Slashdot Mirror
Time Magazine Person of the Year — It's You
Thib writes to point out that Time Magazine has picked you — or us, or the Internet — as Person of the Year because you control the Information Age. From the article: "But look at 2006 through a different lens and you'll see another story, one that isn't about conflict or great men. It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes."
How are you, gentlemen?
How could Time pick such a self-absorbed, idiotic loser as Person of the Year?
They should have spelled it "YUO". That would have been funny.
In truth it's Time acknowledging we are a narcacistic society.
Inanimate carbon rod.
Let me be the first to say how lame Time was picking this, when Salon made a much more interesting pick.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
My resume will now say "Time Person Of The Year 2006"
They passed on naming Osama bin Laden in 2001. The original intent was to name the person with the greatest impact. In 1938 Hitler was Man of the Year; in 1939 it was Stalin, just because the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact gave Hitler breathing room to invade the rest of Europe.
In 2001 bin Laden was obviously the personage with the most impact, but people have come to see Person of the Year as laudatory, so now Time is constrained to pick popular figures rather than infamous ones, even if it's the infamous who mattered more.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Even ignoring that we are a collective and not a person this is kind of corny. It's awesome they're recognizing the trend towards internet communities of individuals working together for the common good but I can't help thinking that this is a cheesy publicity stunt to increase subscriptions.
Haiku for you!
And here I was, thinking they were going to pick everyone else!
Oh happy day.
It comes with a prize right? It has to come with a prize. What? It doesn't??? Lame. Give it to someone else then.
It seems like person of the year is some kind of endorsement these days. They used to just give it to whoever was the most important person of that year or changed the world the most. In the past this has included people who changed the course of world history like Stalin and Hitler. These days they would never put someone like that up as their person of the year. They seem to be focused on picking a choice which is either feel good patriotic (like the president if it happens to be a year when his approval rating is high) or gimicky (like this) in the past decade or so. It is a great example of how journalists in our society are paranoid of saying anything that could be taken as an endorsment of terrorists or any other axis of evil folks these days.
... aimed at a narcissistic society.
And it will work. This issue will be one of the biggest sellers ever.
No individual recognition. Less money than a nobel. Lame.
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
When the Constitution was drafted, the president was specifically not meant to be a monarch or figurehead of extreme distinction. My understanding is that the honorific "Mister" has always been acceptable for a president, sitting or otherwise.
But here is what NPR has to say on the matter:
Breakfast served all day!
George W is going to read this.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
This pick is certainly more appealing than next year's pick: The Machines.
2*31*37*263
I for one would like to welcome myself as our new digital overloard.
Table-ized A.I.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.