Rupert Murdoch has control over a significant percentage of the media in Britain, America and Australia, and yet there hasn't been any significant decline. (Mind you, it's hard to decline from zero, but that's another story.)
As a middle-aged U.S. citizen, a trip to Europe really woke me up to the meaning of "British Empire." (also lead me to coin the phrase "Mommie -Dearest Country.")
(let's also be sure to remember what the "A" in "AOL" stands for.)
I appreciate your describing the potential as a "decline from zero," but I think you said it in jest, and I take it more seriously. I believe that, in the U.S., the media are the fourth branch of government (the "official" ones being the Executive (president), Legislative (congress), and Judicial (the Supreme Court).)
In the past few years our media scene has diversified tremendously due to the inexpensive, global communications that the internet provides.
I'm concerned for our democracy when that diversity is threatened my our "Free-market" economy. The trouble is, the free market is not stable, and democracy requires quality in education and communication in order to produce optimal results.
When I see AOL and Time/Warner joining forces, I see the power of the Internet harnessed to provide the benefits of Television. And here, in the USA, the power of Television as a tool for education and communication has never been realized.
The next most popular television show here, after Wrestling (!), is a situation drama about patching up gunshot victims. Not that we care about gunshot victims (the whole world must know by now that these people are a major U.S. industry); it's just that we need that level of sensationalism to attract viewers to the advertising.
Heavens, what if we stopped thinking about the ads and started thinking about the victims? Can't have that. We'd better corral all of those internet subversives and sweep them under a flood of advertising and cheap news bites, before somebody gets civilized.
Which is it? Are the mass media in the USA getting more and more stupid, or are they cleverly writing down to the level of their (true?) perception of a beer-and-football audience?
I always knew that the good science was poorly reported, and so would look for the real story somewhere like "Science News."
Now everthing is poorly reported _except_ bad science.
AFAIC, the internet came along just in time, else how would intelligent people discuss what is _really_ happening?
(Actually, I fear that my USA bias is showing here; I have heard that citizens of the old Soviet Union were/are quite adept at seeing through the media and discussing the politically unmentionable.)
I only made the suggestion because anonymity moderates you down. I hoped more would see your comment on Turing's treatment if it wasn't "score 0" from the start.
Sorry that you chose to post anonymously; the way Turing was treated by our "Mommy Dearest" country should scare off anyone with both a brain and a concience. Expect the same from the USA. Heck, it's public policy here.
What do you think about the wisdom of linking a planetary network of desktop computers to a radio telescope, hoping to go online with any extra-terrestrial who cares to open our collective port?
Their "hardware" is cheap (internet access, zillions of cheap computers), and their raw data is expensive (radio telescope time, real-time data). What's so suprising about SETI fussing over the data and not the software/hardware? Efficient code saves hardware, and that's not their bottleneck.
If we could build up a library of clone stock for endangered species, then we wouldn't have to worry so much about crushing them (as we usually do by hijacking their habitats).
What a boon for countries like the USA, where laws protecting endangered species impede so much human activity. I've always been mildy amused by the value judgements involving what constitutes a species worth saving. There are quite a number of microbes, for instance, that we would all be quite happy and guilt-free if we could wipe them off of the planet.
As for the cute and cuddly ones that we fuss over, a cloning library is just the ticket.
But, back to species and habitats. A biologist once taught me that they are inseparable. And it's the habitat, not the species, that humans need to be self-interested about.
Slashdot Mirror
As a middle-aged U.S. citizen, a trip to Europe really woke me up to the meaning of "British Empire." (also lead me to coin the phrase "Mommie -Dearest Country.")
(let's also be sure to remember what the "A" in "AOL" stands for.)
I appreciate your describing the potential as a "decline from zero," but I think you said it in jest, and I take it more seriously. I believe that, in the U.S., the media are the fourth branch of government (the "official" ones being the Executive (president), Legislative (congress), and Judicial (the Supreme Court).)
In the past few years our media scene has diversified tremendously due to the inexpensive, global communications that the internet provides.
I'm concerned for our democracy when that diversity is threatened my our "Free-market" economy. The trouble is, the free market is not stable, and democracy requires quality in education and communication in order to produce optimal results.
When I see AOL and Time/Warner joining forces, I see the power of the Internet harnessed to provide the benefits of Television. And here, in the USA, the power of Television as a tool for education and communication has never been realized.
The next most popular television show here, after Wrestling (!), is a situation drama about patching up gunshot victims. Not that we care about gunshot victims (the whole world must know by now that these people are a major U.S. industry); it's just that we need that level of sensationalism to attract viewers to the advertising.
Heavens, what if we stopped thinking about the ads and started thinking about the victims? Can't have that. We'd better corral all of those internet subversives and sweep them under a flood of advertising and cheap news bites, before somebody gets civilized.
Anarchy: (n) A form of civilization where each citizen is capable of governing their own self.
I sympathise deeply with your rant.
Which is it? Are the mass media in the USA getting more and more stupid, or are they cleverly writing down to the level of their (true?) perception of a beer-and-football audience?
I always knew that the good science was poorly reported, and so would look for the real story somewhere like "Science News."
Now everthing is poorly reported _except_ bad science.
AFAIC, the internet came along just in time, else how would intelligent people discuss what is _really_ happening?
(Actually, I fear that my USA bias is showing here; I have heard that citizens of the old Soviet Union were/are quite adept at seeing through the media and discussing the politically unmentionable.)
Those of you in Europe or UK, how aware have you been of this 'feature' in car radios?
Are there any laws specifically regarding the abuse of the RDS system (as opposed to just plain unauthorized transmissions)?
I can see the benefits for civil defense, but the abuse potential is staggering.
if we had no software patents, or hardware patents, then what the hell would we be able to patent?
Dioxoribonucleic acid.
I only made the suggestion because anonymity moderates you down. I hoped more would see your comment on Turing's treatment if it wasn't "score 0" from the start.
Sorry that you chose to post anonymously;
the way Turing was treated by our "Mommy Dearest" country should scare off anyone with both a brain and a concience. Expect the same from the USA. Heck, it's public policy here.
And which gender and body type are _you_?
What do you think about the wisdom of linking a planetary network of desktop computers to a radio telescope, hoping to go online with any extra-terrestrial who cares to open our collective port?
Anyone know where to get "American Sign Language for Dummies?"
Their "hardware" is cheap (internet access, zillions of cheap computers), and their raw data is expensive (radio telescope time, real-time data). What's so suprising about SETI fussing over the data and not the software/hardware? Efficient code saves hardware, and that's not their bottleneck.
"greeks bearing gifts" is the cliche, but I always thought it played better the other way around.
What a boon for countries like the USA, where laws protecting endangered species impede so much human activity. I've always been mildy amused by the value judgements involving what constitutes a species worth saving. There are quite a number of microbes, for instance, that we would all be quite happy and guilt-free if we could wipe them off of the planet.
As for the cute and cuddly ones that we fuss over, a cloning library is just the ticket.
But, back to species and habitats. A biologist once taught me that they are inseparable. And it's the habitat, not the species, that humans need to be self-interested about.
So, how do you clone a habitat?
Congrats to Linus; I once tried to be a Unix stud but got caught in a conundrum.