I think it's safe to agree that "internet access frustrates my government's attempt to control me." The interesting question is: to what extent does that regulation become difficult?
Taxation
You don't receive real merchandise through the wire, you receive them by some means of transport. If a nation wanted to enforce a tax on internet-purchased goodies, then it could
force vendors to collect taxes
check incoming freight
Sure, maybe you can find a vendor willing to smuggle goods without the notice of the government, but that happens without the 'net.
Free Speech
Only if your government lets you. Consider that encryption is banned in Chine for unauthorized individuals.
Maybe you're right. Perhaps it is possible for someone to go online for the first time, fall in love with the "watering hole" tailored precisely to their beliefs, and then never discover challenging information.
However, I think that describes traditional media more than the internet.
I haven't seen any television programming that consistently raised its standards above the level needed to exploit the viewers most vulnerable to advertising. All information of value is strung out in serials. Everything that they provide must be encapsulated and wrapped up with a pretty bow before the next commercial break. Most of the programming is dedicated to proving that the show has value:
Within this half-hour, we'll show you some tips for healthy living.
Next up, we'll show you how to live a healthy life.
Now we are showing you how to be healthy.
tip #1.
tip #2.
Now you know how to live a healthy life. Enjoy!
Stay tuned next hour for more tips about leading a healthy life.
Often, the "value" of television programming is to give people just enough tools for use in their own private self-rewarding "watering-hole". i.e. they have the right punchline to say when talking to their ill-informed friends. TV news programs provide the straw man which viewers can conveniently knock down and feel strong and smart, enhanced by that vital television programming.
Traditional media isn't strictly interested in informing you; they want your continued attention for long-lasting advertising revenue. Do you think that CNN will ever explain the nature of MS Outlook virii to their audience, or will they exploit the periodic release of a new virus for regular sensationalist drama about hackers and cyberspace?
The internet has a natural advantage over newspaper as well. All over the country, many of the same political arguemnts are written over and over, in different editorial pages of different papers. Not only must those presentations be encapsulated within one quote, one article, or one paper, but also there is a tremendous amount of redundancy from people constructing similar introductory-level arguments in seperate papers. Online forums are capable of providing more forward progress than their printed counterparts.
The internet empowers users to eliminate the cliches, redundancies, stereotypes, and straw-man arguments. Internet users can compile their own archive of useful links and searchable databases to illustrate a point. Traditional media is not only incapable, it is unwilliing to truly challenge their audience.
I had great expectations for the premiere of BattleBots,
but the first show kind of disappointed me.
Sure, the few minutes of robot action were neat:
robots spinning, buzzsaws cutting, ramrod whacking action.
However, the rest of the show was completely fluff.
Annoying fluff. For example, when they were going to
"show how the robots worked", instead of demonstrating
the mechanics of the robot "Discovery" style,
they flashed through a collage of insider
buzzwords designed to stupify and astound their audience.
I guess they were trying to impress us with the technical
wizardry of the combatants, but I'd rather see a more
clear-cut demonstration of the actual robot strategies.
Hopefully, as the show progresses, they will have more battles
and offer a more genuine peek into the workings of the robots.
They can't maintain an audience on filler for long. (can they?)
Perhaps video game therapy helps children and pilots in different ways.
For a child, the game is attractive enough to avoid distractions away from the task. Irrelevant impulses to squirm around are ignored by the brain which is too busy processing the sights, sounds, and strategies of the game. For once, the kid may be able to follow a task from beginning to end; for example, leading a mouse to the end of a maze. That may be the child's first clue about planning strategies. He learns subtle new skills as well as the rewards of patience and effort.
For a pilot, the game can alienate him from reality. Success and failure become abstract ("Health=0, Insert Token to Continue"). His reasoning is strictly analytical and without fear of consequence. He is able to focus and strategize without feeling pressure. It's a skill that he can carry over into a mission.
Video games may provide a structure capable of teaching these skills, but there is a risk: a player who is detached from reality, too busy winning to think about quitting. If video games trigger a new insight in the mind of the player, then he should quit while he's ahead (or after he's satisfied and had enough fun).
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's safe to agree that "internet access frustrates my government's attempt to control me." The interesting question is: to what extent does that regulation become difficult?
Taxation
You don't receive real merchandise through the wire, you receive them by some means of transport. If a nation wanted to enforce a tax on internet-purchased goodies, then it could
- force vendors to collect taxes
- check incoming freight
Sure, maybe you can find a vendor willing to smuggle goods without the notice of the government, but that happens without the 'net.Free Speech
Only if your government lets you. Consider that encryption is banned in Chine for unauthorized individuals.
-- David M. Moore
Maybe you're right. Perhaps it is possible for someone to go online for the first time, fall in love with the "watering hole" tailored precisely to their beliefs, and then never discover challenging information.
However, I think that describes traditional media more than the internet.
I haven't seen any television programming that consistently raised its standards above the level needed to exploit the viewers most vulnerable to advertising. All information of value is strung out in serials. Everything that they provide must be encapsulated and wrapped up with a pretty bow before the next commercial break. Most of the programming is dedicated to proving that the show has value:
Often, the "value" of television programming is to give people just enough tools for use in their own private self-rewarding "watering-hole". i.e. they have the right punchline to say when talking to their ill-informed friends. TV news programs provide the straw man which viewers can conveniently knock down and feel strong and smart, enhanced by that vital television programming.
Traditional media isn't strictly interested in informing you; they want your continued attention for long-lasting advertising revenue. Do you think that CNN will ever explain the nature of MS Outlook virii to their audience, or will they exploit the periodic release of a new virus for regular sensationalist drama about hackers and cyberspace?
The internet has a natural advantage over newspaper as well. All over the country, many of the same political arguemnts are written over and over, in different editorial pages of different papers. Not only must those presentations be encapsulated within one quote, one article, or one paper, but also there is a tremendous amount of redundancy from people constructing similar introductory-level arguments in seperate papers. Online forums are capable of providing more forward progress than their printed counterparts.
The internet empowers users to eliminate the cliches, redundancies, stereotypes, and straw-man arguments. Internet users can compile their own archive of useful links and searchable databases to illustrate a point. Traditional media is not only incapable, it is unwilliing to truly challenge their audience.
-- David M. Moore
I had great expectations for the premiere of BattleBots, but the first show kind of disappointed me. Sure, the few minutes of robot action were neat: robots spinning, buzzsaws cutting, ramrod whacking action. However, the rest of the show was completely fluff. Annoying fluff. For example, when they were going to "show how the robots worked", instead of demonstrating the mechanics of the robot "Discovery" style, they flashed through a collage of insider buzzwords designed to stupify and astound their audience. I guess they were trying to impress us with the technical wizardry of the combatants, but I'd rather see a more clear-cut demonstration of the actual robot strategies. Hopefully, as the show progresses, they will have more battles and offer a more genuine peek into the workings of the robots. They can't maintain an audience on filler for long. (can they?)
--David M. Moore
Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
Perhaps video game therapy helps children and pilots in different ways.
For a child, the game is attractive enough to avoid distractions away from the task. Irrelevant impulses to squirm around are ignored by the brain which is too busy processing the sights, sounds, and strategies of the game. For once, the kid may be able to follow a task from beginning to end; for example, leading a mouse to the end of a maze. That may be the child's first clue about planning strategies. He learns subtle new skills as well as the rewards of patience and effort.
For a pilot, the game can alienate him from reality. Success and failure become abstract ("Health=0, Insert Token to Continue"). His reasoning is strictly analytical and without fear of consequence. He is able to focus and strategize without feeling pressure. It's a skill that he can carry over into a mission.
Video games may provide a structure capable of teaching these skills, but there is a risk: a player who is detached from reality, too busy winning to think about quitting. If video games trigger a new insight in the mind of the player, then he should quit while he's ahead (or after he's satisfied and had enough fun).
--David M. Moore