Some people get caught up in designing their own parade, and then on feedback from those who shit on it, realize they might prefer to spend their time elsewhere because they hadn't thought of the critiques that others provided them.
"Shitting on people's parades" is part of the corrective, stabilizing force of sociality. People who never talk to other people often think they've figured out all the answers, and then they go tell everyone else (as in this case) that everyone else should follow their solutions. In what world does it not make sense for some people to shit on some other people's poorly-thought-out-in-a-social-bubble parades??
Positive feedback is also part of this system, but since you're only shitting on the parade of shitting on parades, I'm only addressing the negative.
I'm with you on spending money on healthcare of all kinds, but the AMBER stats I'm finding are nowhere like what you're claiming. They look pretty effective from http://www.statisticbrain.com/amber-alert-statistics/ and http://www.chp.ca.gov/amber/ - do you have some sources for the stats and studies you're citing? It would be most helpful.
The flip side of this is the common anarchist and/or anti-capitalist comment I've heard, that "if all the physicists had to do mining or garbage collecting now and then, we'd quickly have robots to do all that labor." Of course it's a bit silly, but there's a nugget of truth buried in there.
Yeah - the answer isn't decentralization, it's interoperability... which yields a sort of decentralization.
Someone pointed out when ISPs offered email, but now (almost) everyone uses GMail, Yahoo, or Hotmail. But those three biggies all interoperate because email is a standard system.
It'd be nice if basic elements of social networking could somehow have standards, such that content I share on G+ was visible to G+ friends with Facebook accounts on their Facebook page, and vice versa... but I suspect there's too much incentive to keep these services walled gardens, and any sort of open social network adoption is a decade off, perhaps.
When it comes to the web and web browsers, a shared grammatic space, you're not engineering anymore, you're growing. Good luck resisting. Authors of dictionaries gave up long ago.
This assumes the inevitability and longevity of the concept of the nation-state, which has only been around a couple hundred years and is arguably (anthropologically speaking) not at all inevitable as a social entity.
Ultimately, would you just give out TLDs for whatever social entity you chose to recognize as some sort of homogenous group? How arbitrary are you prepared to be?
That seems to me to be the ultimate problem with TLDs. They are always already arbitrary. Just leave them so instead of imagining there's some sort of rationality (such as country-codes) which will just inevitabley be wiped away or need to be modified to fit some new scheme someday.
"In the last ten years, the mass uptake of the Internet is certainly a socially and culturally significant invention..."
Evidence, please. From what I can see, people still have sex, make babies, raise said babies, and capitalism still rules the world. Not much has changed in 400 years, let alone 100, let alone the last 20. Even our cultural beliefs about those things have barely changed if at all.
Also unchanged: our desire to believe everything is significantly different than it was 20, 100, or 400 years ago. I don't buy it. People may be talking more, but about less. Or, at least, about the same stuff: sex, babies, and how to make money since that's seen as the road to happiness.
If anything, the one thing that has changed in the last 200-400 years, but remained pretty constant since it came about, is the construction of increasingly rigid gender roles, the segregation of "women's labor" from "real labor," and a corresponding decrease in possible modes of human relationships.
It has always been so. Every corporate network is a closed web. Every bulletin board is a closed web. Thus it has always been. The Internet is a network of networks.
A few days later, I'm not sure what I was replying to, either. I might have clicked on the wrong Reply link. Apologies for the confusion.
I will say, though, I'm amused by your response because I didn't mention socialism, or anything related, anywhere in my comment. Personally, I'm an anarchist, and while your quote is simplistically clever, it's irrelevant to me.
This isn't biological. When you have a society where people think money defines who you are, and all social studies are basically done on white, educated folks, no wonder all our conclusions on "human nature" are f*#@ed up.
Slashdot can't be "honest" with "itself." That'st just too much to ask.
Yeah. And tell it to any community effort that's actually tried to embody such values, and been regulated or budgeted out of existence, or shut down by police for not fitting into the state's recognized slots for organizations. I'm thinking of most community groups, activist groups, radical bookstores, public gardens, squatter communities, etc.
Our state values are not our true values. Or vice versa...
The only reason libraries are tolerated by the state is their abject passivism.
Turn libraries into bastions of activism and they'll be regulated/budget-cut out of existence, just like all other activist spaces that achieve some sort of legitimacy are eventually regulated out of existence or have rents raised beyond reasonable levels.
If our society really held the values that people give lip service to when they talk about libraries, they would already be bastions of activism. Complaints in this very thread about them being "daytime shelters for the homeless" reveal exactly the opposite: what people want is a "free bookstore, but keep those other people out, please." Values of community, shared investment in education and the future and all that jazz, that necessarily implies open to all, including those nasty poor people.
Um, even "UTC" is political. Who came up with it? Why do you need to impose your time scheme on everyone? Sure, time ticks on, but in 60s? 100s? And what gives you the right to dictate universal time for someone on the other side of the globe?
Plus, names are always political, even when you think they aren't. The very idea that someone should adopt a name you want them to is political.
And people keep paying for them. I keep reading how Hollywood is "fixated" on this stuff or has some sort of problem, but people keep buying what they're selling.
Also, this stuff doesn't tarnish anything. Robocop's still a great movie. The original Star Wars films are still.. well, what they were. The Lord of the Rings books are still great books. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep wasn't tarnished by Blade Runner. I should know, I read the book far too late, twenty years after I started reading sci-fi and ten years after I saw Blade Runner. Dune wasn't tarnished by any of its film adaptations, and for me, the Lynch wasn't tarnished by the so-so SyFy versions. And Herbert's novels weren't tarnished by his kin's prequel novels.
People like to revisit the places they've been before, with a little variation. You may as well complain, "why do genre novelists write so many series?" I have no freaking clue. But people buy them.
Now, what I'd like to see is a film adaptation of The Demolished Man or The Stars My Destination by Bester. Also, any of MacLeod's or Reynolds' work, but then that would be a bit difficult...
Human costs are important. We're forgetting that, hence idiocy like Wisconsin. If you want to be "old-school economics" about it, all costs should be accounted for, including those stakeholder humans bring up that you may not have realized (employees are stakeholders, even if not stockholders). If you want to be currently capitalist about it, don't bother accounting for any costs that aren't affecting today's golf game. Have fun watching the planet burn then.
The true "tragedy of the commons" is epitomized in contemporary capitalism.
I'm not attracted to ears or knees, but I don't mind seeing them naked in films. I'm guessing you don't, either, so there must be something special about penises causing you offense. Which is sad, really, to suffer from such limitations.
You offer no alternative possible reasons. And I can't imagine any. Insecurity about themselves, insecurity about their children's ability to think for themselves, insecurity about other people's ability to think for themselves... it's all insecurity.
How else would one be offended by seeing genitals on a screen?
Slashdot Mirror
Some people get caught up in designing their own parade, and then on feedback from those who shit on it, realize they might prefer to spend their time elsewhere because they hadn't thought of the critiques that others provided them.
"Shitting on people's parades" is part of the corrective, stabilizing force of sociality. People who never talk to other people often think they've figured out all the answers, and then they go tell everyone else (as in this case) that everyone else should follow their solutions. In what world does it not make sense for some people to shit on some other people's poorly-thought-out-in-a-social-bubble parades??
Positive feedback is also part of this system, but since you're only shitting on the parade of shitting on parades, I'm only addressing the negative.
I'm with you on spending money on healthcare of all kinds, but the AMBER stats I'm finding are nowhere like what you're claiming. They look pretty effective from http://www.statisticbrain.com/amber-alert-statistics/ and http://www.chp.ca.gov/amber/ - do you have some sources for the stats and studies you're citing? It would be most helpful.
The flip side of this is the common anarchist and/or anti-capitalist comment I've heard, that "if all the physicists had to do mining or garbage collecting now and then, we'd quickly have robots to do all that labor." Of course it's a bit silly, but there's a nugget of truth buried in there.
Yeah - the answer isn't decentralization, it's interoperability... which yields a sort of decentralization.
Someone pointed out when ISPs offered email, but now (almost) everyone uses GMail, Yahoo, or Hotmail. But those three biggies all interoperate because email is a standard system.
It'd be nice if basic elements of social networking could somehow have standards, such that content I share on G+ was visible to G+ friends with Facebook accounts on their Facebook page, and vice versa ... but I suspect there's too much incentive to keep these services walled gardens, and any sort of open social network adoption is a decade off, perhaps.
"A content-filled and freely-accessible Internet is a resource that the whole community benefits from"
Yes, yes it is. And would still be without adblock. People like to create and share. It need not be monetized.
When it comes to the web and web browsers, a shared grammatic space, you're not engineering anymore, you're growing. Good luck resisting. Authors of dictionaries gave up long ago.
It's how the human mind & language work... Just sayin'.
Most of the things you want them to notice don't seem to be the case so far.
This assumes the inevitability and longevity of the concept of the nation-state, which has only been around a couple hundred years and is arguably (anthropologically speaking) not at all inevitable as a social entity.
Ultimately, would you just give out TLDs for whatever social entity you chose to recognize as some sort of homogenous group? How arbitrary are you prepared to be?
That seems to me to be the ultimate problem with TLDs. They are always already arbitrary. Just leave them so instead of imagining there's some sort of rationality (such as country-codes) which will just inevitabley be wiped away or need to be modified to fit some new scheme someday.
"In the last ten years, the mass uptake of the Internet is certainly a socially and culturally significant invention..."
Evidence, please. From what I can see, people still have sex, make babies, raise said babies, and capitalism still rules the world. Not much has changed in 400 years, let alone 100, let alone the last 20. Even our cultural beliefs about those things have barely changed if at all.
Also unchanged: our desire to believe everything is significantly different than it was 20, 100, or 400 years ago. I don't buy it. People may be talking more, but about less. Or, at least, about the same stuff: sex, babies, and how to make money since that's seen as the road to happiness.
If anything, the one thing that has changed in the last 200-400 years, but remained pretty constant since it came about, is the construction of increasingly rigid gender roles, the segregation of "women's labor" from "real labor," and a corresponding decrease in possible modes of human relationships.
"...a cluster of smaller and more closed webs."
It has always been so. Every corporate network is a closed web. Every bulletin board is a closed web. Thus it has always been. The Internet is a network of networks.
Because people with power commonly do something bad, doesn't make it not bad.
A few days later, I'm not sure what I was replying to, either. I might have clicked on the wrong Reply link. Apologies for the confusion.
I will say, though, I'm amused by your response because I didn't mention socialism, or anything related, anywhere in my comment. Personally, I'm an anarchist, and while your quote is simplistically clever, it's irrelevant to me.
also, not practically useful, esp. given enough time. People have each others' names, esp. given enough time.
This isn't biological. When you have a society where people think money defines who you are, and all social studies are basically done on white, educated folks, no wonder all our conclusions on "human nature" are f*#@ed up.
Slashdot can't be "honest" with "itself." That'st just too much to ask.
Yeah. And tell it to any community effort that's actually tried to embody such values, and been regulated or budgeted out of existence, or shut down by police for not fitting into the state's recognized slots for organizations. I'm thinking of most community groups, activist groups, radical bookstores, public gardens, squatter communities, etc.
Our state values are not our true values. Or vice versa...
(Speaking as a New Yorker and an American)
The only reason libraries are tolerated by the state is their abject passivism.
Turn libraries into bastions of activism and they'll be regulated/budget-cut out of existence, just like all other activist spaces that achieve some sort of legitimacy are eventually regulated out of existence or have rents raised beyond reasonable levels.
If our society really held the values that people give lip service to when they talk about libraries, they would already be bastions of activism. Complaints in this very thread about them being "daytime shelters for the homeless" reveal exactly the opposite: what people want is a "free bookstore, but keep those other people out, please." Values of community, shared investment in education and the future and all that jazz, that necessarily implies open to all, including those nasty poor people.
"Names should be simple and non-political"
Ha! Hahahahahaha. Yeah. Good luck with that one.
Um, even "UTC" is political. Who came up with it? Why do you need to impose your time scheme on everyone? Sure, time ticks on, but in 60s? 100s? And what gives you the right to dictate universal time for someone on the other side of the globe?
Plus, names are always political, even when you think they aren't. The very idea that someone should adopt a name you want them to is political.
Yeah, cuz we're just in a glut of jobs at the moment. Screw this "everything's a market" crap. People should f'in organize already.
And people keep paying for them. I keep reading how Hollywood is "fixated" on this stuff or has some sort of problem, but people keep buying what they're selling.
Also, this stuff doesn't tarnish anything. Robocop's still a great movie. The original Star Wars films are still.. well, what they were. The Lord of the Rings books are still great books. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep wasn't tarnished by Blade Runner. I should know, I read the book far too late, twenty years after I started reading sci-fi and ten years after I saw Blade Runner. Dune wasn't tarnished by any of its film adaptations, and for me, the Lynch wasn't tarnished by the so-so SyFy versions. And Herbert's novels weren't tarnished by his kin's prequel novels.
People like to revisit the places they've been before, with a little variation. You may as well complain, "why do genre novelists write so many series?" I have no freaking clue. But people buy them.
Now, what I'd like to see is a film adaptation of The Demolished Man or The Stars My Destination by Bester. Also, any of MacLeod's or Reynolds' work, but then that would be a bit difficult...
Not until admins unionize, anyway. Which, luckily, they won't, because they're all libertarians and don't value more than money.
Human costs are important. We're forgetting that, hence idiocy like Wisconsin. If you want to be "old-school economics" about it, all costs should be accounted for, including those stakeholder humans bring up that you may not have realized (employees are stakeholders, even if not stockholders). If you want to be currently capitalist about it, don't bother accounting for any costs that aren't affecting today's golf game. Have fun watching the planet burn then.
The true "tragedy of the commons" is epitomized in contemporary capitalism.
I agree. And as much as mass media enables widely shared experiences, it also fosters an unhealthy monoculture and loss of autonomous creativity.
More and more of people doing and making their own things, please.
I no longer care about Hollywood, or TV networks for that matter.
I'm not attracted to ears or knees, but I don't mind seeing them naked in films. I'm guessing you don't, either, so there must be something special about penises causing you offense. Which is sad, really, to suffer from such limitations.
You offer no alternative possible reasons. And I can't imagine any. Insecurity about themselves, insecurity about their children's ability to think for themselves, insecurity about other people's ability to think for themselves... it's all insecurity.
How else would one be offended by seeing genitals on a screen?