advanced ones having video (Marcus Hates His Job) as an example. Technology is always advancing and changing our world, but it seems that as we advance, we often look back to old technologies and adapt to changing settings..

Re:Not to mention Podcasts: returning to old tech by goldenglove · 2005-12-23 06:44 · Score: 1

That website offers RSS (powered by my best friends site : kedora.org) http://kedora.org/show/marcus/feeds/advanced/ :)
Re:Not to mention Podcasts: returning to old tech by hesiod · 2005-12-23 07:35 · Score: 1

> Oh and my favorite is when they have that glass slider that they love to shut in your face

Working at a hospital with private Doctors' offices, I know that if they didn't close the window, the patients/customers would be constantly bothering them with questions they cannot answer, as if an open window is an open forum. Many times I've seen patients ask receptionists medical questions: she's not a freaking nurse, she's a secretary!

Also, sometimes receptionists do more than just answer phones, make appointments, and take messages. Admittedly, many of them are still jerks for the sake of being jerks.

How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 05:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

Surely, fire, flints and the wheel where once the techonologies that peoples used to enhance their lives in the way they saw fit.

Man is a technological animal - of course he (or she) will use new tech in a way that fits and enhances their way of life.

Where is the news here?

Re:How is this news? by geekoid · 2005-12-23 06:18 · Score: 1

The article is about how new technologies are being used, not that technology is used.

And, no, I certianly did NOT read the article.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Approaching overflow by mister_llah · 2005-12-23 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have to agree... with the internet expanding exponentially and more and more collaborative tools being concocted... there is a point at which there becomes just too much information out there...

Sure, you can find something on anything, but the lines of truth blur in the presence of so much information... and valid opinions and ideas become easier to overlook...

I don't know, there are definate upsides, it is easier to communicate with people who I couldn't keep in close touch with, but in the old days, they would have just slipped away... and one day wondered 'I wonder how mister_llah is doing?' ... and then they would call me... now... they will know, and won't call, the curiousity is sated....

Plus there is something to be said for face to face conversation and *whoa* physical contact... *shrug*

--
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/

Re:Approaching overflow by LionKimbro · 2005-12-23 08:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

What would you prefer as an alternative?

Would you rather have more valid opinions and perspectives expressed, and thus a blurier truth, or would you rather have a clearer truth, with fewer valid opinions and perspectives..?

In fact I think we will have both: We continue to find ways for our tools to help us organize our communications and information, and to help us form a clearer picture of a multiplicity of perspectives.

When I read what you wrote, I thought: "Whoah-- somebody feels that their version of the truth isn't the one that's being heard." I feel like you think that there are people who should be considering your thoughts, who should be communicating with you. But that they aren't. I would suggest that perhaps the Internet tools make that more possible, to do, and not less possible. Perhaps you just need to use the tools in front of you?

I think valid opinions and ideas are getting to be easier to find, not harder.

I'm also not clear on what you mean, when you said that the lines of truth are becoming "blury." Do you mean like: "I go to Wikipedia, and I'm not sure how much of what I see, that I can trust?"

I think that everyone's doing a lot more thinking about how our information and knowledge systems work. "Science. Okay, what is science, actually? How does that work? Why should we trust science more than other things? Is it a body of work, is it a process, what?" Perhaps it's just my company, but it does seem to me that these discussions are happening more frequently now.

I notice how much attention is paid to public opinion, and to who thinks what, and to who is advocating what and saying what is true. All of this points, to me, to greater fidelity in vision.

Before, people didn't know about these things. People literally thought that if it was printed in the paper, it was true-- and to be suspicious of anyone who thought otherwise. Wealthy people knew this, and they did purchace newspapers in order to control people.

Are the lines of truth more blury now, or in the past?

Perhaps they are blurier, but they're probably more accurate now.

Also remember, when you read that Wikipedia article: It usually has links to trustworthy sources. Let's look at Wikipedia:Common Cold, for instance. See at the bottom, you can get links directly to websites edited by MDs, and the Common Cold Centre.

It's so easy now to investigate why you believe what you believe, to investigate sources, etc., etc.,.

I think the truth is not getting blurred. We're just developing an understanding of the complex.

Necessity is such a mother... by ackthpt · 2005-12-23 05:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

This month I've conceded, again, to having a Cell Phone.

I was an early Adopter of cell phones back when they were bag phones (it still works and has power and range a hand held only dreams of!) Then I moved to a hand held Motorola unit, which would still nearly split a pocket in my jeans.

In 2000 I had been living in California and was searching for a while and found I needed one to secure a new appartment. Being able to get in touch or be got in touch with was a necessity as I found during the late dot-com era. I picked up one of those Micro Tac jobbies and found little use for it after scoring a new domecile and dumped service.

After a crash while cycling it became apparent I should again have one in the event of another serious injury (collar bone is healed nicely, but torn muscles are still giving me fits)

This go round is pay as I go. While doing some holiday shopping, however, I could scarcely believe my eyes on how many outlets there are for cell services. This crap must be hugely profitable.

Off topic humor, ">Not quite the Mona Lisa smile.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Necessity is such a mother... by xoip · 2005-12-23 08:08 · Score: 1

This go round is pay as I go. While doing some holiday shopping, however, I could scarcely believe my eyes on how many outlets there are for cell services. This crap must be hugely profitable.

Not as profitable as in the old days when the carriers paid dealers monthly residuals on every line they connected and a percentage of the monthly bills of each user. Nowadays the residuals are mostly gone.

Women gaming clubs by Rowan_u · 2005-12-23 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

As far as the article on women in games go, I'd like to agree with the social aspect. That is often what brings the women into gaming. I've seen women pick up titles as diverse as Burnout 3, Call of Duty, or Dead or Alive, but only after being dragged to a LAN party by significant coercion. Once games are properly experienced nobody (Male or Female) sets them down lightly. The games speak for themselves.

What is significant here is the gaming stereotypes that are keeping women away from gaming in the first place. You only need to turn on G4$ T.V. for approximately 5 seconds to see what I'm talking about. What you need to do to bring women into gaming is to stop marketing to 13 year old boys alone. It's pretty simple.

--
only one everything

Re:Women gaming clubs by GospelHead821 · 2005-12-23 06:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't think your assessment is entirely true. I think that the difficulty getting women into gaming is similar or identical to the difficulty getting women into the sciences. They're both on the rise, fortunately, but there is a social stigma present that is hindering progress. Very simply, gaming is perceived as a male pursuit. Although gaming companies often cater to this perception, women themselves often decide not to explore gaming simply because they've been taught to direct their energy elsewhere.

I have noticed this especially with regards to games that require analysis and strategy (although my examples come from the field of board games, the same trends apply to video games.) Plenty of women I know play games like Apples to Apples, Pictionary, Trivial Pursuit, and Balderdash. They're called "party games" for a reason. Their style of play lends itself to parties -- social events. Thus, they emphasize traits that women are encouraged to posess. Women are not encouraged to play analytical games, such as Risk or chess. Those are war games and "properly" belong to the domain of men. In short, women are encouraged to play games that emphasize cooperation while men are encouraged to play games that emphasize competition. Since most one-player video game modes are adversarial in nature, they will fall into a regime that women have not been encouraged to explore.

In reality, the problem is twofold. Although game manufacturers don't often emphasize traits of gameplay that hold traditional appeal to women, I think that society also establishes a standard for women that teaches them not to enjoy the sorts of games that are widely popular. This is not a new problem. Boys have always been discouraged from playing with dolls. Girls have always been discouraged from playing with toy guns. The real solution lies somewhere in the middle. Don't just make games that cater to traditional female tastes and don't just try to tell women that games really aren't for them. Instead, try to raise girls (and boys!) that are capable of appreciating a broader selection of themes and gameplay styles.

--
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
Re:Women gaming clubs by VegeBrain · 2005-12-23 06:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Once games are properly experienced nobody (Male or Female) sets them down lightly. The games speak for themselves. In my case games have spoken for themselves and I booted them out. I played a whole bunch of top of the line games of all types (FPS, RTS, Simulations, Civs) a few years ago and simply got sick and tired of the whole idea of spending seemingly endless hours glued to my computer screen clicking with a mouse and pecking at the keyboard. Nowadays I'd just rather relax or take a walk outside.
Re:Women gaming clubs by jcnnghm · 2005-12-23 06:59 · Score: 1

I'm male, and like almost all of you, I HATE g4. I actually find watching that channel to be mildly insulting (to me) and highly stereotypical. 43% of gamers are female, and only about 35% are under 18. (http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php) The dialog is mildly retarded, who exactly are they trying to appeal to, maybe they never checked out the demographics. Whoever is running that network needs to go watch every episode of The Screen Savers and Call for Help ever made, apply that formula to their video game shows, and stop dicking around, it's not funny and everyone (I hope) hates it.

--
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
Re:Women gaming clubs by mildgift · 2005-12-23 10:15 · Score: 1

I've met a lot of women who play video games. Because I program computers, they assume I'm also a "gamer," and they just bring it up in the course of conversation. I'm not a gamer, however. I just play the free games that come with the computer.

I think for many women, playing video games is mostly something they do for entertainment. It's not a major obsession -- though I have also known some women who are *really* into games. So it's not an across-the-board thing.

The main reason people don't think of video games as a thing for women is due to industry biases. Men invest in the games, men dominate the companies, men dominate the production, and men dominate the staffs. Men dominate the games media, and men often operate the game stores. This overabundance of testicles creates the social context for the acceptance of misogyny, of which there's plenty in the games.

Social change by defeating censorship by cryfreedomlove · 2005-12-23 05:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have a very positive emotional reaction whenever I see technology being used to defeat censorship from fearful totaliatarian governments around the world. This article describes how the current government of mainland China is struggling mightily to embrace information technology while at the same time censoring personal blogs. Their efforts are futile and I think that in 10 years you will see a very different system of government there.

Re:Social change by defeating censorship by welcher · 2005-12-23 06:31 · Score: 1

That is a rather rosy view of technology. It may well be that China will have a different system of govt in 10 years but it probably won't be because of bloggers. Remember that the protestors in Tiananmen square didn't need cellphones and blogs to organise one of the critical protests in the Chinese freedom movement. So often it seems that technologies are taken by governments and used against their citizens - a prime example is the plan for the British govt to monitor all road movements of vehicles with licencse plates (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,15932 63,00.html discussed on /.) Add this to logs kept of cellphone calls (coupled with triangulation), the ubiqitous CCTV cameras here and increasingly vague criminal notions like "antisocial behaviour" and you have a recipe for technological totalitarianism.
Re:Social change by defeating censorship by pembo13 · 2005-12-23 08:07 · Score: 1

If there new system of government becomes a bad thing, we are blaming you.

--
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Re:Social change by defeating censorship by cryfreedomlove · 2005-12-23 10:04 · Score: 1

Every coin has too sides. Oppressive governments can use technology for evil. They've been doing so since the beginning of time. So what?

The great thing about the www is that the barrier to entry for publishing ideas to a wide audience has been greatly reduced. It's a lot like the societal evolutions enabled by the printing press at the end of the dark ages. Don't you agree that decentralizing the ability to publish ideas to a wide audience is a welcome threat to secretive and oppressive governments whose very existence depends on hiding information?

This is true whether or not those same governments use technology for evil.
Re:Social change by defeating censorship by cryfreedomlove · 2005-12-23 10:08 · Score: 1

You can use your argument to appease all sorts of nastiness. Where does it stop? Where do you draw the line and say 'Enough!'.

The evils of Cell Phone use by timpintsch · 2005-12-23 05:48 · Score: 3, Funny

I used to rail against the evils of cell phone use, from 1998 to present as I worked at various ISPs and ISP like entities, everyone around me was showing up with new pretty cell phones that lit up pretty colors and played deceptively good midi ringtones. Constantly these phones were getting smaller, thinner, and louder. And now, I have one. I can blame marriage, I can blame my wife, I can even blame my stepchild. But at the end of the day, it was the hamster dance in Midi that finally sold me.

Mentifex AI Social Change by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 05:49 · Score: 0

AI has been solved not only in theory but in software.

C:\Windows\Desktop\Mind.html is a Seed AI that will soon bring about not merely social change but social upheavals with the disruptive technology of runaway artificial intelligence.

AGI Radar presents the most promising groups and individuals pursuing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

The AGI Mail List is where the greatest brains of social-change AGI spread the memetic pollen of Seed AI.

Mind.Forth is currently the most advanced open-source AI in the world.

Re:Mentifex AI Social Change by Guy+Harris · 2005-12-23 09:39 · Score: 1

I'll believe it, Arthur, when Mind.Forth gets an FP here.

They forgot something... by komodotoes · 2005-12-23 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is amazing to find out how technology is being used in very different ways for very different communities.

Like surveillance of the masses, more surveillance of the masses, tracking vehicle movements, really tracking vehicle movements, seriously tracking vehicle movements....

NeverEndingBillboard.com

--
NeverEndingBillboard.com

Re:They forgot something... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 06:27 · Score: 0

This is OT, but it needs to be said: Please don't sign your posts with advertisements. It detracts from otherwise good posts. At the very least, place the ad in your actual slashdot signature (and web address referral, of course), so that users who do not want to see ads can strip signatures from posts.

I see from your posting history that you have lots of highly-rated posts. I think you should be content that a reasonable number of people will follow up your good posts by going to your referral web page, or looking through your journal. You do not need to put the ad in your post itself.

It's up to you of course, but I think I'm not alone in my opinion.

--Your friendly neighbourhood AC
Re:They forgot something... by komodotoes · 2005-12-23 07:03 · Score: 1

Fair enough

--
NeverEndingBillboard.com

The Next Social Equalizer? by TheSixth1 · 2005-12-23 05:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

I see one of the big benefits of the spread of these new technologies is in the vein of social equality. Every few decades there seems to be a surge in society that, for better or worse, makes a great change in the way that people interact. I think the surge we are riding right now is acting as a social equilizer that has the potential to blind us to the bigotries triggered by economic status, religion, race, or whatever.

I am not saying that this technology makes everyone equal, but what I am saying is that this technology gives everyone the chance to start out on the exact same footing when they use these new technologies to interact. Whether you connect to the web via your own dual-processor hyper pentium uber-computer with a dedicated T1 at your house or from a free terminal at a public library, the packets are the same. At that point no one cares about your race, economic status, religion, whatever, the playing field is level for you to express yourself. Now, what happens after you post -- that falls back to the current social climate and really depends on what you the individual has to express.

A lot of hopeful thinking I know... but hey, it's that time of year.

Re:The Next Social Equalizer? by nanopolitan · 2005-12-23 06:58 · Score: 2, Informative

I am surprised BBC has chosen to highlight the computer and internet technology in India. To me, the real story is the mobile phones (which just gets an honourable mention). It has been the big story for the last several years; and I am sure it will be so for the next several too.

The early nineties saw the rise of manned pay phone booths. It was seen as a big deal, simply because it made telephones accessible to everyone (amd also gave employment opportunities to a lot of people). For the first time, those in government realized (from this live 'experiment') that poor people may not be able to afford a phone, but they certainly can afford phone calls. Still, it was mostly an urban or semi-urban phenomenon.

Then the mobile revolution started. It invaded regions that had never seen a phone. With greater competition, the price of phone calls kept falling, and at about 3 cents a minute for local calls (we are being told that our rates are the cheapest in the world. is it true?), they are affordable to large sections of people: fisherfolks, maid servantss, sales people, smalltime shopowners, taxi drivers, et al. So much so that cellphone subscribers now outnumber those with landline connections.

The revolution is getting deepened with the falling price of the handset. Just today, Motorola unveiled its cheap mobiles for Rs. 1,700 (just below $40).

Even though we have seen scorching growth rates in the telecom industry of over 50% in the recent past, this revolution is quite young; only 10-15 percent of the population is connected even now. Investors are clued into this huge potential; the stock prices of telecom companies are zooming up, up and away.

Given this scenario, I would still say the mobile revolution is far, far bigger than the 'rural internet cafe' that the Beeb seems to want to highlight.
Re:The Next Social Equalizer? by BluedemonX · 2005-12-23 07:35 · Score: 1

RE: I am surprised BBC has chosen to highlight the computer and internet technology in India.

Well, 65% of the British public want to know what's going on back home.

Not joking or being a moron about it either, just a statement of fact. India and England have a very close relationship and MANY dual citizens. I picked up my love for a good vindalu and pakoras living in the UK as a kid.

--

--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Re:The Next Social Equalizer? by Valar · 2005-12-23 08:25 · Score: 1

On a somewhat similar note, I think technology is making the nation state more and more irrelevant. What are becoming more and more important are communities people choose to join, instead of mostly being born into.

Think about it. The web allows you to share information with people around the world, regardless of whether the information is artistic collaboration or state secrets. Anonymyzing layers and encryption provide the protection. Technology helps _avoid_ surveillance as much as the other posters pointed out that it helps to surveil. Soon, electronic money will become more foolproof and more widely established, so that it will become less coupled to the highly regulated and watched credit system. This could make taxation an incredibly difficult challenge for nations.

Most importantly, techonology has the ability to rid us of scarcity , and thus the control our nations hold over us as allocators of goods. Without getting into economic-political rhetoric, let me note that even free markets allocate scarcity, and scarcity can drives any group to war.

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games
Re:The Next Social Equalizer? by Lord_Dweomer · 2005-12-23 08:29 · Score: 1

"but what I am saying is that this technology gives everyone the chance to start out on the exact same footing when they use these new technologies to interact"
Well...as much as I'd like to agree, that just isn't true. Education still plays a large role in how useful a piece of technology (read: a tool) is to someone. The amount of use they can get out of it is directly related to how much aptitude/education they have, along with a myriad of other factors.
Additionally, not all hardware/software is created equal. Its unfortunate...and while for simple text based communication purposes, they may be on equal footing...keep in mind that much of the world still can't do video chat etc due to economical issues.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:The Next Social Equalizer? by mildgift · 2005-12-23 11:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, maybe this is related to the fact that India was the UK's colony for a century.
Re:The Next Social Equalizer? by 12212012 · 2005-12-23 12:36 · Score: 1

At that point no one cares about your race, economic status, religion, whatever, the playing field is level for you to express yourself. Now, what happens after you post -- that falls back to the current social climate and really depends on what you the individual has to express.
I think you make some very good points. My social life in high school was primarily online (as well as pen-pals all over the world I've collected offline since beginning pen-palling at age 9). In school, and in my small redneck North Carolina town, I was constantly picked on and threatened for being queer, for being pretty radical politically, for having a then-pronounced stutter; but online, I could find communities where people shared some of my views (and even if they didn't share my views, they were at least willing to dialogue with me). Without the internet and the friends I made here, on Outminds, and on Livejournal, I think I would have fallen apart and been a hell of a lot more depressed than I was.

--
"of all worlds, may the good lord deliver us from a world where everyone ... is like his neighbor."
Re:The Next Social Equalizer? by nanopolitan · 2005-12-23 14:17 · Score: 1

Re: Well, 65% of the British public want to know what's going on back home.

Oops, I guesss I didn't make myself clear enough on this. My surprise is not about the BBC's actions. It is really about its highlighting of computers and the internet, instead of the mobile phone revolution. IMHO, the latter is the real story.

Negative changes, anyone? by tlk+nnr · 2005-12-23 06:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

What about negative changes?

UK plans to build a national database of all vehicle movements
European Commisions decides to create a database of all phone calls (Only numbers - the actual content will be added to the bill in two years), all sms messages (I'm not sure if the content is included)

I'm sure the US list is similar.

---

Please click me, it won't hurt

Re:Negative changes, anyone? by geekoid · 2005-12-23 06:22 · Score: 1

Those are only bad if they aren't properly controlled.
For example: law enforcement needs to go through checks and balances, and the data is not allowed to be sold, or used in any capacity for profit.

I large database with any of this data is fine, and handy when use approprietly.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Negative changes, anyone? by name773 · 2005-12-23 07:10 · Score: 1

it's very easy to use those things inapproprietly though.

Just a question. by Asakusa · 2005-12-23 06:10 · Score: 2, Funny

But how come they don't have photos of any cute girl gamers?

Is this because they don't exist? And I almost got my hopes up.

--
The prisoner of hope is sustained and encouraged by his hope, even as he is confined by it.

Re:Just a question. by m50d · 2005-12-23 06:35 · Score: 1

Oh come on, you're on slashdot. You can't have /standards/.

--
I am trolling
Re:Just a question. by Bob_Villa · 2005-12-23 06:55 · Score: 1

I actually had a girlfriend in college a few years ago who loved playing video games. She also liked watching Quantum Leap and a few other cool shows, loved reading and writing fan-fiction, and loved MacGyver. She was a really pretty redhead and I thought we were doing great, but I kissed her for the first time at her parents house (not around them and after we had been apart for three months), they found out and made her break up with me. I miss her sometimes, she was so much fun. My wife can't understand video games and has no interest. She'd rather go shopping. :( That's life, though. If you read Slashdot, Hi Christine!
Re:Just a question. by Asakusa · 2005-12-23 06:57 · Score: 1

Give me Christine's phone number. Now.

--
The prisoner of hope is sustained and encouraged by his hope, even as he is confined by it.
Re:Just a question. by Bob_Villa · 2005-12-23 07:06 · Score: 1

If only I had it, I lost touch with her after the break up and haven't seen her in years. She was my favorite girlfriend, and I wish I could have said something when she broke up with me and said her parents had decided she had to do it. I wish I could have talked her into still dating me. I was just so caught off guard after just moving back into my dorm room, and then she said it, left, and I basically never saw her again. They are one in a million, that's for sure, and she was an engineer, too. *sob*
Re:Just a question. by Eli+Gottlieb · 2005-12-23 07:21 · Score: 1

Wait a minute, why was she taking marching orders about her social life from Mom and Dad? She had moved out, right?
Re:Just a question. by hesiod · 2005-12-23 07:43 · Score: 1

A college-aged girl broke up with you because her parents made her? Wow.
Re:Just a question. by Bob_Villa · 2005-12-23 07:50 · Score: 1

No, I was going into my senior year, and she was going into her sophmore or junior year. She still lived at home on breaks and part of that summer where we were apart, but she also spent some time in Germany. She just did what they told her to, it was the way she was. She was shy and a good family girl.
Re:Just a question. by Bob_Villa · 2005-12-23 08:14 · Score: 1

You know what made it even worse, though, was the fact she spent part of that summer in Germany, and I spent hundreds of dollars calling as often as I could. I worked at an internship in Virginia and had two cute interns always flirting and trying to get me to cheat on her or break up with her and date one of them. I always told them no, I wanted to marry this girl. A girl who loves video games, MacGyver, and Quantum Leap? And she was a gorgeous redhead to boot. So I just kept telling them both no all summer long as they kept trying harder and harder. I go to see my girlfriend once after she gets back from Germany at her parents house, stay a couple of nights, and we have our first kiss. I find out from her that is her first kiss. Then I drove back, finished the internship and went back to college. When she got to college she came right up, and I offered to help her move in, and that is when she told me her family had decided we had to break up. I waited all summer for one kiss and to have her family pre-judge me and have us break up. I hate to admit it, but I cried for like an hour over the irony of it. After I got over her, I went to Yahoo Personals and met my wife there a couple of months later. My mom tried to force me to break things off with my wife once they met, and I told her to go to hell, and married my wife anyway. People shouldn't pre-judge until they know others better.
Re:Just a question. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 08:17 · Score: 0

Bob, this is your wife. We need to talk.
Re:Just a question. by Bob_Villa · 2005-12-23 08:21 · Score: 1

I telecommute, so my wife would just come over and hit me. Besides, I hear about her old boyfriends, so I can remember the old days with one of my old girlfriends too.
Re:Just a question. by Eli+Gottlieb · 2005-12-23 14:39 · Score: 1

OK, that's damn funny. Probably a random AC, though.

Ugh. by Golias · 2005-12-23 06:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Victims of the Tsunami disaster, Virtual Wallets in Japan, and the Indian government, bringing technology to rural areas, all have been touched by the positive use of technology.

Obviously grammar-checking is one area where technology still lags.

--

Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

Re:Ugh. by Jeng · 2005-12-23 07:02 · Score: 1

Although grammar checking is a technology that still lags, and is being worked on, you mind pointing out the grammatical errors to those of us who lack in grammatical skills?

I mean, if your going to be a grammar nazi, go all out!

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Does this apply? by Asakusa · 2005-12-23 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wonder if this feeling applies to solely older persons. Being 21 years old, I don't remember a time when you could go to dinner without people yammering on cell phones, as you point out. Having grown up with technology, it seems a natural order of life. I enjoy it. I use 3 different e-mail addresses, AIM, my cell phone, texting, Myspace and so on. I have about 7 ways to contact a single person, but it's convenient and it doesn't bother me. Maybe in 30 years when everyone is connected directly to the back of my brain I will reminisce about when we used to use cell phones and PDAs.

--
The prisoner of hope is sustained and encouraged by his hope, even as he is confined by it.

Re:Does this apply? by jacksonj04 · 2005-12-23 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

The next logical step would be turning those 3 emails, AIM, cellphone, myspace and so on into a single address.

When there's a single address which *will* get hold of you if you are available, there's only one thing to turn off.

--
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Re:Does this apply? by Lord_Dweomer · 2005-12-23 08:26 · Score: 1

Bingo. Welcome to societal evolution. No offense to the grandparent...but your views on technology overload are gradually being replaced by younger generations who have grown up with, and adapted successfully to, this new constant influx of information.
As someone who is 22, I remember a time before I had the the worlds information at my finger tips. But I shudder to think about what life would be like if I was still stuck in that time. I THRIVE on the constant information, and one of the reasons is because I've seen how much there is out there, and since I have an appreciation for how short life can really be I want to absorb as much as possible in my lifetime, which current technology is progressively allowing me to do.
Yes...I enjoy quiet time, but thats mainly just so my brain can sort things out and to let me recharge my batteries. There will always be times and places for that, but they will most likely continue to evolve along with the technology, so it probably won't be what you consider a proper time and place for peace and quiet.
Hope that wasn't too confusing...
Does anybody have any links to any papers that discuss and analyze what I've written? I'd love to read more on the subject since this is just conjecture based on my observations.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:Does this apply? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 08:30 · Score: 0

"...when everyone is connected directly to the back of my brain..."
...there will be no purpose for cellphones, pdas, etc and therefore the equilibrium shall return to quiet dinners... albeit, at that point, you will probably be home, alone, eating "single cell protein with vitamins and minerals" while the matrix tells your brain that the steak is juicy and delicious and your dinner partner will be a virtual interactive simulation in a red dress... but who am I to judge that particular scenario...
Re:Does this apply? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 08:53 · Score: 0

Ebbing sanity :
The fall of humanity, and an analysis of the pervasive psychopathy involved in the modern intrapersonal relationship and how it is exacerbated by technology
By Darien S. Acosta

Today, few would argue against the observed fact that as time presses forward it is human technology which will be sure to advance, and with the coming of these advancements, there will be clear and evident changes impressed onto human society. This idea, stated simply, suggests that our technology will grow and society will change so much as time continues to flow. However, even this simple, common sense statement inevitably bring forth a freighting question.
The question being : Is it true that the changes that we make in society lie inherently dependant on the actions stemming from and shaped by the traits of traditional human culture (Which itself can be defined as the expression of human emotions and of humanity), or whether actually, rather frighteningly, the changes taking place in society are marked solely by the progression of technology?
Perhaps this question may not seem as an immediately frightening, however another question must be taken into consideration for the sake of emphasis. If the changes we as humans create in society are simply the adjustments we make in regards to technology, then what room do we leave for the growth of the human culture or for that matter, humanity itself?
Indeed, as one may guess, we are leaving little room, and it seems increasingly to be the face that as technology grows it is our own collective societal will which seems to be placing sanctions on the progression of a culture based on the purity of emotions, idealism and art. More or less leaving society to be strictly defined by the advancement of technology; a continuing advancement whose purpose is fueled not by a means of survival, but rather for the accumulation of capital. This is all made apparent by the current nature of pervasive media, advertising, and the establishment of a popular culture.
It was physicist Albert Einstein who stated publically "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity." However, may I not be misunderstood, humanity and it's culture is not yet dead, simply dying, and yet, not so much as dying, but being replaced by something completely new, something less sentient, and in terms of psychology, sociopathic.
As humans living in society we are all educated and our education essentially consists of being taught to analyze the realm of reality as specific information. Using the skills of analyzation we are then taught, some of us naturally, to systemize data into lists and categories which, using our brains, we will link into a perceived meaning. As we age we are more or less socially coerced into forcing our brains to learn and to derive more and more meaning from our perceived reality.
Henceforth, by compulsive habit alone, humans will learn to systemize more and more aspects of their lives in order to continue to properly function on the level required by the changes of society, changes stemming from the implementation of new technology.
Still the analyzation, systemization, and interpretation of data received by the senses and processed by the mind is only one aspect of the purpose of the human brain; the other purpose is for the brain to experience emotions, for it is the experiencing of emotions which define humanity, culture and art. However, a typical brain, after being constantly immersed in a three dimensional environment where technology and information run rampant, will eventually learn to systemize emotions as well.
According to psychology, the act of systemizing emotions is known as one of the leading causes for a brain's personality to begin exhibiting sociopathi
Re:Does this apply? by Lord_Dweomer · 2005-12-23 09:29 · Score: 1

You sir, Mr. AC, just made my day. Talk about true holiday spirit...this would certainly have gotten a +5. Thank you.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Social Based Technology Change by catmistake · 2005-12-23 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think this is a case of wag the dog.

If one thing is clear from the history of technology, its that people do not change. Technology changes.

--
The Admin and the Engineer

Re:Social Based Technology Change by NOPteron · 2005-12-24 22:36 · Score: 1

Maybe that is true, of-itself, BUT

Agriculture remained, by-and-large, among the ones formed into it while growing-up, and if some agrarian population mixed geographically with some nomadic population, agriculture didn't take-over the nomads, the nomads just didn't establish+amplify their population, is all. . .

Moveable Type, Gutenberg's inventation, changed Humanity's process by to-great-degree democratizing publishing ( and therefore knowing ), and by changing-the-rules of perceiving/learning:
before then most were among
the Lower Tier of
the Two-Tiered Level-Playing-Field(tm), and
that invention changed our rules. . .

Anytime humanity's process changes, due to technology, it changes what ( portion/aspect ) of humanity survives now,
( though it may shorten our race's survival, since evolution doesn't think-ahead. . . )

highspeed internet, microwave ovens, "IM" ( though IRC seems to be better at knowledge-growing, and IM seems to be social-addiction in lieu of knowledge-growing ), the cellphone, websites reachable by anyone ( who isn't beneath Authoritarian Rule, and can afford the computer+electricity+access ). . .

These things change whom we interact-with, change how we interact, and therefore change the population that results, or is, next generation.

They also change our mind's forming, so that a brainscan of a young-person who's experiencing some particular instance of event won't experience it with the same kind-of brain-energy-pattern/shaping as what an old bastard like I would. . .

Which means that different human-potential manifestly-is, after-the-change. . .

Some schools of communications use video of that brain-scan-difference to hammer-home how
Making One's Work For One's Audience is something that cannot be based on the assumption
"They're All Like Me":
that one, IF one wants to communicate with a differently-formed group, has to understand their mode. . .

Marshal McLuhan's "The Medium Is The mAssage" was all about how electric technology changed US from river/story to modular/plugin mode.

( strange-capitalization is mine, spelling was HIS:
the bogo-meme that displaced what he said is pushed by
Mass Mindlessness, or MassMedia(tm), but
THINK, and DEMAND thinking, and one CAN gain,
in one's own evolving, damnit! )

PS: that "registry"-link is books I recommend to everyone, not "get 'em for me" ( you couldn't anyways: there's no address associated with that "registry" ). If you value using your remaining-life to make your-worth be your substance, actively, then consider 'em,
and if you consider any to be better, then tell me about 'em, please!
You can post a reply to any message of mine here on /. and I'll be notified 'bout it, which does-away-with spam-friendly e-mail. . .
And thanks in advance to any who clue-me-in to better/greater leverage, eh?

--
IPTables enhancement Fail2Ban bans cracker-login's
Re:Social Based Technology Change by NOPteron · 2005-12-31 06:39 · Score: 1

Here's a link to the genetic consequences of the technology of 'civilization', through the most-recent 500 centuries, in New Scientist

--
IPTables enhancement Fail2Ban bans cracker-login's

Welcome to America by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 06:23 · Score: 0

This is the end of the year.

When the end of the year comes, the American media does not publish real news.

They just publish retrospectives. Lots, and lots, and lots of retrospectives, consisting not of new information but simply information everyone already knew, only now packaged up all pretty.

Never mind if actual news is happening at the end of the year, of course. You know, like let's say a foreign country currently under U.S. occupation just underwent its first real and free elections ever, probably changing its history forever. Or let's say that the creationism-in-schools debate has just flared up again in a very real and serious legal way-- a mere month before a new supreme court justice, one with the potential to seriously change the ideological slant of the court, is confirmed. Or let's say that it has just been revealed that the President of the United States has been using the National Security Agency in an illegal and possibly impeachable manner. Or let's say that after a couple months of the military insisting that they cannot reduce the number of troops deployed abroad and denouncing the persons calling for such a reduction, the military has just quietly announced plans to begin reducing the number of troops we have deployed abroad.

Wait, that's all boring. Let's just stick with the year-end retrospectives. Oh look! A picture of a digital camera!

Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 06:26 · Score: 0

Hate to break it to you, but girl-gamers are still girls and demand being taken and such just as much as non-gamer girls...

And girls who demand being taken — presumably "right here, right now, you manly gamer you" — are a drawback how?

My vote goes to the oral contraceptive by mc6809e · 2005-12-23 06:35 · Score: 1

Sure. It's 1940's technology, but really, has there been anything else that has created so much social change and is STILL creating social change?

We still don't know what the long term social effects will be, on the West especially, for another 50 years.

Re:My vote goes to the oral contraceptive by Rude+Turnip · 2005-12-23 07:02 · Score: 1

"We still don't know what the long term social effects will be, on the West especially, for another 50 years."

Fewer people?

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:My vote goes to the oral contraceptive by hesiod · 2005-12-23 07:51 · Score: 1

> > We still don't know what the long term social effects will be,
> Fewer people?

Amazingly enough, I don't think oral contraceptives will stop too many pregnancies ;)

I miss the days... by Belial6 · 2005-12-23 06:38 · Score: 1

I miss the days when neo-luddites were less prevelent.

"yammering on cell phones" = yammering to the person sitting next to you "tapping on PDAs" = scratching on paper with a pen "talking about computer problems" = talking about anything your not interested in

Your problem is that you hate technology just for the sake of hating technology. The only difference between you and the Omish is that the Omish don't run around whinning about how everybody else isn't Omish.

All of your complaints existed just as much before 1980. They just used diffent equipment.

Re:I miss the days... by Scoth · 2005-12-23 07:05 · Score: 1

Neo-luddite? I'm as much a gadget freak as anyone. I just prefer people who use their technology responsibly and in a non-invasive manner. Granted I dislike people talking louding to people near them as much as I do people talking loudly into cell phones, it just seems like cell phones induce it.

As for talking about computer problems, I'm a computer geek. Seriously. I was the kid typing BASIC into the Apple IIs in elementary school, on up to running Gentoo on anything I can get my hands on today. It's probably this that makes it annoying because everywhere I go I'm treated like mobile tech support if it slips out. Several years ago I was eating dinner at a restaurant with my family and someone at the next table overheard some comment I made about something that happened at work and they actually *went out to their car* and brought their laptop in and wanted me to fix it (they'd hosed the master boot record, simple fdisk /mbr fixed it).

Incidentally, I do have Mennonite heritage, though not Amish. But please, think a bit before criticizing before you put your foot in your mouth again :)
Re:I miss the days... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 07:07 · Score: 0

It's 'Amish', dumbass. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you don't even embrace proper spelling and grammar? I had to read this comment twice before I realized what the fuck you were trying to say.
Re:I miss the days... by orasio · 2005-12-23 07:38 · Score: 1

And did they pay your dinner, or something?
Or you were happy with just the fuzzy feeling of being Bill's free 24/7 tech support?

Technology becomes commonplace by Ucklak · 2005-12-23 06:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

I want my lightsaber and a personal transporter.
I do not want a flying car because that means that the drivers who are idiots will then be in the air. (Disclaimer-I am a pilot)
I don't want technology displacing pilot education and the requirements to become a pilot.

There are a good bit of us here that remember when-
you couldn't buy a phone, you had to rent them.
when Russia was the bad guys. (anybody born in the '90s -huh?) Now everyone has a spycamera.
Pull strings on toys. (Today's See and Says are battery powered, Mrs. Beasley - huh?)
Movies used to have cartoons in front of them
I remember the MGM movies had Tom and Jerry, UA movies had Pink Panther. Now it's only Pixar and commercials.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.

Re:Technology becomes commonplace by PriceIke · 2005-12-23 08:20 · Score: 1

I want a flying car because the human occupant will not be flying it. The computer (SkyNet?) will be in control of the vehicle at all times. That will seriously rock .. I just hope I get to see it in my lifetime.

--
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.

On the Internet ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 06:41 · Score: 0

On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. They can, however, usually tell whether you are a total fuckwad.

facebook by SnprBoB86 · 2005-12-23 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

I am amazed that no one has mentioned http://www.facebook.com/
facebook has had an increadable impact on the social lives of college students.

Not to mention, it is an increadable well designed web app.

--
http://brandonbloom.name

Re:facebook by ZaadzBri · 2005-12-23 07:45 · Score: 1

Agreed! We're working on a social networking site all about inspiring and empowering people to go out and change the world: http://www.zaadz.com./ Won't be "officially" launching till early '06, but we're pretty excited about it.

-brian

http://brian.zaadz.com/
Re:facebook by Lord_Dweomer · 2005-12-23 08:45 · Score: 1

Facebook is great except that like all communication outlets...it has become a haven for spammers. They really won't cut down on it till they offer an easy process for marking a spammer....like a "Mark this message sender as a spammer" link on the spam message. Its too much of a pain to go to their profile and report them. It would take forever to get them all.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:facebook by metaphorever · 2005-12-23 12:36 · Score: 1

I've only used facebook for a couple of months, so perhaps I have simply not encountered this spam you're talking about. My impression, however, was that you could only create a facebook account if you had a valid .edu email address at a real college. That, to me seemed like the real revolutionary aspect of facebook, that it guaranteed that everyone was really a college student, or was at least part of that college community. There may be some workaround that these spammers are using to create new email accounts or something, but that's the college's problem, not facebook's.

--
If people continue to abuse this feature, I will have to remove it. - Slashdot Comment Box, 1998
Re:facebook by castoridae · 2005-12-23 13:49 · Score: 1

I agree that facebook is well-designed, for what it is, and that it's having an impact, but I'm not convinced it's a positive impact. The dynamic is that because you approve some profile via email, you are "friends" with a person. I think this blog entry (not mine) states it much more clearly than I could, in the context of networking: http://www.ianybarra.com/blog/archives/2005/08/fac ebooking_is.htm

On top of that, there is the dark side of facebooking - it's public. Someday someone is going to see something you wrote that you don't want them to see. And you really can't censor yourself completely, and still *be* yourself...
Re:facebook by SnprBoB86 · 2005-12-23 15:34 · Score: 1

I visit facebook practically every day. Hell, I have been there maybe 20 times today due to wall updates (it's my birthday). I have never seen any of this spam you are talking about. There are a few fake profiles on there because some of the more tech-savy students know you can create a secondary email address at my school. But, generally, the fake profiles are fun. I am "friends" with Slimer from Ghost Busters and Peter Griffen from Family Guy and a few other dopey characters just for laughs. I did once get a friend request from someone who was apparently mass-friending people to set a facebook record (presumably with a bot). Also, a friend of mine discovered a bug that enabled him to write a script to poke everyone in my entire school, but less than a day later they patched the hole, erased all of those pokes and shut down his account. I think the facebook team is very good at keeping their network clean.

--
http://brandonbloom.name
Re:facebook by SnprBoB86 · 2005-12-23 15:43 · Score: 1

As with everything, there are high points and low points to facebook.

A lot of people just amass friends to appear popular or just because they are bored. I've probably got a dozen people on my friends list that I have only ever talked to once, but who cares? It's not hurting anyone.

With facebook I have... ...organized parties ...found people to study with ...caught up with old friends ...laughed quite a few times ...shared things that have certainly made others laugh ...easily retrieved contact information ...shared pictures ...killed a lot of down time ...and much more

I know people who have used facebook to... ...find a tabletop gaming group ...advertise effectively to our school ...recruit actors for a the school dramas ...and much much much more

Those are all positives, what's a negative?
Well some girl got stuck in an elevator and some dumb ass kid refused to help her because after she told him her name he looked her up on facebook and didn't think she was hot enough to rescue. Is it facebook's fault that this guy was a dick? Luckily some not-so-evil people were around to help her.

Sure many people I know now call it "the stalker directory" after I once referred to it as that. But I'll be damned if it's not fun, addicting, and useful. If you're afraid of it, don't join or just keep a minimum profile.

--
http://brandonbloom.name

Paperless office? by Urusai · 2005-12-23 06:56 · Score: 1

This reminds me when LANs became more common they were touting the eventual "paperless office", with all documents handled electronically. Well, guess what, computers have caused a paper explosion as anyone can churn out thousands of pages of drivel at a click. Documents today look prettier but little things like proper speling, grammer and, punctuation, are far worser and also content sux0r hehe omfgwtf jamez joice wud be prawd strm of conciousnes watever crap u think come out cuz u dont haf to be rite just run spelchekr and all good too easy to write stuff so all the crap come out ppl just doan givafux0r since evryone else duz it it dont look bad lol gawlly mah nutz itch gotta scratchum ma beer almost spilt dangit blah blha loll SORRY MY CAPSLOCK WAS OFF I ONLY BIN ON INTERWEB YESTARDAY LOL FORGOT U GOTTA KEEP CAPSLOCK ON ROFL ;) >:P DIGG????/?!///!!1

Re:Paperless office? by PriceIke · 2005-12-23 08:06 · Score: 1

That's PRICELESS ... loved it, laughed at it, saved it.

--
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.

You are overreacting. by master_p · 2005-12-23 07:21 · Score: 1

I've never seen a case were a dinner is constantly interrupted by cell phones,PDAs etc. Usually when people come to a dinner, even a professional one, it is because they are important to them, so they really pay attention to the conversation. Those that pay too much attention to their devices are usually considered rude.

As technology invades our lives, so will changes come. But that's not a problem, and it will certainly not be in the future where technology will be almost invisible.

No foot by Belial6 · 2005-12-23 07:45 · Score: 1

There was no foot in mouth,(other than maybe spelling Amish with an O). You agree that the problem is loud talking, and not the phone itself, yet you still complain about the phone. You admit that the tech problem is your, yet you compain about the PDA.

As for your laptop experience. Did you know that people in all sorts of industries get that kind of treatment? Did you know tht doctors get asked by people they don't know for medical advice? Did you know that lawyers get asked by people they don't know for legal advice? That's right. Your problem isn't that people ask for computer advice. It is that people ask for advice. Again you attribute a non-technical problem to the tech. That is a neo-luddite attitude.

You did ad hypocrate to the description though. You complain about people talking about computers in a restaurant, then tell how when YOU talked about computers someone bothered YOU. You seem to have a serious case of the 'my shade of gray is better than your shade of gray's'

Re:No foot by Scoth · 2005-12-23 08:06 · Score: 1

Never said I was talking about computers ;) Anyway, you're reading far too much into what were intended to be quick, general statements about everyday life as they related to the topic. Naturally it happens to doctors and lawyers, but the article was about technology in social situations. I was referencing the more philosophical issues regarding someone absorbed in their own work rather than perhaps interacting with their world around them. Again, I realize the same could be said of a book, magazine, or newspaper, but I was relating it to the topic at hand and how there are an ever-increasing number of things to be absorbed in. I could certainly spend several paragraphs making greater specificity in my posts, but this is /. :)

By the way, my shade of gray *is* better than your shade of gray :) Although I prefer a bit more silveryish.

real social change by rodentia · 2005-12-23 08:03 · Score: 1

I'll get excited when I see the collective realization that just the technology we currently have enables the defeat of many entrenched, obsolete social constructs.

It's the withering away of the state; Lenin forsaw it but mistook it. It turns marxism and capitalism both ass-over-teakettle.

Why not use these techniques to defeat fearful democratic and republican governments, as well? They are equally egregious, just the authoritarian regimes are less duplicitous and a damn sight rougher.

--
illegitimii non ingravare

the entitlement mentality by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 08:14 · Score: 0

It seems to me as though technology is and will be used to protect the entitlement mentality of the wealthy and connected. See the DMCA, digital switchover, ID data being stolen/sold, etc. Rude people on cellular phones will be the least of our worries as the slide downward continues.

Its young women by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 10:07 · Score: 0

"Teens always find a way to be loud"

Disagree. I take the commute train to London regular enough and I've noticed something quite astonishing about the demographic for rudeness. It isn't the teens. In England we have special "quiet" carriages where you are forbidden to use phones and personal stereos. I always make for those carriages if I can because I like to read good old fashioned dead tree material when I travel. The one group of transgressors who consistently ignore and think themselves above the rules are women in their 20s and 30s. They seem to have the most outrageously entitled, sociopathic disregard for others. Teenagers, and men of the same age group generally seem to have more respect for the rules.

The illusion of connectedness by sjames · 2005-12-23 12:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

It seems that the more 'connected' a person makes themselves through technology, the less they actually connect. Just how meaningful can a conversation be when it consists of:

RING

Hello?

A: Hi Z! How's it going *BEEP*

Z: Hang on, another call *CLICK* Hello?

B: Howsit going?

Z:It's cool, but I'm on another call, can I call you back?

B:Sure, cool.

Z: *CLICK* Hey man, sorry about *BEEP*, hang on...

C: Hey man, whatcha doing?

Z: Actually, I was just talking to A, can I

C:Hey! I haven't heard from A in a while, tell him to call me when you're Done.

Z: Sure, talk in a few. *CLICK* Sorry man, Hey, I just heard from C, he said *BEEP* hang on...*CLICK* Hello?

C: Hello!

A:Hey C! Whatcha up to?

C: I'm sitting right next to you. We're on a date remember?

A: WOAH! Sorry about that, so why'd you call me on the phone?

C: That's the only

Z: *BEEP* hang on a sec, I gotta answer that *CLICK*

E: Hey man, what's up?

Z: I'm on a date with C! How 'bout you?

E: Just chilling man

A: Hey? Where are you going? What's wrong? Man WOMEN. I can't believe she just walked off without saying a word. OH MAN she HUNG UP on me too!

E: Yeah, go figure *BEEP* Hold on man *CLICK*

That MIGHT be a little exaggerated, but I doubt it.

Agree x 100 by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-23 14:28 · Score: 0

I've taken to putting people who do this on my enemy list even if i agree with the majority of their posts. ~ Tezkah

Slashdot Mirror

Technology-Based Social Change

132 comments