Compare apples and apples. The Cube has all the qualities you state in the Enterprise but better. Plus, way more evil and who needs the force when you've got the Collective?:)
I've said my piece on the hype issue and if you don't get it that's okay with me. The one further comment I will make is that you seem to be deriding the Internet for not matching the rather odd picture painted of it by Old Media pundits who don't necessarily know what they're talking about.
I don't think it is exactly a drawback to the Internet that somethings are best purchased in person. One would hope that it is still necessary or at least desirable to leave the computer desk occasionally.
I'm not sure why you don't feel it would be possible for the same sorts of writers to write the same sorts of good solid stories for an online publication as for print media. I have read some wonderful stuff on the web - Salon is a fave of mine and there are a myriad of smaller, generally more specialized zines which are also good. There has always been the complaint that "people don't read on the web!" but I think that is becoming much less true - people are learning to. I for one read voraciously on the web. Gradually there will be more major, top-quality webzines. Plenty of print mags have their content available online for *free* - many of them may simply port their print publications onto the web. But focusing excessively on zines - a format which makes a conscious point of mimicking a revered and successful form of Old Media - tears away at the potenial of the web. It is *not necessary* to get all one's information from one site. That's why your vision of a "communal online magazine" is so outrageous - why would any two people read the same thing when they have almost an infinity of choices? A lot of online publications (notably Wired News) even go so far as to trade links to articles from other publications, underlining the choices available. While many companies entering the online market from traditional media (mark Disney's behemoth go.com, with nearly no outlinking) are paranoid about allowing visitors, once arrived, to leave the site - this is antithetical to the whole idea of the world wide web.
Katz's example of the rainbow love beam lady was effective exactly because the site itself is so charmingly pointless. Witness the miracle of self-publication: give the world something mass media never would, and they will come. An untapped niche market for rainbow love beams, if you will.:)
I'm very amused by your comments - all of them. Okay, point by point:
Like I said, I don't have much use for mainstream press. It makes very good sense to me indeed that they would dwell on the Internet because the Internet provides the same kinds of information they do about a million times better. They *should* be worried!
In what way is the Internet unimpressive? People have unprecedented opportunity to influence and comment on media. If you need to access an expert in any field under the sun, in minutes you can find one to email directly, even people who are famous authorities in their fields. Hop over to eBay and find any gadget, doodad, or piece of crap that was ever made and have it delivered to your doorstep from anywhere in the world. Amazon is the third largest bookseller in the US and doesn't have a single strip mall facade. All this, the whole phenomenon of the web, has happened *basically* over the course of the last five years. Call me a rube, but I'm impressed as hell.
Looking for obscure publications? I do all the time. On eBay and about a billion used and rare book sites. I've bought rare books and magazines that make me tremble with excitement to hold in my hands - for mere dollars - things I'd been seeking for years that weren't in any library I'd ever been to. More digitized texts become available daily and it is likely a matter of time before the sorts of information provided now by Lexis/Nexis will be freely available - Universities have always been a key component of the Internet. The future of the Internet is *not* going to lie heavily in paid content; only pornography is currently getting anywhere with that model. Information *does* want to be free (even computers want to be free appearantly, if you take the "free PC" thing halfway seriously).
Of course brick and mortar stores aren't gonna be completely supplanted by virtual ones. But a significant segment of the population is already buying books online, and that is surely the future of catalog sales, which in the late 19th century also changed the face of consumerism at a time when not everyone had access to a wide variety of goods for sale locally. The Sears Roebuck catalog sold everything from buggies to cans of stewed tomatoes. Take a look at the web today and it's a weird kind of deja vous to see people buying automobiles at Carpoint and... well, cans of stewed tomatoes at Peapod. Even though these things can be bought locally, purchasing them from one's living room is even more local and that convenience can be priceless in a hectic modern life.
Thank you for backing me up and ditto all the way about the computer as an extension of the brain... I started thinking the other day about how protective I am of my computer because it has all the important stuff in it that won't fit into my (absent-minded) head! People who are truly comfortable with computers start to think of them as extensions of their native faculties. Even those of us with really, really crappy dial-up service rather than the fast connection we would like to be able to afford.:)
I do think you imply in your first post that news is the most significant purpose of the Internet, or perhaps the most useful one. And I'm not sure I see what argument you're making with your "simply another communications medium" comment - implying perhaps that all communications media are created equal and this one is not especially differentiated from the others. I think that's a disingenuous assumption. The Internet is more versatile and far-reaching than any communications technology that has come before in terms of the types of information it can deliver and to whom, far more so than print media, radio, or TV. That's a pretty solid fact. And as I was saying, the ways people interact with the information on the Internet differ significantly from the ways people interact with "old media" - they have the option of either saying "uh-huh" or changing the station or channel or turning the page. Allow me to illustrate. Perhaps you and I both watched the Academy Awards on Sunday. Perhaps you got fed up with the ebulient Roberto Benigni about the time he was climbing over people to get his statue for Best Foreign Film and flipped over to CNN. Perhaps I got a kick out of him and stayed to watch the whole show. That's about the sum of the comment we can make on the Academy awards. No one asks us whether we think Roberto Benigni deserves an award, or whether Whoopie looks good in feathers. Then, this morning you and I both read an article by someone named Jon Katz. You disagreed with its premise - then instead of leaving you said so. Not to youself, but to hundreds, maybe thousands of people who will see your comment. Probably the author himself will see it. I saw it. Now, I have been following Jon Katz around the web for some time now and am rather fond of the guy, I've even emailed him a couple times (try emailing Whoopie). I wanted to respond to the article too, in support of it, and did so by flaming you. So a conversation started. Every damn person that reads the original article can read what we have to say about it if they so desire. Try getting yourself as big a potential audience as the emcee at the Academy Awards. You don't think that changes anything? Some people argue that it doesn't really because Katz's article is still at the top of the page. Well, do what so many other people have done - make your own page. The personal website is not dead, and those which have had some effort put into them and provide content people want to look at can get some pretty respectable hit counts. Regarding the personal site, unquestionably the web has become more commercialized and centered around corporate mega-sites (go.com anyone?) but the fact that people *can* publish pictures of their cat to the entire world ensures without any reasonable doubt that they *will.* And by golly other cat lovers will surf in and coo at how cute Fluffy is. Back to news again, you're still looking at it from an extremely narrow angle. Let me explain again. Perhaps I am getting some of the same AP newsfeed you are, but from there I can go to any of a million supplementary sources and take my understanding of that piece of news in any direction I want. *I* control the way I experience it. The way to use the Internet effectively to acquire information is not to visit one site, but to travel, to surf. Wired News (not actually a general news publication BTW, but focused on particular types of news) may give you an article summarizing an issue, then give direct links to company websites, etc. where in many cases the ordinary reader can get further information straight from the horse's mouth - from the newsmakers.
Urrrrgh. I hate people like this. How did this moron find his way to Slashdot? What pisses me off about people who like to trivialize the Internet is thest they NEVER know what they are talking about.
And re: news, which FallLine is tacitly assuming to be the main function of the Internet, I have gotten all mine from the Web for the past two years. I have no clue what he is talking about. Not only is there exponentially more information than I could ever hope to get from traditional media sources, I can get it when I want it, how I want it, and in as much or little depth as I desire. I make a daily circuit on the web actively gleaning information relevant to me from various sites. This may include not only tertiary sources but primary and secondary ones as well. I can get all the news I need in a liberal tone far more palatable to me than any traditional media. The only thing I can figure about people like FallLine is that they actually like being spoon-fed bite-sized morsels of information at regular intervals by an attractive and well-dressed robot who enunciates very clearly. Which brings me to *my* take on the real functions of the Internet and the differences between it and traditional media, which are to facilitate intellectual participation in information rather than acceptance of it "as-found" - communication with text - and of course interpersonal communication.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare apples and apples. The Cube has all the qualities you state in the Enterprise but better. Plus, way more evil and who needs the force when you've got the Collective? :)
I've said my piece on the hype issue and if you don't get it that's okay with me. The one further comment I will make is that you seem to be deriding the Internet for not matching the rather odd picture painted of it by Old Media pundits who don't necessarily know what they're talking about.
:)
I don't think it is exactly a drawback to the Internet that somethings are best purchased in person. One would hope that it is still necessary or at least desirable to leave the computer desk occasionally.
I'm not sure why you don't feel it would be possible for the same sorts of writers to write the same sorts of good solid stories for an online publication as for print media. I have read some wonderful stuff on the web - Salon is a fave of mine and there are a myriad of smaller, generally more specialized zines which are also good. There has always been the complaint that "people don't read on the web!" but I think that is becoming much less true - people are learning to. I for one read voraciously on the web. Gradually there will be more major, top-quality webzines. Plenty of print mags have their content available online for *free* - many of them may simply port their print publications onto the web. But focusing excessively on zines - a format which makes a conscious point of mimicking a revered and successful form of Old Media - tears away at the potenial of the web. It is *not necessary* to get all one's information from one site. That's why your vision of a "communal online magazine" is so outrageous - why would any two people read the same thing when they have almost an infinity of choices? A lot of online publications (notably Wired News) even go so far as to trade links to articles from other publications, underlining the choices available. While many companies entering the online market from traditional media (mark Disney's behemoth go.com, with nearly no outlinking) are paranoid about allowing visitors, once arrived, to leave the site - this is antithetical to the whole idea of the world wide web.
Katz's example of the rainbow love beam lady was effective exactly because the site itself is so charmingly pointless. Witness the miracle of self-publication: give the world something mass media never would, and they will come. An untapped niche market for rainbow love beams, if you will.
Will you marry me, Moofie? ;-)
I'm very amused by your comments - all of them. Okay, point by point:
Like I said, I don't have much use for mainstream press. It makes very good sense to me indeed that they would dwell on the Internet because the Internet provides the same kinds of information they do about a million times better. They *should* be worried!
In what way is the Internet unimpressive? People have unprecedented opportunity to influence and comment on media. If you need to access an expert in any field under the sun, in minutes you can find one to email directly, even people who are famous authorities in their fields. Hop over to eBay and find any gadget, doodad, or piece of crap that was ever made and have it delivered to your doorstep from anywhere in the world. Amazon is the third largest bookseller in the US and doesn't have a single strip mall facade. All this, the whole phenomenon of the web, has happened *basically* over the course of the last five years. Call me a rube, but I'm impressed as hell.
Looking for obscure publications? I do all the time. On eBay and about a billion used and rare book sites. I've bought rare books and magazines that make me tremble with excitement to hold in my hands - for mere dollars - things I'd been seeking for years that weren't in any library I'd ever been to. More digitized texts become available daily and it is likely a matter of time before the sorts of information provided now by Lexis/Nexis will be freely available - Universities have always been a key component of the Internet. The future of the Internet is *not* going to lie heavily in paid content; only pornography is currently getting anywhere with that model. Information *does* want to be free (even computers want to be free appearantly, if you take the "free PC" thing halfway seriously).
Of course brick and mortar stores aren't gonna be completely supplanted by virtual ones. But a significant segment of the population is already buying books online, and that is surely the future of catalog sales, which in the late 19th century also changed the face of consumerism at a time when not everyone had access to a wide variety of goods for sale locally. The Sears Roebuck catalog sold everything from buggies to cans of stewed tomatoes. Take a look at the web today and it's a weird kind of deja vous to see people buying automobiles at Carpoint and... well, cans of stewed tomatoes at Peapod. Even though these things can be bought locally, purchasing them from one's living room is even more local and that convenience can be priceless in a hectic modern life.
As to the rest, you're full of crap.
Thank you for backing me up and ditto all the way about the computer as an extension of the brain... I started thinking the other day about how protective I am of my computer because it has all the important stuff in it that won't fit into my (absent-minded) head! People who are truly comfortable with computers start to think of them as extensions of their native faculties. Even those of us with really, really crappy dial-up service rather than the fast connection we would like to be able to afford. :)
I do think you imply in your first post that news is the most significant purpose of the Internet, or perhaps the most useful one. And I'm not sure I see what argument you're making with your "simply another communications medium" comment - implying perhaps that all communications media are created equal and this one is not especially differentiated from the others. I think that's a disingenuous assumption. The Internet is more versatile and far-reaching than any communications technology that has come before in terms of the types of information it can deliver and to whom, far more so than print media, radio, or TV. That's a pretty solid fact. And as I was saying, the ways people interact with the information on the Internet differ significantly from the ways people interact with "old media" - they have the option of either saying "uh-huh" or changing the station or channel or turning the page. Allow me to illustrate. Perhaps you and I both watched the Academy Awards on Sunday. Perhaps you got fed up with the ebulient Roberto Benigni about the time he was climbing over people to get his statue for Best Foreign Film and flipped over to CNN. Perhaps I got a kick out of him and stayed to watch the whole show. That's about the sum of the comment we can make on the Academy awards. No one asks us whether we think Roberto Benigni deserves an award, or whether Whoopie looks good in feathers. Then, this morning you and I both read an article by someone named Jon Katz. You disagreed with its premise - then instead of leaving you said so. Not to youself, but to hundreds, maybe thousands of people who will see your comment. Probably the author himself will see it. I saw it. Now, I have been following Jon Katz around the web for some time now and am rather fond of the guy, I've even emailed him a couple times (try emailing Whoopie). I wanted to respond to the article too, in support of it, and did so by flaming you. So a conversation started. Every damn person that reads the original article can read what we have to say about it if they so desire. Try getting yourself as big a potential audience as the emcee at the Academy Awards. You don't think that changes anything? Some people argue that it doesn't really because Katz's article is still at the top of the page. Well, do what so many other people have done - make your own page. The personal website is not dead, and those which have had some effort put into them and provide content people want to look at can get some pretty respectable hit counts. Regarding the personal site, unquestionably the web has become more commercialized and centered around corporate mega-sites (go.com anyone?) but the fact that people *can* publish pictures of their cat to the entire world ensures without any reasonable doubt that they *will.* And by golly other cat lovers will surf in and coo at how cute Fluffy is.
Back to news again, you're still looking at it from an extremely narrow angle. Let me explain again. Perhaps I am getting some of the same AP newsfeed you are, but from there I can go to any of a million supplementary sources and take my understanding of that piece of news in any direction I want. *I* control the way I experience it. The way to use the Internet effectively to acquire information is not to visit one site, but to travel, to surf. Wired News (not actually a general news publication BTW, but focused on particular types of news) may give you an article summarizing an issue, then give direct links to company websites, etc. where in many cases the ordinary reader can get further information straight from the horse's mouth - from the newsmakers.
Urrrrgh. I hate people like this. How did this moron find his way to Slashdot? What pisses me off about people who like to trivialize the Internet is thest they NEVER know what they are talking about.
And re: news, which FallLine is tacitly assuming to be the main function of the Internet, I have gotten all mine from the Web for the past two years. I have no clue what he is talking about. Not only is there exponentially more information than I could ever hope to get from traditional media sources, I can get it when I want it, how I want it, and in as much or little depth as I desire. I make a daily circuit on the web actively gleaning information relevant to me from various sites. This may include not only tertiary sources but primary and secondary ones as well. I can get all the news I need in a liberal tone far more palatable to me than any traditional media. The only thing I can figure about people like FallLine is that they actually like being spoon-fed bite-sized morsels of information at regular intervals by an attractive and well-dressed robot who enunciates very clearly. Which brings me to *my* take on the real functions of the Internet and the differences between it and traditional media, which are to facilitate intellectual participation in information rather than acceptance of it "as-found" - communication with text - and of course interpersonal communication.
Sound about right, Katz?