I don't have kids of my own, but I do work with other people's children in education and recreation. In that context my answers would be:
For games, a mixture. I look for games that allow children to express themselves either creatively or constructively. In some cases, modern games are excellent. An example would be Minecraft. In other cases, older games are wonderful. Think Simcity (the different versions are also good for different ages or levels of sophistication).
In the context of computer skills, I prefer modern vintage. Old system software doesn't necessarily teach contemporary skills and frequently has a high barrier of entry for fairly basic skills. Why would I want to spend time teaching command line utilities just because they are scriptable? (Worse, why would I want to expose them to archaic GUIs as a crutch when they would be expected to use modern GUIs as a crutch in the modern world?) A similar parallel can be drawn for programming. BASIC, C, and Pascal probably won't be in common use when they grow up. So I prefer to use something like Scratch. That won't be in common use either, but at least it allows the to focus upon programming concepts like control structures and concurrency without the hurdles of things like syntax errors.
I work around plenty of teens and young adults who persistently access social media, simply because it is more interesting to them than the world around them.
These teens are by no means locked out of the real world by over zealous parents. These teens are active in their schools and in many cases their community.
While I can't speak for teens as a general population, the ones that I am exposed to are "addicted" to social media for reasons other than just their parents. (Parents may have some responsibility for not setting guidelines on social media use, but it isn't because they locked their kids away.)
Welcome to the tribe of loner, where everyone thinks that they're unique and that everyone else is the same.
I have a surprise for you: you are probably less unique than you think and other people are more diverse than you think (even when they are a part of a group).
In all likelihood, algorithms such as the one mentioned in the article can bin you just like it can bin anyone else. In all likelihood, the bin will accurately profile you within statistical uncertainties. Chances are that those statistical uncertainties are sufficiently large that it allows you to maintain your status as an individual (ditto for all of those other people who you seem to think agree on things).
I don't see anyone complaining that nursing or primary school teaching is sexist, yet those professions have a definite bias towards one sex.
Actually, many jurisdictions view the female bias of primary education to be serious problem because it is seen as having a negative impact on academic performance among boys. Among other things, it is being blamed for the lower literacy rates and higher dropout rates of boys.
While surprising, the results do make some sense. IP laws are only meaningful to companies that have the means to sue. They would also have to look at the return on investment for launching legal action. A small business on the east coast is unlikely to sue another small business on the west coast simply because there is no return (i.e. no overlap in potential clients).
IP is mostly geared towards the interests of large entities and multinational entities: businesses that have both the means to sue, and where their market is large enough that it is likely to overlap with someone else's market.
Asimov's writings were obsessed with the lone scientific genius, a genius so great that no one could recreate their work. That was certainly true with the development of the positronic brain, where it seems as though only one scientist was able to design it and everything thereafter was tweaks. None of those tweaks were able to circumvent the three laws (only weaken or strengthen them). No one was able to design a positronic brain from scratch, i.e. without the laws.
Real science, or rather real engineering, doesn't work that way. Developments frequently happen in parallel. When they don't, reverse engineering ensures that multiple parties know how things work. We don't have a singular seed in which to plant the three laws, or any moral laws. One design may use one set of laws and another design may use another set of laws. One robot may try to reserve human life at all cost. Another may seek to destroy the universe at all cost. There is no way to control it.
Then again, that assumes that we could design stuff with morality in the first place.
One of the features of open source software is that the code, thus the algorithms, can be examined by a third party. In the case of chips, this is very difficult to do. Most people are stuck trusting that the designer implemented the algorithm they said they did, and that they implemented it properly (the former implying no malice and the latter implying competence). That is particularly true for something like random number generators, which are intended to be non-deterministic as far as the software is concerned so any testing the implementation can only be done statistically. Very few people have the ability to examine the physical design of the chip to check the actual implementation.
Seriously. Even though I'm sure there are some great uses of technology in schools today, the education systems that I have worked with made two critical mistakes.
1. Deciding that technology should be integrated into the classroom, rather than being a dedicated subject. In theory, this sounds great. In practice, very few teachers have computer skills beyond word processing and web browsing. This means that kids are typically exposed to computers as writing and research tools, but little else within the core curriculum.
2. Promoting a philosophy that kids know more and are more adaptable to emerging technologies. This is only true because schools are unwilling to hire people with the skills necessary to teach courses using the contemporary tools. Even then a teacher with a couple of hours of professional development will have more computer skills than most children because adults have a nasty tendency to confuse seat time with proficiency.
Don't get me wrong. I'm confident that some great videos will come out of this competition. There are excellent teachers and teachers who excel at integrating technology into the curriculum. But I would not take these videos as representing the norm. They are actually representing an idea.
I love how Starr feels compelled to determine the restaurants policy: if the staff member was enforcing a policy, then Starr feels that it is inappropriate; if the staff member wrongly told him to remove his gadget, then Starr feels that it is his place to dictate the disciplinary action (and suggests an action that most likely violates labour laws).
I'm sorry Mr. Starr, but you entered a private establishment. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. If you don't like it, you are permitted to voice your concerns. Yet you are by no means entitled to enter that business and you are by no means entitled to tell the owner how to discipline their staff. Even though it may seem obvious to you that the business is losing your business, it is by no means obvious what would happen if the restaurant bent over backwards to keep your business. You may be driving other customers away with what is (at least currently) an idiosyncrasy or you may be making the staff uncomfortable.
Maybe the objections and discomfort will dissipate with time. Even then, Mr. Starr, you aren't in the right. You aren't in the right because you are demonstrating your sense of entitlement, your sense that you're the only person that matters. You aren't the only person who matters, and you have very few entitlements when you are in a private venue.
Whether or not this becomes a freedom of speech issue depends upon many factors, one of which is the definition of free speech. Personally I draw the line at encouraging people to commit material crimes (e.g. murder) and at intentionally fabricating false information with the intent to harm others (e.g. accusing a person of rape when they did not commit that crime). Yet even if we all agreed upon that definition, there is the question of exactly what constitutes extremism and how that translates into law enforcement in practice.
For example: I am perfectly fine with a bunch of people with extreme views discussing how terrible the government is and how it should be changed, and I am fine with them spreading their message. It doesn't matter whether I agree with them or disagree with them. I am even fine with them discussing legal means of changing the government in order to reflect their perspective, even though I would be sure to oppose such changes if their views are actually that extreme. Yet I do have an issue with the promotion of violence and inciting terror in order to impose their views upon others. There are ample reasons for that, ranging from the intimidation tactics that people use in their everyday life to impose their will upon others to more extreme political movements that have resorted in anything from wholesale oppression to genocide.
Non-democratic governance is common in the modern world, it's just that we have a tendency to call them dictatorships. We call them that for a reason. While the "well meaning" dictatorships claim to represent the interests of the people or the nation, they ultimately represent only a portion of the population with little hope for change outside of revolution. Now this may seem fine if you're in that portion of the population, may that portion be a relatively small "aristocracy" or a relatively large social class (as some communist regimes claim). It is unlikely to seem fine if you are unhappy with your situation, or outright repressed, because there is no room for change.
Even though you can whip together a simple controller for $10 (including labor) from a few switches and bits of wire, doesn't mean that you've accomplished the same thing as Microsoft.
On the technical end, you're dealing with a fair bit of electronics and software to support everything from reading a button's state to streaming audio from the console. On top of that, they have to consider factors such as ergonomics and marketing. For a company like Microsoft with competitors like Nintendo and Sony, it is best to do their homework first even if it ends up costing a lot more.
Free trade agreements are complex because you are dealing with nations with different laws. The classical examples are the cost of labour or agricultural subsidies, which may give industry in one nation a distinct advantage and result in the destruction of industry in another nation Another example, and one that has popped up a lot lately, has been the protection of service industries that are public in one nation and private in another (like health care).
Now you could write a simple free trade agreement if you wanted, but very few people want that. Very few people want that because it would be a race to the bottom.
Some science is destructive, while other science isn't. A lot of it depends upon the research objectives, as well as the available methods to conduct that research. In a lot of cases it is even imperative to do non-destructive studies, either for reasons of conscience or to generate reproducible results.
Examples:
We study stellar evolution through observation, because we are limited by the methods available.
We study subatomic particles by smashing things together because we can only observe their interactions (i.e. we cannot observe them directly).
We study many parts of the body using MRI because it is both unethical to destroy the subject and because it produces better results.
Even if the curriculum did have some value, good luck in getting teachers to teach it. The second that the first student asks, "did you pirate this worksheet," the teacher decide never to teach it again.
(Note: since it's backed by the MPAA, I suspect that it is a highly distorted view of copyright and that the curriculum doesn't have value because of that. That said, copyright itself does have value.)
Following the rules and regulations depends upon a lot of factors.
For example: you are probably going to follow obey early in the process. Your goal should be to get your message out in order to gain public support, and hopefully end up with a completely peaceful resolution. You should only be escalating the issue if that doesn't work.
For example: you are probably going to obey if there are hot-heads in your midst. You may know the rules of peaceable defiance, but the person next to you may be looking for a rouse. In that case, they are your enemy rather than the officials.
For example: you are probably going to obey if there is no clear plan for how to oppose. You should only be crossing police lines if there is a destination in mind, a plan for the protest at that destination, and a plan for dealing with the inevitable conflict created by crossing the lines.
For example: you are probably going to obey if the issue lacks urgency. If your opposing a law that is in first reading, then your goal is to get the message out. If the law is close to passing, you may want to bring the protest to the steps of the legislature.
Also keep in mind that as a protestor you may not have the public's support or you may just be wrong. Protests are in no sense democratic. They are a reflection of the sentiments of a particular group of people. Sometimes that group may be in the majority, but they are often in the minority. They are good for rallying support and should probably be used as an indicator for when something should face a referendum. They should not be used as a basis for the actions of government, unless those actions are in clear violation of the law.
Much like mathematics, our society has a tendency to treat computer programming as something exceptional. At best, it is treated as the domain of the very bright. At worse, the people who are passionate about it are seen as weirdos. That is a huge problem.
Even though people can muddle through life without these skills, they could do a lot better if they had those skills. Take the simple matter of money. As an individual, programming (and math) can help you save money. As a business person, programming (and math) can help you run a business more efficiently. This is the case because these skills are extremely useful in decision making processes. Programming can help you obtain and process large amounts of data in ways that prepackaged software wonâ(TM)t. Mathematics will help you find ways to optimize outcomes.
The problem is that a lot of people simply donâ(TM)t understand that. They would rather use their instinctive responses, or rules of thumb (which are often untrue) than actually analyze a problem. The origins of that attitude are likely due to a lack of education: they either missed the motivation behind what they are learning, or they are dismissive of it because they failed to learn the skills. And yes, that needs to be overcome.
My (admittedly limited) experience on Facebook suggest that people who are engaged with current events will link to stories, and others will comment on them or like them. That doesn't seem to be all that different from what happens on Slashdot or forums. The difference is in the depth of that layman commentary and how well you know the people involved in the discussion.
So it's not that Facebook is the source of the news. I would be horrified if that was the case. Facebook is simply being used to connect people to the news, and those links may be to more reputable sources. There is reason to be concerned about the bias that a person finds within their own social circles, but you get a lot of bias from sites like Slashdot and forums anyhow.
One thing to keep in mind is that these are videos of crimes. That is certainly the case in the Mexican excample that I saw cited.
I'll leave it up to you whether you support the posting of videos of crimes, but I don't see a good reason for it. Even in the cases of political speech and exposing human rights violations, you rarely need to resort to messages that are so graphic.
Most of what I watch is free and legal. In theory, it is advertiser supported, since there are commercials if I watch shows in the evening. Yet if I watch late at night, I rarely even see a commercial.
In my mind, that doesn't make sense. Advertising is a way to generate revenue, so forgoing advertising late at night seems like a lost opportunity. It is not as though advertising is inherently bad either. I am perfectly fine with advertising in moderation (i.e. less than half of what is on broadcast TV) and if it reflects the content rather than the consumer (i.e. I don't like tracking). To the unnamed broadcaster who is streaming the unnamed shows to me: you are welcome to generate some revenue from my viewing habits. Be reasonable about it so that you don't alienate me in the same way that over the air broadcast TV or cable TV channels have alienated me, but I do respect your right to earn money for the services rendered.
I do pay for one fee based streaming service. Their model doesn't make sense either. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the opportunity to watch series and movies for a flat fee. I appreciate the ability to do so regardless of how much I watch. Most of all, I appreciate that I can do so without advertising. Yet all of that appreciation reflects lost opportunities for the service provider. Now that doesn't mean that I'm willing to hand over huge globs of money and put up with copious amounts of advertising. That is what drove me away from broadcast and cable TV in the first place. But I do respect your right to earn reasonable amounts of money for the services provided.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be gouged. When it comes to television, I have demonstrated that. I have never subscribed to cable or satellite TV. I don't want to be abused either. Again, I have demonstrated that since I have rarely watched over-the-air broadcasts. Yet there is a world of difference between not wanting to be gouged and not wanting to have one's time wasted (via advertising) and being willing to provide reasonable compensation for services provided. I am willing to provide reasonable compensation, according to my definition. I am also willing to go without if it isn't reasonable by my definition. This is TV after all. I can do without it. That's a bit unlike the Internet.
Physical libraries are going to exist for a very long time.
As things stand today, there are too many books that are not available electronically or that are not available to libraries electronically.
As things stand today, libraries are more than a repository of books: they provide programs for everyone from toddlers to seniors.
There are many advantages to electronic publications, but it is important to realize that there is a long way to go before those dead tree repositories disappear.
Most of the Android fans that I've bumped into choose their device in exactly the same manner as iOS fans: they choose whatever is in fashion at the moment. They also deal with downloading apps in the same fashion as iOS fans: they choose whatever their friends are raving about. They also have a handy way to deal with customization: they usually leave the device as it shipped (perhaps changing wallpapers along the way).
Choice is not making people unhappy, because they usually made up their minds before they ever went shopping.
I suspect that the real reason why people aren't outraged is because we've been groomed to accept a lack of privacy for years. We have companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter to thank for that.
Usually people make quips about Apple's "no button mouse" as a joke, because of Apple's history of one button mice. The physical button is still there, and provides the expected tactile feedback. Apple's mice and trackpads also provide support for buttons, scrolling, and other operations via gestures. It's not ideal for people who expect tactile feedback, but it does work well.
While their chicklet keyboards are no Model M, they also perform as well as traditional laptop keyboards and most modern desktop keyboards. Your point about missing keys is a valid one, though I suspect that most people don't even notice it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have kids of my own, but I do work with other people's children in education and recreation. In that context my answers would be:
For games, a mixture. I look for games that allow children to express themselves either creatively or constructively. In some cases, modern games are excellent. An example would be Minecraft. In other cases, older games are wonderful. Think Simcity (the different versions are also good for different ages or levels of sophistication).
In the context of computer skills, I prefer modern vintage. Old system software doesn't necessarily teach contemporary skills and frequently has a high barrier of entry for fairly basic skills. Why would I want to spend time teaching command line utilities just because they are scriptable? (Worse, why would I want to expose them to archaic GUIs as a crutch when they would be expected to use modern GUIs as a crutch in the modern world?) A similar parallel can be drawn for programming. BASIC, C, and Pascal probably won't be in common use when they grow up. So I prefer to use something like Scratch. That won't be in common use either, but at least it allows the to focus upon programming concepts like control structures and concurrency without the hurdles of things like syntax errors.
I work around plenty of teens and young adults who persistently access social media, simply because it is more interesting to them than the world around them.
These teens are by no means locked out of the real world by over zealous parents. These teens are active in their schools and in many cases their community.
While I can't speak for teens as a general population, the ones that I am exposed to are "addicted" to social media for reasons other than just their parents. (Parents may have some responsibility for not setting guidelines on social media use, but it isn't because they locked their kids away.)
Welcome to the tribe of loner, where everyone thinks that they're unique and that everyone else is the same.
I have a surprise for you: you are probably less unique than you think and other people are more diverse than you think (even when they are a part of a group).
In all likelihood, algorithms such as the one mentioned in the article can bin you just like it can bin anyone else. In all likelihood, the bin will accurately profile you within statistical uncertainties. Chances are that those statistical uncertainties are sufficiently large that it allows you to maintain your status as an individual (ditto for all of those other people who you seem to think agree on things).
I don't see anyone complaining that nursing or primary school teaching is sexist, yet those professions have a definite bias towards one sex.
Actually, many jurisdictions view the female bias of primary education to be serious problem because it is seen as having a negative impact on academic performance among boys. Among other things, it is being blamed for the lower literacy rates and higher dropout rates of boys.
While surprising, the results do make some sense. IP laws are only meaningful to companies that have the means to sue. They would also have to look at the return on investment for launching legal action. A small business on the east coast is unlikely to sue another small business on the west coast simply because there is no return (i.e. no overlap in potential clients).
IP is mostly geared towards the interests of large entities and multinational entities: businesses that have both the means to sue, and where their market is large enough that it is likely to overlap with someone else's market.
Asimov's writings were obsessed with the lone scientific genius, a genius so great that no one could recreate their work. That was certainly true with the development of the positronic brain, where it seems as though only one scientist was able to design it and everything thereafter was tweaks. None of those tweaks were able to circumvent the three laws (only weaken or strengthen them). No one was able to design a positronic brain from scratch, i.e. without the laws.
Real science, or rather real engineering, doesn't work that way. Developments frequently happen in parallel. When they don't, reverse engineering ensures that multiple parties know how things work. We don't have a singular seed in which to plant the three laws, or any moral laws. One design may use one set of laws and another design may use another set of laws. One robot may try to reserve human life at all cost. Another may seek to destroy the universe at all cost. There is no way to control it.
Then again, that assumes that we could design stuff with morality in the first place.
One of the features of open source software is that the code, thus the algorithms, can be examined by a third party. In the case of chips, this is very difficult to do. Most people are stuck trusting that the designer implemented the algorithm they said they did, and that they implemented it properly (the former implying no malice and the latter implying competence). That is particularly true for something like random number generators, which are intended to be non-deterministic as far as the software is concerned so any testing the implementation can only be done statistically. Very few people have the ability to examine the physical design of the chip to check the actual implementation.
Seriously. Even though I'm sure there are some great uses of technology in schools today, the education systems that I have worked with made two critical mistakes.
1. Deciding that technology should be integrated into the classroom, rather than being a dedicated subject. In theory, this sounds great. In practice, very few teachers have computer skills beyond word processing and web browsing. This means that kids are typically exposed to computers as writing and research tools, but little else within the core curriculum.
2. Promoting a philosophy that kids know more and are more adaptable to emerging technologies. This is only true because schools are unwilling to hire people with the skills necessary to teach courses using the contemporary tools. Even then a teacher with a couple of hours of professional development will have more computer skills than most children because adults have a nasty tendency to confuse seat time with proficiency.
Don't get me wrong. I'm confident that some great videos will come out of this competition. There are excellent teachers and teachers who excel at integrating technology into the curriculum. But I would not take these videos as representing the norm. They are actually representing an idea.
I love how Starr feels compelled to determine the restaurants policy: if the staff member was enforcing a policy, then Starr feels that it is inappropriate; if the staff member wrongly told him to remove his gadget, then Starr feels that it is his place to dictate the disciplinary action (and suggests an action that most likely violates labour laws).
I'm sorry Mr. Starr, but you entered a private establishment. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. If you don't like it, you are permitted to voice your concerns. Yet you are by no means entitled to enter that business and you are by no means entitled to tell the owner how to discipline their staff. Even though it may seem obvious to you that the business is losing your business, it is by no means obvious what would happen if the restaurant bent over backwards to keep your business. You may be driving other customers away with what is (at least currently) an idiosyncrasy or you may be making the staff uncomfortable.
Maybe the objections and discomfort will dissipate with time. Even then, Mr. Starr, you aren't in the right. You aren't in the right because you are demonstrating your sense of entitlement, your sense that you're the only person that matters. You aren't the only person who matters, and you have very few entitlements when you are in a private venue.
Whether or not this becomes a freedom of speech issue depends upon many factors, one of which is the definition of free speech. Personally I draw the line at encouraging people to commit material crimes (e.g. murder) and at intentionally fabricating false information with the intent to harm others (e.g. accusing a person of rape when they did not commit that crime). Yet even if we all agreed upon that definition, there is the question of exactly what constitutes extremism and how that translates into law enforcement in practice.
For example: I am perfectly fine with a bunch of people with extreme views discussing how terrible the government is and how it should be changed, and I am fine with them spreading their message. It doesn't matter whether I agree with them or disagree with them. I am even fine with them discussing legal means of changing the government in order to reflect their perspective, even though I would be sure to oppose such changes if their views are actually that extreme. Yet I do have an issue with the promotion of violence and inciting terror in order to impose their views upon others. There are ample reasons for that, ranging from the intimidation tactics that people use in their everyday life to impose their will upon others to more extreme political movements that have resorted in anything from wholesale oppression to genocide.
Non-democratic governance is common in the modern world, it's just that we have a tendency to call them dictatorships. We call them that for a reason. While the "well meaning" dictatorships claim to represent the interests of the people or the nation, they ultimately represent only a portion of the population with little hope for change outside of revolution. Now this may seem fine if you're in that portion of the population, may that portion be a relatively small "aristocracy" or a relatively large social class (as some communist regimes claim). It is unlikely to seem fine if you are unhappy with your situation, or outright repressed, because there is no room for change.
Even though you can whip together a simple controller for $10 (including labor) from a few switches and bits of wire, doesn't mean that you've accomplished the same thing as Microsoft.
On the technical end, you're dealing with a fair bit of electronics and software to support everything from reading a button's state to streaming audio from the console. On top of that, they have to consider factors such as ergonomics and marketing. For a company like Microsoft with competitors like Nintendo and Sony, it is best to do their homework first even if it ends up costing a lot more.
Free trade agreements are complex because you are dealing with nations with different laws. The classical examples are the cost of labour or agricultural subsidies, which may give industry in one nation a distinct advantage and result in the destruction of industry in another nation Another example, and one that has popped up a lot lately, has been the protection of service industries that are public in one nation and private in another (like health care).
Now you could write a simple free trade agreement if you wanted, but very few people want that. Very few people want that because it would be a race to the bottom.
Some science is destructive, while other science isn't. A lot of it depends upon the research objectives, as well as the available methods to conduct that research. In a lot of cases it is even imperative to do non-destructive studies, either for reasons of conscience or to generate reproducible results.
Examples:
We study stellar evolution through observation, because we are limited by the methods available.
We study subatomic particles by smashing things together because we can only observe their interactions (i.e. we cannot observe them directly).
We study many parts of the body using MRI because it is both unethical to destroy the subject and because it produces better results.
They clearly need to dump more money into university research on increasing criminal activity.
Even if the curriculum did have some value, good luck in getting teachers to teach it. The second that the first student asks, "did you pirate this worksheet," the teacher decide never to teach it again.
(Note: since it's backed by the MPAA, I suspect that it is a highly distorted view of copyright and that the curriculum doesn't have value because of that. That said, copyright itself does have value.)
Following the rules and regulations depends upon a lot of factors.
For example: you are probably going to follow obey early in the process. Your goal should be to get your message out in order to gain public support, and hopefully end up with a completely peaceful resolution. You should only be escalating the issue if that doesn't work.
For example: you are probably going to obey if there are hot-heads in your midst. You may know the rules of peaceable defiance, but the person next to you may be looking for a rouse. In that case, they are your enemy rather than the officials.
For example: you are probably going to obey if there is no clear plan for how to oppose. You should only be crossing police lines if there is a destination in mind, a plan for the protest at that destination, and a plan for dealing with the inevitable conflict created by crossing the lines.
For example: you are probably going to obey if the issue lacks urgency. If your opposing a law that is in first reading, then your goal is to get the message out. If the law is close to passing, you may want to bring the protest to the steps of the legislature.
Also keep in mind that as a protestor you may not have the public's support or you may just be wrong. Protests are in no sense democratic. They are a reflection of the sentiments of a particular group of people. Sometimes that group may be in the majority, but they are often in the minority. They are good for rallying support and should probably be used as an indicator for when something should face a referendum. They should not be used as a basis for the actions of government, unless those actions are in clear violation of the law.
Much like mathematics, our society has a tendency to treat computer programming as something exceptional. At best, it is treated as the domain of the very bright. At worse, the people who are passionate about it are seen as weirdos. That is a huge problem.
Even though people can muddle through life without these skills, they could do a lot better if they had those skills. Take the simple matter of money. As an individual, programming (and math) can help you save money. As a business person, programming (and math) can help you run a business more efficiently. This is the case because these skills are extremely useful in decision making processes. Programming can help you obtain and process large amounts of data in ways that prepackaged software wonâ(TM)t. Mathematics will help you find ways to optimize outcomes.
The problem is that a lot of people simply donâ(TM)t understand that. They would rather use their instinctive responses, or rules of thumb (which are often untrue) than actually analyze a problem. The origins of that attitude are likely due to a lack of education: they either missed the motivation behind what they are learning, or they are dismissive of it because they failed to learn the skills. And yes, that needs to be overcome.
My (admittedly limited) experience on Facebook suggest that people who are engaged with current events will link to stories, and others will comment on them or like them. That doesn't seem to be all that different from what happens on Slashdot or forums. The difference is in the depth of that layman commentary and how well you know the people involved in the discussion.
So it's not that Facebook is the source of the news. I would be horrified if that was the case. Facebook is simply being used to connect people to the news, and those links may be to more reputable sources. There is reason to be concerned about the bias that a person finds within their own social circles, but you get a lot of bias from sites like Slashdot and forums anyhow.
One thing to keep in mind is that these are videos of crimes. That is certainly the case in the Mexican excample that I saw cited.
I'll leave it up to you whether you support the posting of videos of crimes, but I don't see a good reason for it. Even in the cases of political speech and exposing human rights violations, you rarely need to resort to messages that are so graphic.
Most of what I watch is free and legal. In theory, it is advertiser supported, since there are commercials if I watch shows in the evening. Yet if I watch late at night, I rarely even see a commercial.
In my mind, that doesn't make sense. Advertising is a way to generate revenue, so forgoing advertising late at night seems like a lost opportunity. It is not as though advertising is inherently bad either. I am perfectly fine with advertising in moderation (i.e. less than half of what is on broadcast TV) and if it reflects the content rather than the consumer (i.e. I don't like tracking). To the unnamed broadcaster who is streaming the unnamed shows to me: you are welcome to generate some revenue from my viewing habits. Be reasonable about it so that you don't alienate me in the same way that over the air broadcast TV or cable TV channels have alienated me, but I do respect your right to earn money for the services rendered.
I do pay for one fee based streaming service. Their model doesn't make sense either. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the opportunity to watch series and movies for a flat fee. I appreciate the ability to do so regardless of how much I watch. Most of all, I appreciate that I can do so without advertising. Yet all of that appreciation reflects lost opportunities for the service provider. Now that doesn't mean that I'm willing to hand over huge globs of money and put up with copious amounts of advertising. That is what drove me away from broadcast and cable TV in the first place. But I do respect your right to earn reasonable amounts of money for the services provided.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be gouged. When it comes to television, I have demonstrated that. I have never subscribed to cable or satellite TV. I don't want to be abused either. Again, I have demonstrated that since I have rarely watched over-the-air broadcasts. Yet there is a world of difference between not wanting to be gouged and not wanting to have one's time wasted (via advertising) and being willing to provide reasonable compensation for services provided. I am willing to provide reasonable compensation, according to my definition. I am also willing to go without if it isn't reasonable by my definition. This is TV after all. I can do without it. That's a bit unlike the Internet.
Physical libraries are going to exist for a very long time.
As things stand today, there are too many books that are not available electronically or that are not available to libraries electronically.
As things stand today, libraries are more than a repository of books: they provide programs for everyone from toddlers to seniors.
There are many advantages to electronic publications, but it is important to realize that there is a long way to go before those dead tree repositories disappear.
Most of the Android fans that I've bumped into choose their device in exactly the same manner as iOS fans: they choose whatever is in fashion at the moment. They also deal with downloading apps in the same fashion as iOS fans: they choose whatever their friends are raving about. They also have a handy way to deal with customization: they usually leave the device as it shipped (perhaps changing wallpapers along the way).
Choice is not making people unhappy, because they usually made up their minds before they ever went shopping.
I suspect that the real reason why people aren't outraged is because we've been groomed to accept a lack of privacy for years. We have companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter to thank for that.
Usually people make quips about Apple's "no button mouse" as a joke, because of Apple's history of one button mice. The physical button is still there, and provides the expected tactile feedback. Apple's mice and trackpads also provide support for buttons, scrolling, and other operations via gestures. It's not ideal for people who expect tactile feedback, but it does work well.
While their chicklet keyboards are no Model M, they also perform as well as traditional laptop keyboards and most modern desktop keyboards. Your point about missing keys is a valid one, though I suspect that most people don't even notice it.
So what's your point again?