Except for seat belt legislation, drunk driving laws and now that I think about it, just about all the other laws, which are exactly about "forcing" people to be responsible.
Yes, be careful what you do with those emails, you never know where they've been! LOL
Re:newspapers are cool... computers are hazardous
on
Are Newspapers Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I am well aware that computers pose a problem, but as time goes by we can make greener machines. What you leave out of your argument is that we already have computers, and unlike newspapers, they aren't going anywhere.
If we get keep newspapers, we have both problems. If we get rid of them we only have to e-waste to deal with.
I would also argue that waste problem posed by paper, which is truly huge, is a bigger one than caused by computers.
In 15 years, at the most, a newspaper will seem as quaint as a Kodak Brownie. Even then you will still find the odd weekly here and there, just as you can, if you look hard enough, still purchase a buggy whip!
http://jedediahsbuggywhip.com/
In fact as the oil runs out, they may be coming back too.
7. Can't make the text bigger.
8. Can't look up words, people, other news stories on the same subject.
9. Makes your hands really dirty.
10. Newspapers are killing the environment.
There is one way that newspapers clearly beat the internets though. You can't swat a fly with a laptop!
People voted for Obama because they were sick of eight years of the mass murderer in chief. A dead lizard could have beaten him. But don't worry, Obama may just be the best Republican President America ever had.
As for taxes you're kidding right? The repubs have positively ruled since 00, and last time I checked the US economy was in the toilet. We could argue about the causes of this, but it wasn't the Dems who voted for the wars, and who supported Buhs 100%.
In case you missed it, just about every media outlet in America was slavering for war, and wrote article after article about the wondrous fragrances that emanated from the dear leaders' droppings.
And did I read you right? Are you saying that FOX is objective?
People do this already, and have been doing so for centuries. If you are a Liberal, how many of your friends are cons? If you are a con, do you watch Democracy now or FOX.
The only way to "truth" is listen to both sides of the argument, gather as much objective evidence as you possibly can and then make up your own mind.
Most people will never do this.
Good for you -- the web is ineluctably where it's moving. But Iam sorry, the idea of mowing down vast swaths of forest just to tell me that Obama won the election is not wrong, it's stupid and most importantly - unsustainable. I compare the mindset prevalent in newspaper management now to the ones at Kodak and Polaroid. These companies were once giants, yet, when digital came along they were slow to understand that as of 1997 or so, film was dead and almost died or in the case of Polaroid, did die, as a consequence of fighting the tide of technology and social imperatives.
Books will be gone in 10 years as well, and good riddance to them. I prefer the trees to dead tree data, thank you.
BTW IBM started out making "tabulating" machines, not typewriters. They still make them.
Enjoy that buggy whip!
# One ton of recycled paper saves 3,700 pounds of lumber and 24,000 gallons of water.
# One ton of recycled paper uses: 64% less energy, 50% less water, 74% less air pollution, saves 17 trees and creates 5 times more jobs than one ton of paper products from virgin wood pulp.
# Recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 trees (35â(TM) tall), 2 barrels of oil (enough fuel to run the average car for 1260 miles or from Dallas to Los Angeles), 4100 kilowatts of energy (enough power for the average home for 6 months), 3.2 cubic yards of landfill space (one family size pick-up truck) and 60 pounds of air pollution. (Trash to Cash, 1996)
# It takes one 15-year old tree to produce half a box of paper. Use both sides of all paper. (Midpoint International)
# Recycled paper saves 60% energy vs. virgin paper (Center for Ecological Technology)
# Every year enough paper is thrown away to make a 12â(TM) wall from New York to California
# Everyday Americans buy 62 million newspapers and throw out 44 million. Thatâ(TM)s the equivalent of dumping 500,000 trees into a landfill every week.
# If everyone in the U.S. recycled just 1/10 of their newsprint, we would save the estimated equivalent of about 25 million trees a year.
# It takes 75,000 trees to print a Sunday Edition of the New York Times.
# If we recycled all of the newspapers for one Sunday, we would save 550,000 trees or about 26 millions trees per year. (CA Dept of Conservation, 1995)
But people will still need news. The market is there, the only question is how will that need be met. I think that in the future, newspapers will simply morph into entirely virtual organizations. If content has value, someone will monetize it.
So, according to your logic, someone was wrong before, then someone else was wrong later, so therefore, in teh future, everyone will continue to be wrong about everything.
In Japan they actually have, virtually paperless offices.
And may it rest in peace.
When was the last time you read anything, anything at all, about South America, Africa or Europe? Other than in the Beeb, or Al Jazeera of course.
Talk of genocides just upsets the proles and interferes with production. Britney is the one.
Newspapers are obsolete.
Good point about content, but don't worry this will resolve itself. Most reporters just make a few calls/emails, check some "facts" and then go with the story, such as it is.
Any blogger can and will do the same thing. Read Glenn Greenwald over at Salon, who has done serious reporting by himself, with just a phone and an internet connection.
As for needing the support of a large organization to do it properly, no doubt orgs like Huffington Post, Salon, Slate, et al, will morph into organizations similar to what newspapers used to be, with staff assigned to gather, investigate and report, only they will do it by killing fewer trees.
Very few, if any, newspapers do the big investigatory stories like the Watergate investigation anymore. They are too beholden, or actually owned, by the very entities that they are supposed to "report" on, so they stick to Britney, and regurgitating Pentagon press releases, served up next the latest corporate lie, sponsored by EXXON. This is how Americans got sold the big lie about WMD, Iraq and Afghanistan. The "news" papers simply wrote the lies down, and Americans, who voted for the Bush monster - TWICE, swallowed them down with a smile.
Re:Mainstream reporting is biased, full of crap
on
Are Newspapers Doomed?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It depends on what your definition of "left" is. To the cons, left is any position in opposition to their own views on American exceptionalism, global hegemony, and mindless bought and paid for support for Israel.
Anyone who says that the MSM is "left" clearly has no comprehension of what that word really means.
Right on. In WWII some studies showed that 90% of soldiers never fired their weapons.
The solution was B-mod. One technique was the use of pop up targets instead of stationary targets. The pop ups made it simple, if it moves shoot it. Now 90% of soldiers in combat actually fire their weapons.
American soldiers are, in many ways, robots already.
I read an article about Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan. They have plastic overshoes that they wear when they enter a locals' home. They do this out of respect.
The American soldiers in the article were totally mystified by the Swedes.
A better solution is to stay in your own country. If you are invaded, then by all means, kill them.
That's exactly why they are building terminators. If there is less risk to the troops, then for sure there will be more and longer wars. This is in fact the plan. Bush would still be popular if the death toll in Iraq was 1 million Iraqis vs say 12 robot technicians.
I have an answer to your question. When American soldiers kill foreigners, whether soldier or civilian, most people don't know. Of the ones who know, only a very small percentage actually care. Just look at the articles on Iraq, it's NORMAL for the author to say, "So far the war in Iraq has killed over 4000 Americans". Keep reading, you won't find a single mention of the Iraqi dead, or the Afghani dead. They simply don't matter. This is a fact.
When America has legions of killer bots, both large and small, entire countries will be destroyed, and it will be covered like a baseball game.
And if you are discussing morality, I have some respect for the man who will face his enemy at the risk of his own life. I have nothing but contempt for the coward who pushes a button, or worse writes some feckless programmer who writes code for a machine whose job is to hunt humans.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/05/confabulation-and-br.html
Confabulation is the process, of creating and erasing our own fabricated memories, and we all do it; usually to make the memory more favorable to us.
So called "eyewitness" testimony where people do the "can you show the court" the man who...? thing is wrong about half the time.
The only solution is video cameras - EVERYWHERE.
Nothing here to destroy. All of your concerns are quite relevant. The biggest threat is not from criminals, but as usual from the "authorities". Everyone in Gitmo could be wiped, anyone abused by the police or OGA's could be erased.
And yes, it is pain and bad experiences that make us grow and change. "Pain is the scalpel of God..." and all that. What would happen to us as a society if we could all erase the memories of our mother's death?
It absolutely would be a criminal defense, if the victim's memories have been erased a conviction would be difficult and an argument could be made that if there is no memory, than in some cases, there would be no "harm" no crime.
Oh, it's a brave new world alright.
I should have said trains.
No.
Not only is the C-Train run on street level emmision free electric power, but the electric power for the trains is generated by wind power. Electric power generated from wind turbines powers all of the overhead wires for the trains pantographs to pick up. This program (aka "Ride The Wind") is well known and something that the City of Calgary and Calgary Transit are very proud of.
http://www.re-energy.ca/ridethewind/about.shtml
I am talking about building for future needs and as a symbolic act, like the Canadian Dream, the national railroad, which was what built Canada into a country. And maybe I'm crazy, but I am looking at it from and "if you build it..." POV. A NorthAm shinkansen would make changes in the social fabric itself. You sound like you given this some thought, your idea of following established commuter routes makes sense and would be a big step forward to a bigger network.
Peak oil is here to stay. Flying will soon become just for the rich as fuel prices rise.
Mag Levs on the other hand will run on whatever kind of source you care to use, and it could be green from solar and wind. The buses in Calgary AB run on wind power now.
These giant projects would produce a boom in tourism, travel, commuting, transportation, shipping, and more. Building them would create not just jobs and wealth but new technologies. And it just might be the kind of dream that people could get behind.
Are you listening Obama? Can you hear me Mr. Harper?
Slashdot Mirror
Except for seat belt legislation, drunk driving laws and now that I think about it, just about all the other laws, which are exactly about "forcing" people to be responsible.
Yes, the credit crisis and the fact that 2% of the population in America controls 90% of the wealth and 50% of the income.
Yes, be careful what you do with those emails, you never know where they've been! LOL
Yes, I am well aware that computers pose a problem, but as time goes by we can make greener machines. What you leave out of your argument is that we already have computers, and unlike newspapers, they aren't going anywhere. If we get keep newspapers, we have both problems. If we get rid of them we only have to e-waste to deal with. I would also argue that waste problem posed by paper, which is truly huge, is a bigger one than caused by computers. In 15 years, at the most, a newspaper will seem as quaint as a Kodak Brownie. Even then you will still find the odd weekly here and there, just as you can, if you look hard enough, still purchase a buggy whip! http://jedediahsbuggywhip.com/ In fact as the oil runs out, they may be coming back too.
7. Can't make the text bigger. 8. Can't look up words, people, other news stories on the same subject. 9. Makes your hands really dirty. 10. Newspapers are killing the environment. There is one way that newspapers clearly beat the internets though. You can't swat a fly with a laptop!
Wireless network. Laptop. Works for me.
People voted for Obama because they were sick of eight years of the mass murderer in chief. A dead lizard could have beaten him. But don't worry, Obama may just be the best Republican President America ever had. As for taxes you're kidding right? The repubs have positively ruled since 00, and last time I checked the US economy was in the toilet. We could argue about the causes of this, but it wasn't the Dems who voted for the wars, and who supported Buhs 100%. In case you missed it, just about every media outlet in America was slavering for war, and wrote article after article about the wondrous fragrances that emanated from the dear leaders' droppings. And did I read you right? Are you saying that FOX is objective?
People do this already, and have been doing so for centuries. If you are a Liberal, how many of your friends are cons? If you are a con, do you watch Democracy now or FOX. The only way to "truth" is listen to both sides of the argument, gather as much objective evidence as you possibly can and then make up your own mind. Most people will never do this.
Good for you -- the web is ineluctably where it's moving. But Iam sorry, the idea of mowing down vast swaths of forest just to tell me that Obama won the election is not wrong, it's stupid and most importantly - unsustainable. I compare the mindset prevalent in newspaper management now to the ones at Kodak and Polaroid. These companies were once giants, yet, when digital came along they were slow to understand that as of 1997 or so, film was dead and almost died or in the case of Polaroid, did die, as a consequence of fighting the tide of technology and social imperatives. Books will be gone in 10 years as well, and good riddance to them. I prefer the trees to dead tree data, thank you. BTW IBM started out making "tabulating" machines, not typewriters. They still make them.
Enjoy that buggy whip! # One ton of recycled paper saves 3,700 pounds of lumber and 24,000 gallons of water. # One ton of recycled paper uses: 64% less energy, 50% less water, 74% less air pollution, saves 17 trees and creates 5 times more jobs than one ton of paper products from virgin wood pulp. # Recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 trees (35â(TM) tall), 2 barrels of oil (enough fuel to run the average car for 1260 miles or from Dallas to Los Angeles), 4100 kilowatts of energy (enough power for the average home for 6 months), 3.2 cubic yards of landfill space (one family size pick-up truck) and 60 pounds of air pollution. (Trash to Cash, 1996) # It takes one 15-year old tree to produce half a box of paper. Use both sides of all paper. (Midpoint International) # Recycled paper saves 60% energy vs. virgin paper (Center for Ecological Technology) # Every year enough paper is thrown away to make a 12â(TM) wall from New York to California # Everyday Americans buy 62 million newspapers and throw out 44 million. Thatâ(TM)s the equivalent of dumping 500,000 trees into a landfill every week. # If everyone in the U.S. recycled just 1/10 of their newsprint, we would save the estimated equivalent of about 25 million trees a year. # It takes 75,000 trees to print a Sunday Edition of the New York Times. # If we recycled all of the newspapers for one Sunday, we would save 550,000 trees or about 26 millions trees per year. (CA Dept of Conservation, 1995)
But people will still need news. The market is there, the only question is how will that need be met. I think that in the future, newspapers will simply morph into entirely virtual organizations. If content has value, someone will monetize it.
So, according to your logic, someone was wrong before, then someone else was wrong later, so therefore, in teh future, everyone will continue to be wrong about everything. In Japan they actually have, virtually paperless offices.
And may it rest in peace. When was the last time you read anything, anything at all, about South America, Africa or Europe? Other than in the Beeb, or Al Jazeera of course. Talk of genocides just upsets the proles and interferes with production. Britney is the one. Newspapers are obsolete.
Good point about content, but don't worry this will resolve itself. Most reporters just make a few calls/emails, check some "facts" and then go with the story, such as it is. Any blogger can and will do the same thing. Read Glenn Greenwald over at Salon, who has done serious reporting by himself, with just a phone and an internet connection. As for needing the support of a large organization to do it properly, no doubt orgs like Huffington Post, Salon, Slate, et al, will morph into organizations similar to what newspapers used to be, with staff assigned to gather, investigate and report, only they will do it by killing fewer trees. Very few, if any, newspapers do the big investigatory stories like the Watergate investigation anymore. They are too beholden, or actually owned, by the very entities that they are supposed to "report" on, so they stick to Britney, and regurgitating Pentagon press releases, served up next the latest corporate lie, sponsored by EXXON. This is how Americans got sold the big lie about WMD, Iraq and Afghanistan. The "news" papers simply wrote the lies down, and Americans, who voted for the Bush monster - TWICE, swallowed them down with a smile.
It depends on what your definition of "left" is. To the cons, left is any position in opposition to their own views on American exceptionalism, global hegemony, and mindless bought and paid for support for Israel. Anyone who says that the MSM is "left" clearly has no comprehension of what that word really means.
Right on. In WWII some studies showed that 90% of soldiers never fired their weapons. The solution was B-mod. One technique was the use of pop up targets instead of stationary targets. The pop ups made it simple, if it moves shoot it. Now 90% of soldiers in combat actually fire their weapons. American soldiers are, in many ways, robots already.
I read an article about Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan. They have plastic overshoes that they wear when they enter a locals' home. They do this out of respect. The American soldiers in the article were totally mystified by the Swedes. A better solution is to stay in your own country. If you are invaded, then by all means, kill them.
That's exactly why they are building terminators. If there is less risk to the troops, then for sure there will be more and longer wars. This is in fact the plan. Bush would still be popular if the death toll in Iraq was 1 million Iraqis vs say 12 robot technicians. I have an answer to your question. When American soldiers kill foreigners, whether soldier or civilian, most people don't know. Of the ones who know, only a very small percentage actually care. Just look at the articles on Iraq, it's NORMAL for the author to say, "So far the war in Iraq has killed over 4000 Americans". Keep reading, you won't find a single mention of the Iraqi dead, or the Afghani dead. They simply don't matter. This is a fact. When America has legions of killer bots, both large and small, entire countries will be destroyed, and it will be covered like a baseball game. And if you are discussing morality, I have some respect for the man who will face his enemy at the risk of his own life. I have nothing but contempt for the coward who pushes a button, or worse writes some feckless programmer who writes code for a machine whose job is to hunt humans.
So you must be in favour of Iran getting nuclear weapons then?
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/05/confabulation-and-br.html Confabulation is the process, of creating and erasing our own fabricated memories, and we all do it; usually to make the memory more favorable to us. So called "eyewitness" testimony where people do the "can you show the court" the man who...? thing is wrong about half the time. The only solution is video cameras - EVERYWHERE.
Nothing here to destroy. All of your concerns are quite relevant. The biggest threat is not from criminals, but as usual from the "authorities". Everyone in Gitmo could be wiped, anyone abused by the police or OGA's could be erased. And yes, it is pain and bad experiences that make us grow and change. "Pain is the scalpel of God..." and all that. What would happen to us as a society if we could all erase the memories of our mother's death? It absolutely would be a criminal defense, if the victim's memories have been erased a conviction would be difficult and an argument could be made that if there is no memory, than in some cases, there would be no "harm" no crime. Oh, it's a brave new world alright.
Maybe on 30% remembered firing a bullet?
I should have said trains. No. Not only is the C-Train run on street level emmision free electric power, but the electric power for the trains is generated by wind power. Electric power generated from wind turbines powers all of the overhead wires for the trains pantographs to pick up. This program (aka "Ride The Wind") is well known and something that the City of Calgary and Calgary Transit are very proud of. http://www.re-energy.ca/ridethewind/about.shtml
I am talking about building for future needs and as a symbolic act, like the Canadian Dream, the national railroad, which was what built Canada into a country. And maybe I'm crazy, but I am looking at it from and "if you build it..." POV. A NorthAm shinkansen would make changes in the social fabric itself. You sound like you given this some thought, your idea of following established commuter routes makes sense and would be a big step forward to a bigger network.
Peak oil is here to stay. Flying will soon become just for the rich as fuel prices rise. Mag Levs on the other hand will run on whatever kind of source you care to use, and it could be green from solar and wind. The buses in Calgary AB run on wind power now. These giant projects would produce a boom in tourism, travel, commuting, transportation, shipping, and more. Building them would create not just jobs and wealth but new technologies. And it just might be the kind of dream that people could get behind. Are you listening Obama? Can you hear me Mr. Harper?