This is what happens. You keep fighting the man, fighting the man. The next thing you know, you've been absorbed into the system and now your invested in it, trying to make a buck and cover your ass like all us Joes.
If these sorts of effects are produced by choosing ones avatar than I would sat it bodes well for many internet users. In an amateur study I conducted in college I found that there was a strong correlation between ones view of their physical self, and the number of hours they spent online. People with a lower opinion of their physical self tended to spend significantly more time online, interacting with others online, than those with a better opinions of their physical self. What I found here was a correlation, not causation, but I do have some hypothesis as to why this is the case.
"As a creature of ideals, man's main concern is to maintain a tentative hold on these idealized conceptions of himself, to legitimate his role-identities." McCall, G. J. and Simmons J. L. (1966)
"During one's life, external pressures from various audiences tend to conventionalize and to make more realistic, less lofty, the person's role-identities. Because of constraints and circumstances, he continually must 'settle for' situation, relationships and so forth that are not quite what he had imaged for himself in a particular role." McCall, G. J. & Simmons J. L. (1966)
Basically we have ideal perceptions of ourselves which we constantly try to legitimize through our interactions with others. The reality check is that external judgments (such as grades, performance reviews, opinions of friends, family, enemies, superiors) can call into question the legitimacy of our ideal perception.
"No matter what a man does, he is not fully human unless there is spirit of freedom in him, a soul unconfined by purpose and larger than the practicable world. And this is really what those mean who inculcate the suppression of the self; they mean that its rigidity must be broken up by growth and renewal, that it must be more or less decisively 'born again.' " Cooley, C. H. (1964)
Here a soul unconfined by purpose, is the soul which is not concerned with maintaining an ideal perception. This frees one from agonizing over the discrepancy between the actual and realized self.
The constant struggle to maintain an identity that ultimately fails leads to unhappiness, or depression. But Cooley states that the self must be 'born again,' i.e. a new identity must be created, and what better place to do this than the internet.
Why the internet? Because it is much easier to create an identity on the internet than in the physical world because the forces that would call your identity into question are to a great degree stymied by the fact that the rules for cyber-interaction are much different than the rules of physical interaction.
In Goffman's book "The presentation of the self in everyday life" (1959) he outlines the social game in terms of rules. The observer judges the observed and attempts to figure out his identity based on (1) action of the observed, (2) appearance of the observed, (3) setting of the interaction, and (4) his own experience. Meanwhile, the observed is putting forward their own identity, their ideal-identity for that time and place. A battle ensues to determine the identity of the observed. But online, these rules (particularly the first 3) are compromised. On the internet, what you see is what you get, and the observed has many more tools at their disposal to present an alternate self, or avatar, that may be very little like their actual self at all. It is much easier, as someone trying to create a new identity, to do so online.
If online interaction can have a positive impact on the physical world as the NPR interview suggests, it's good news to all those users out there who are trying to create a new identity. It might just positively impact their identity in the physical world.
Well I don't mean to say that any one person should be spending all of their time on it. But I do mean to say that it is as worth discussing now as it was 1,000 years ago, even if no answer has been reached.
"Suppose you had a definitive, 100% guaranteed answer to the "discovered vs invented" question. What would it allow you to do that you couldn't do before? What could you predict? What would you gain?
Nothing, nothing and nothing.
(The Question is) meaningless; merely a matter of perception, wordplay and people having too much time on their hands."
I must firmly but respectfully disagree that this is the outlook we should have. First of all, we have no true way of knowing what what we could predict or what we could gain if we knew the anser. Even if we knew that right now we could not predict or gain anything, there is no way of knowing that future discoveries wont prove the answer useful. I for one, do not believe it is necessarily the scientist's (and I do mean a scientist of any kind) duty to discover anything useful, insofar as it is difficult to know the full ramifications of a discovery until after it is made. And even if you did have a goal there are always unintended consequences that may overshadow your original design. Just look at TNT.
Well one could argue this isn't a matter of science, it is a matter of philosophy. Well in that case I would say that even if we don't believe we can find an answer, or even if we don't believe an answer would be useful, it is still part of our human desire to seek these answers, and to deny this is in my estimation, foolish. There is a part of us that thrives on this type of thinking and we should not ignore it.
This is not to say that all people get any kind of pleasure from this sort of exercise. But all the same, I do not consider it a hollow pursuit, regardless of what the outcome may or may not be, and regardless of if an outcome can even be reached.
"If two units go down and canâ(TM)t fix themselves, the three remaining units split up the tasks. All of this is done autonomously without human aid."
The idea is simple, and I think therein lies its ability to succeed. Regaurdless of how dificult the programming is, the end result is conceptually very basic, tried and true. System redundancy and a support network. Mighty fine.
Except that Yahoo is joining the networking crowd and Microsoft is well... NOT being joined by anybody. I think it is a good move by Yahoo. So many companies stagnate the market by resisting change even as their product begins to slip. Yahoo choosing to solve the problem before it gets out of hand says something for their business model. Whether or not it works is another story.
I for one think this is fantastic. It gives one the opportunity to be buried in a way that is helpful to the environment, in a way, peacefully restore yourself to the earth, and at the same time give your family the satisfaction of knowing where you are buried. I for one like the idea that I could put my hand on a nearby tree and say that someone I loved is now a part of that tree. It may sound all fluffy-puffy, but the fact is, burials have always been charged with all sorts of religious and spiritual notions. I believe for a good number of people, this type of burial would satisfy those notions indeed.
Somebody was paid to spend time and work hard on that game, no matter how horrible it is. This is your time lonesome programmer... your moment of fame has finally arrived after so many long years of obscurity. Will the effort of years past pay off now, or will you simply fade away from whence you cam to that cold, bleak corner of gaming history.
"the open and neutral character that has always been the hallmark of the Internet."
This is a joke right? There was a time when people thought that maybe newspapers were open and neutral. Bottom line, the internet is the latest and greatest form of media, but in spite of its revolutionary character, it will eventually succumb to the same fate as all other types.
Certainly if it is already the case, I bet there are a great number of people who would prefer not to even know it was happening. The old ignorance is bliss argument.
But whether or not ignorance IS bliss, we can certainly conclude that the governments of the world don't seem to think so.
For every defense there is an attack, and every attack a defense. These military types should know this better than anybody else. It's a battle they should be prepared to fight as it was only a matter of time before it happened. And of course, it will cost yet more resources to mount this defense (or as the case may be, an attack against the attackers) and somebody is going to have to pay for it. As always, technology is a double-edged sword.
This is in many ways, the same question we ask about factories/industries that pollute heavily. The environment belongs to all of us, so people ask "shouldn't they pay?"
I don't think the article is stupid, but I do agree that the ball is rolling and there is pretty much no way to stop it baring a global catastrophe or some sort of comprehensive religious fervor.
Maybe this is just the way large corporations with iconic logos have fun. Like, they try and one-up each other by seeing who can file the most inane lawsuit. Big money requires expensive fun.
When I played World of Warcraft I found it relaxing most of the time. Part of what took the edge of what could have been a more gritty gaming experience was the welcoming art. It was a pleasant view, even in the desolate areas. It is my unprofessional opinion that this is a contributing factor.
Slashdot Mirror
Krank calls just got a whole lot worse...
Snap...
You got me there.
No seriously, that would have made it better. I agree.
It was never going to happen anyways. Together they would have created just one GARGANTUAN mess instead of two unbelievably huge messes.
It's just a couple of humongous fish desperately flapping their fins about as the water from their tanks slowly drain into more fruitful oceans.
This is what happens. You keep fighting the man, fighting the man. The next thing you know, you've been absorbed into the system and now your invested in it, trying to make a buck and cover your ass like all us Joes.
If these sorts of effects are produced by choosing ones avatar than I would sat it bodes well for many internet users. In an amateur study I conducted in college I found that there was a strong correlation between ones view of their physical self, and the number of hours they spent online. People with a lower opinion of their physical self tended to spend significantly more time online, interacting with others online, than those with a better opinions of their physical self. What I found here was a correlation, not causation, but I do have some hypothesis as to why this is the case.
"As a creature of ideals, man's main concern is to maintain a tentative hold on these idealized conceptions of himself, to legitimate his role-identities." McCall, G. J. and Simmons J. L. (1966)
"During one's life, external pressures from various audiences tend to conventionalize and to make more realistic, less lofty, the person's role-identities. Because of constraints and circumstances, he continually must 'settle for' situation, relationships and so forth that are not quite what he had imaged for himself in a particular role." McCall, G. J. & Simmons J. L. (1966)
Basically we have ideal perceptions of ourselves which we constantly try to legitimize through our interactions with others. The reality check is that external judgments (such as grades, performance reviews, opinions of friends, family, enemies, superiors) can call into question the legitimacy of our ideal perception. "No matter what a man does, he is not fully human unless there is spirit of freedom in him, a soul unconfined by purpose and larger than the practicable world. And this is really what those mean who inculcate the suppression of the self; they mean that its rigidity must be broken up by growth and renewal, that it must be more or less decisively 'born again.' " Cooley, C. H. (1964) Here a soul unconfined by purpose, is the soul which is not concerned with maintaining an ideal perception. This frees one from agonizing over the discrepancy between the actual and realized self. The constant struggle to maintain an identity that ultimately fails leads to unhappiness, or depression. But Cooley states that the self must be 'born again,' i.e. a new identity must be created, and what better place to do this than the internet.
Why the internet? Because it is much easier to create an identity on the internet than in the physical world because the forces that would call your identity into question are to a great degree stymied by the fact that the rules for cyber-interaction are much different than the rules of physical interaction.
In Goffman's book "The presentation of the self in everyday life" (1959) he outlines the social game in terms of rules. The observer judges the observed and attempts to figure out his identity based on (1) action of the observed, (2) appearance of the observed, (3) setting of the interaction, and (4) his own experience. Meanwhile, the observed is putting forward their own identity, their ideal-identity for that time and place. A battle ensues to determine the identity of the observed. But online, these rules (particularly the first 3) are compromised. On the internet, what you see is what you get, and the observed has many more tools at their disposal to present an alternate self, or avatar, that may be very little like their actual self at all. It is much easier, as someone trying to create a new identity, to do so online.
If online interaction can have a positive impact on the physical world as the NPR interview suggests, it's good news to all those users out there who are trying to create a new identity. It might just positively impact their identity in the physical world.
"Oh, you don't wanna mess with the RI double A.
They'll sue you if burn that CD-R.
Doesn't matter if your a grandma, or a seven-year-old girl,
they'll treat you like the evil, hard-bitten criminal scum you are."
Well I don't mean to say that any one person should be spending all of their time on it. But I do mean to say that it is as worth discussing now as it was 1,000 years ago, even if no answer has been reached.
Why shoot for anything higher than that which will turn you the best profit for the cheapest price?
In response to the original post.
"Suppose you had a definitive, 100% guaranteed answer to the "discovered vs invented" question. What would it allow you to do that you couldn't do before? What could you predict? What would you gain?
Nothing, nothing and nothing.
(The Question is) meaningless; merely a matter of perception, wordplay and people having too much time on their hands."
I must firmly but respectfully disagree that this is the outlook we should have. First of all, we have no true way of knowing what what we could predict or what we could gain if we knew the anser. Even if we knew that right now we could not predict or gain anything, there is no way of knowing that future discoveries wont prove the answer useful. I for one, do not believe it is necessarily the scientist's (and I do mean a scientist of any kind) duty to discover anything useful, insofar as it is difficult to know the full ramifications of a discovery until after it is made. And even if you did have a goal there are always unintended consequences that may overshadow your original design. Just look at TNT.
Well one could argue this isn't a matter of science, it is a matter of philosophy. Well in that case I would say that even if we don't believe we can find an answer, or even if we don't believe an answer would be useful, it is still part of our human desire to seek these answers, and to deny this is in my estimation, foolish. There is a part of us that thrives on this type of thinking and we should not ignore it.
This is not to say that all people get any kind of pleasure from this sort of exercise. But all the same, I do not consider it a hollow pursuit, regardless of what the outcome may or may not be, and regardless of if an outcome can even be reached.
"If two units go down and canâ(TM)t fix themselves, the three remaining units split up the tasks. All of this is done autonomously without human aid."
The idea is simple, and I think therein lies its ability to succeed. Regaurdless of how dificult the programming is, the end result is conceptually very basic, tried and true. System redundancy and a support network. Mighty fine.
Except that Yahoo is joining the networking crowd and Microsoft is well... NOT being joined by anybody. I think it is a good move by Yahoo. So many companies stagnate the market by resisting change even as their product begins to slip. Yahoo choosing to solve the problem before it gets out of hand says something for their business model. Whether or not it works is another story.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
I for one think this is fantastic. It gives one the opportunity to be buried in a way that is helpful to the environment, in a way, peacefully restore yourself to the earth, and at the same time give your family the satisfaction of knowing where you are buried. I for one like the idea that I could put my hand on a nearby tree and say that someone I loved is now a part of that tree. It may sound all fluffy-puffy, but the fact is, burials have always been charged with all sorts of religious and spiritual notions. I believe for a good number of people, this type of burial would satisfy those notions indeed.
Somebody was paid to spend time and work hard on that game, no matter how horrible it is. This is your time lonesome programmer... your moment of fame has finally arrived after so many long years of obscurity. Will the effort of years past pay off now, or will you simply fade away from whence you cam to that cold, bleak corner of gaming history.
"the open and neutral character that has always been the hallmark of the Internet." This is a joke right? There was a time when people thought that maybe newspapers were open and neutral. Bottom line, the internet is the latest and greatest form of media, but in spite of its revolutionary character, it will eventually succumb to the same fate as all other types.
Certainly if it is already the case, I bet there are a great number of people who would prefer not to even know it was happening. The old ignorance is bliss argument. But whether or not ignorance IS bliss, we can certainly conclude that the governments of the world don't seem to think so.
I think it is quite obvious which you would, and should choose. The free market at work ;)
For every defense there is an attack, and every attack a defense. These military types should know this better than anybody else. It's a battle they should be prepared to fight as it was only a matter of time before it happened. And of course, it will cost yet more resources to mount this defense (or as the case may be, an attack against the attackers) and somebody is going to have to pay for it. As always, technology is a double-edged sword.
This is in many ways, the same question we ask about factories/industries that pollute heavily. The environment belongs to all of us, so people ask "shouldn't they pay?"
I don't think the article is stupid, but I do agree that the ball is rolling and there is pretty much no way to stop it baring a global catastrophe or some sort of comprehensive religious fervor.
Seriously...
It doesn't hurt Microsoft to be well versed in the ways of their rivals, even if they do not practice thier techniques themselves.
I agree. As if screaming babies weren't enough.
Maybe this is just the way large corporations with iconic logos have fun. Like, they try and one-up each other by seeing who can file the most inane lawsuit. Big money requires expensive fun.
When I played World of Warcraft I found it relaxing most of the time. Part of what took the edge of what could have been a more gritty gaming experience was the welcoming art. It was a pleasant view, even in the desolate areas. It is my unprofessional opinion that this is a contributing factor.