"Wired Lite without any insight" is, er, "Wired".
on
Shift Calls it Quits
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry to be contrarian, but as a reader of both "Shift" and "Wired" (all the way back to issue #1), I couldn't help but laugh at your characterization of "Shift" as "like Wired Lite without any of the insight...".
In the opinion of this random bloke, Shift would be more fairly characterized as Wired-sans-pretension-sans-narcissism-sans-technol ogy-diefication.
In my opinion, Wired's steadfast embrace of the Whig view of history- that the new is inherently better than the old, was always it's Achilles heel.
To wit, Shift never made so bold (and idiotic) a proclamation as Wired's infamous "Kiss Your Browser Goodbye! exhortation, which predicted the imminent death of the web browser and the pending future domination of luminary upstarts like "Pointcast" (dead), "Marimba" (seriously hurting), "Backweb" (reinvented).
I'll miss Shift. And one day I'm sure I'll miss Wired, too, for very different reasons.
Frankly, it should've happened a lot sooner- because there are a lot of great videogame pioneers who deserved more recognition than they got, including the geniuses at Infocom, Howard Scott Warsaw (despite the travesty that was E.T. for Atari...), ID and so on.
And no offense to/. or The Onion, but the Webby Awards (recognizing "the best of the Web both in quality and quantity") is the most ridiculous and pointless awards ceremony of the last century.
If the Internet is, as is often claimed, one of the most important mediums of the last century (and perhaps even last 1000 years), doesn't it deserve a better body for the recognition of its best-and-brightest contributors than this? An awards ceremony created by a pretty actress cum filmmaker cum Good Morning America 'internet expert'?
(inserting obligatory karma-whore reply, "I dunno man- her body looks pretty good to me!")
Do Not Fold, Bend, Mutilate or Spindle this agreement.
ELECTRONIC END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR FROWNY(TM)
NOTICE:
THIS IS A CONTRACT. BY OPENING THIS DOCUMENT YOU ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. Please read this agreement carefully.
The following document contains Despair Inc.'s Official Registered
Trademark, which combines a colon (":") with a hyphen ("-") and an
open-parenthesis ("(") to create an ASC-II depiction of sadness, henceforth
referred to as the "Frowny(tm)". This document also includes related
documentation. In return for acquiring a license to use the Frowny(tm) and
its requisite documentation, you agree to the following terms and
conditions:
1. Scope of Use. You may cut and paste the Frowny(tm) into one(1) and
only one email, which may in turn be sent to one and only one recipient,
who is restricted from further forwarding or otherwise duplicating this
Frowny(tm). Neither you nor the one legal recipient of this Frowny(tm) may
resize, recolor or otherwise modify this item upon receipt of it. Failure
to comply with any of the aforementioned terms will be a violation of
trademark law and will as well void any warranty for the accompanying
Frowny(tm).
2. Proprietary Rights and Obligations. The structure and organization
of the Frowny(tm) is the valuable property of Despair. You agree that
no copies shall be made of the Frowny(tm), and that your single use of the
Frowny(tm) in email shall be accompanied by this unedited Electronic End
User License Agreement. As well, you agree not to alter, reverse engineer
or disassemble the Frowny(tm). Removal of any individual component of
the Frowny(tm) is expressly forbidden and may result in a miscommunication
of your demeanor to the recipient.
3. Assignment. You may assign your rights under this Agreement to a
third party who agrees in writing to be bound by this Agreement prior to
the assignment provided that you transfer the sole copy of the Frowny(tm)
and this related documentation to the third party and provided that you
have not used the Frowny(tm). Except as set forth above, you may not
assign your rights under this Agreement.
4. No Other Rights. Title to and ownership of the Frowny(tm) and
documentation and any reproductions thereof shall remain with Despair.
Except as stated above, this Agreement does not grant you any right
(whether by license, ownership or otherwise) in or to intellectual property
with respect to the Frowny(tm).
5. Term. This license is effective until terminated. Despair has the
right to terminate your license immediately if you fail to comply with any
term of this Agreement. Upon any such termination you will destroy the
original Frowny(tm) and its related documentation.
6. Use Restrictions. The use of the Frowny(tm) with any Instant
Messaging Client, including America Online's Instant Messenger, is
expressly forbidden, as it may induce a permanent and irreversible
transmogrification of the Frowny(tm) into an icon which, while retaining
some recognizable expression of sadness, is severely jaundiced and no
longer protected by trademark rights extended to registration 75502288.
7. Warranty. DESPAIR MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, ARISING
FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE, OR STATUTORY, AS TO ANY MATTER
WHATSOEVER. IN PARTICULAR, ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS
ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED.
8. Limit of Liability. (a) IN NO EVENT WILL DESPAIR BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY LOST PROFITS OR
LOST SAVINGS, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY PARTY, EVEN IF A DESPAIR
REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. (b)
Some states or provinces do not allow the exclusion or limitation of
incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion
may not apply to you.
9. Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by the laws in
force in the State of Texas excluding the application of its conflicts of
laws rules. This Agreement will not be governed by the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the
application of which is expressly excluded. If any part of this Agreement
is found void and unenforceable, it will not affect the validity of the
balance of the Agreement, which shall remain valid and enforceable
according to its terms. You agree that the Frowny(tm) will not be shipped,
transferred or exported into any country or used in any manner prohibited
by the United States Export Administration Act.
10. Entire Agreement. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS
AGREEMENT, UNDERSTAND IT AND THAT IT IS THE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE
STATEMENT OF YOUR AGREEMENT WITH DESPAIR WHICH SUPERSEDES ANY PRIOR
AGREEMENT, ORAL OR WRITTEN, AND ANY OTHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DESPAIR
AND YOU RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND YOUR
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF YOUR
LICENSORS WHOSE RIGHTS ARE LICENSED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. NO VARIATION OF
THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST DESPAIR UNLESS
DESPAIR GIVES ITS EXPRESS CONSENT IN WRITING SIGNED BY AN OFFICER OF
DESPAIR.
11. Government End Users. The Frowny(tm) and documentation are
"Commercial Items," as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. 2.101, consisting
of "Commercial Computer Artwork" and "Commercial Computer Artwork
Documentation," as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 or 48 C.F.R.
22i7.7202, as applicable. Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 or 48 C.F.R.
227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4, as applicable, the Commercial Computer
Artwork and Commercial Computer Artwork Documentation are being license to
U.S. Government end users (A) only as Commercial Items and (B) with only
those rights as are granted to all other end users pursuant to the terms
and conditions herein. Unpublished-rights reserved under the copyright laws
of the United States. Despair Incorporated, 660 Preston Forest Center #153,
Dallas, Texas, 75230-2718.
Despair and the Frowny(tm) are registered trademarks of Despair, Incorporated.
Inquiries and comments about either the Frowny(tm) or this licensing
agreement may be directed to feedback@despair.com.
Additional information about Despair may be obtained by visiting
http://www.despair.com.
End license agreement. Please refer to the "Frowny(tm)" Owner's Manual for
instructions of proper use.
Aint it the/. way. Your post makes claims to some sort of historical insight with great aplomb, substituting conviction for any actual substance (historical, logical or otherwise) to support your claims.
-
The Bible, by many accounts, is about 80% Roman propaganda...
Of course it must be so. The New Testament was written by authors who were persecuted and imprisoned by the Roman Empire, of course, and is absolutely bursting with pointed criticisms of Rome- many uttered by the, er, 'enlightened teacher' Jesus (crucified by the Romans, as pointedly observed in all four Gospels you claim to be pro-Roman propaganda...). The last book of the Bible, 'Revelation', which predicts among other things the then unthinkable future cashless economic society and the Mark of the Beast (among other things also becoming manifest in our time) must also somehow be pro-Roman propaganda, too. Right? Even though the author was writing the book in exile on the Isle of Patmos by the Romans? Even though the Romans decimated Jerusalem in 70AD and persecuted the Christians for sport?
The Old Testament was written prior to the existence of any dominant Roman empire, but I'll set those facts aside like any/. user who moderates you up, since you clearly seem to believe you know what you're talking about. I'll try not to be disturbed, of course, by the irrefutable evidence that the prophetic book of Daniel, written in the Babylonian captivity, specifically foretold of the coming of a dominant Roman empire because, you know, I trust your biased, unsupported claims more than any valid proofs that might contradict them.
Calling the Bible "Roman propaganda", in the face of so many more facts than you would have the attention span to endure reading, is about as ludicrious as calling 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' a pro-slavery tract, or the Constitution of the United States a pro-Monarchy creed. It is flatly, even laughably ignorant. But if you say it with enough conviction, in a flurry of equally uninformed but impassioned errors, I'll simply but reason aside like any other child of postmodernism here and mod you up to +5 Insightful.
Let me guess, too, while we're at it. You're 'pro-chip implant', right? I should ignore those pro-Roman ravings from that apostle John dude who warned that taking the 'Mark of the Beast' (some tattoo or implant required in the last days in order to buy or sell goods) was consigning oneself to eternal damnation. If his prophecy comes to pass in our lifetimes, I should trust your insights about the non-linear universe? I mean, if I'm wrong to trust you over him, its no biggie. It's just eternal damnation, separation from God for all eternity in a place where the fire isn't quenched and the worm does not die, right? It's not like I'd have anything better to do, forever. And ever. And ever.
As inventors / innovators, they have a great deal in common. They lack the sublime genius of their superior contemporaries (Tesla in Edison's day, Doug Engelbart in Bill Gates' day...). But what they lack in true vision they more than compensate for in cunning and ambition.
100 years from now, our great grandchildren will probably be informed by the education system that Bill Gates invented personal computing singlehandledly, in addition to the GUI and a bunch of other crap. The gazillions of dollars in the Gates trust will constantly be invested in extending the historical footprint of William Gates III, even while parts are also appropriated to noble philanthropic causes.
Some of you Linux-loving libertarian squints are telling yourselfs, "Ah! But you're wrong! Because the Internet will have a perfect record of today's history! The media in Tesla's day wasn't digital- it wasn't permanent. That's how he got so marginalized over time."
And all I can say is that whatever the digital network ends up turning into - even if its the bloody Matrix itself - or its a global cashless society where you can't buy or sell without having a barcode tattoo- it is going to be owned and operated by Microsoft.
Sucks. But history's gonna repeat itself. Until it ends.
...that he would be retiring from writing "while still at the top of his game", news of Chris Carter's plans to end X-Files this year "before-it-gets-stale" is simply sad.
King and Carter both created some fantastic entertainment- one producing some of the most popular horror and fiction books of his generation- the other creating one of the greatest television series in two decades.
But both have signaled their plans to leave only after overstaying their welcomes. They have exhausted their respective imaginations but keep mining, occasionally pulling out a tiny gold nuggest from the mines that once were their motherlodes.
King's last great works came in the early 90s- and Carter's last great season of X-Files was at least two or three seasons ago.
so bummer. I'll watch- but not because I've any interest in seeing what happens to characters I once cared about. Instead, morbid curiousity makes me wonder "How bad will it be? How bloody bad can it get?" And methinks the answer will surprise us all.
the whole thing vaguely reminds of the last line of a beautiful poem I remember reading in high school.
"his face turned to the face of
a man who has said goodbye,
and can not find the door".
First, you assert rather blatantly and incorrectly that "movie-making is a business, of which entertainment is a by-product". Filmmaking is an artform. Hollywood is an industry which uses and very often abuses the artform in the pursuit of wealth. The establishment within Hollywood largely, but not exclusively, pursues films which cost less to make than they can probably be assumed to gross. The artform, then, often suffers, because marketing forces affect both the sort of films which are made, and frequently the way in which films are made.
Having clarified that, let us move on.
Filmmaking is an artform, and certain films are universally recognized as being fantastic works of art- regardless of the processes or powers that created them. You can not look at many of the masterpieces of modern cinema and pretend otherwise. Tell me, was "Taxi Driver" a cheap-grab for box-office bucks? "Citizen Kane"? "Sex, Lies and Videotape"? "Run Lola Run"? "This Is Spinal Tap"?
Few films are both artistic masterpieces and box-office blockbusters. Nevertheless, some films are, and it is elitist and cynical to be dismissive of high art that just happens to be popular and financially successful.
"The Matrix" is, regardless of your somewhat low-regard for the film, a true masterpiece of science-fiction. Yes, the creators of the film offhandedly said the "Matrix is about robots vs. kung fu". That comment was a humble, joking hypersimplification. Sorry if you missed that.
Do some reading. Consider Simulacra and Simulations for starters (a book which Neo has early in the film). Read up on
Culture Jamming. There is a war underway, RIGHT NOW, for the control of the minds of mankind. "The Matrix" is a film which addresses that very subject- co-opting the form of a shoot-them-up-sci-fi-FX-supermovie in order to make a bigger point than most of you seem to have realized.
The 60s were a period of great civil unrest and cultural change. Many great films of the day reflected the social upheaval our nation experienced- touching on the subjects of the civil rights (for minorities and women), the counter-culture, etc.
As we speak, a new war rages- but it is a quiet war, an invisible one. The war is being waged by corporate interests, using media and advertising, to create and control a complete version of reality, one which allows them to encourage endless consumption and one that discourages them from questioning the reality. The rebellion is being fought by individuals and groups that realize that the consumption culture is creating empty shells of all of us. It is isolating us from family and community.
The film "The Matrix" is a part of this movement. It isn't just a cool sci-fi. Yes, the film is being marketed and used by the Producer Joel Silver to generate a serious mint. The system is necessarily co-opted to subsidize the creation of the expensive, incredibly complex work. Is this hypocritical? You decide. Do the ends justify the means? I would say yes. I'd rather see "The Matrix" realized as a $100M work than see what the Brothers would've been able to come up with using only the money they made painting houses and doing their first film, "Bound".
Watch the movie again with these facts in mind. Research the culture-jamming movement and read everything you can if you want to be a part of the fight. If you don't, at least be aware that it is being waged- and that you minds are the spoils if the powers win the war.
A dumb assumption based on nothing more than the author's own admitted lack of vision for the sequels?
It was intended, from the beginning, to be a trilogy.
The authors have barely scratched the surface of their own mythology. Did you feel that the end of the film rendered sequels impossible? Remember the final quote, with Neo addressing the creators of the Matrix which STILL enslaves almost all of humankind?
"Neo:
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules or controls, borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you."
The entire film is simply a set-up so that the sequels can TELL THE STORY OF THE ATTEMPTS OF A SMALL-GROUP OF SELF-AWARE REBELS TO LIBERATE A HUMAN POPULATION FROM MENTAL CAPTIVITY. In short, THE STORY HASN'T BARELY EVEN BEGUN YET.
As you may or may not know, the film- in addition to being one bad-azz science-fiction masterpiece- is a profound philosophical statement, as well. It is a message to YOU and to ME, about our OWN captivity by OUR MEDIA, which represents a FALSE version of reality that most assume to be TRUE. The Matrix is real- it is being fed to us through television sets 24/7. It is being delivered to us every morning by the paperboy. It is being used to create WANT, so that CORPORATIONS can SELL products we don't NEED but CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT.
In order to hope to escape it, we must first know that it exists- and that it is distinct from the existence we assume to be real.
SPOILER ALERT.
"The Matrix" sequels are going to touch upon many subjects it hadn't yet addressed in the first. We already know that much of what will be taking place to propel the plot will be sci-fi versions of "culture jamming"- in which the lucid rebels use the tools of the Matrix to waken the sleeping citizenry. Television sets which help to keep the population dumb and entertained ( in both the films and in our real world) might suddenly be overrided by the hackers- so that unexpected, jarring programming comes through- perhaps warning them of their enslavement, or of the reality of the Matrix, or whatever...
There are acts of culture-jamming going on all around us right now. They aren't simply random, unrelated happenings like some dork running onto the stage at the Grammys naked with the words "SOY BOMB" on his chest. They are a part of a movement, one that you might not even be aware of but should be. A movement to fight an enemy common to all of us.
Give the sequels the benefit of the doubt. If you want to speculate about spurious sequels for the express purpose of generating major bucks at the box office, get out your light sabre and take a few swings at George Lucas.
Better step up and be patriotic, Hacker Squints of Slashdot. Better to be serving your country while sitting behind a monitor in an air-conditioned room than be drafted and sent out.
...I can just picture a special 3L1T3 squadron of slashdot users, sent out into the plains of Afghanistan. Everyone wheezing and gasping for breath before they even got out of the copter. Eyes darting around nervously for the nearest coin-operated soda machine selling Mountain Dew (which, if you must know, is probably in Jordan or Israel).
EXT - NAMELESS AFGHAN PLAIN - MORNING.
An Apache helicopter settles onto the barren plain. Out from it emerge three plain males. They wear an assortment of camouflage combined with curious t-shirts, with sayings like "I don't work here" and "will frag for bandwidth".
Geek 1:
"(wheeze, wheeze) I thought...(gasp)...All that Quake...(gasp gasp)... Prepared me for this..."
Geek2: "...I haven't... (HACK! HACK!)... moved this much...(cough cough)... since I got off the couch... to get the UPS delivery... of BAWLS..."
JonKatz: "I just...(argh)...had an idea for...a follow-up series....(gasp)...to Voices From The Hellmouth Revisited: Part Ten...(cough gasp cough...)You guys want to... hear... it?"
JonKatz: "Alright! (cough gag) Wrong time..." (mutters into dictaphone) "...note to self. Idea...for commentary... Why today's geeks... (cough gasp cough) are unfairly stigmatized... (wheeeeeeze)...as being insensitive... (HACK!)...to violence..."
Just as Geek1 begins to aim his machine gun at JonKatz, to put an end to his ravings once and for all, a crazed member of the Taliban comes flying over the desert horizon. He is screaming something.
The Geeks all stop and look at him. Terror strikes into their very hearts and souls. The words of their enemy shock them into utter panic.
Crazed Taliban Member:
"ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! "
The three begin to flee in the opposite direction, now heading directly into a minefield.
Crazed Taliban Member:
"YOU ARE ON YOUR WAY TO DESTRUCTION! YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME! HA HA HA HA!"
Geek1 stops running, a serene expression coming across his face. He grabs Geek2's shoulder by his t-shirt, quietly, allowing JonKatz to continue to flee further into the minefield.
Geek1 (teary-eyed):
"Take off every 'zig'."
Geek2 (smiling): "You know what you're doing?"
Geek1 (nodding through tears): "Move 'zig'."
Geek2 (embracing him): "For great justice."
The two geeks turn to face their adversary, brandishing their weapons with a newfound confidence and sense of purpose. JonKatz vanishes over the horizon, screaming wildly.
CUT TO...
Think about things from the EXECUTIVE perspective!
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I must say, on a more serious note, that I'm in the middle of a great book as I write this that I'd highly recommend to all. It is by Thomas Frank, the author of The Conquest of Cool and Commodify Your Dissent(some essays in it, anyway).
The book is One Market Under God. It is a profoundly engaging read, and discusses more than the matter of the eroding social contract that Katz touches on (and someone else rightly notes has been worsening over decades). It really delves deeply into mid-to-late 90s "New Economy" mythology- examining the religious texts of the myth (FastCompany, RedHerring, Wired (esp. Kevin Kelly's insufferable and blasphemous revisitations of the original luciferic lie itself, we-shall-be-as-gods!)), the Gods of the religion (the dotcom wunderkinds, the new economy billionaires, the venture capitalists, etc.), the mad prophets of the religion (Tom Peters et al), and of course, the religion itself- our New Economy!.
That we are even speculating about the feasibility of a cashless society should suggest to many of you that we live in very unusual times, but I suspect it is largely unremarkable. The very idea of a global cashless society has been, for students of apocalyptic prophecy, one of the truly unfathomable predictions in the whole of the Bible.
Two thousand years ago, the last living Apostle of Christ, John, sat in permanent exile on the Island of Patmos, and was given a glimpse of the future of human history, which he committed to writing. It is our last book of the New Testament, called simply "Revelation".
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." (Revelation 13:16--18)
At the time this was written, around AD 100, the "technological feasibility" of the prediction was simply inconceivable. Ironically, we are forced by the passage of time to instead consider the feasibility of predictive prophecy. And just as no one could imagine a worldwide cashless economy in AD 100, few can imagine that a prophetic vision of that economy could possibly be divinely inspired, now that we live in the enlightened year of AD 2001.
We now see ourselves living in an age where we are asking feasibility questions about a cashless society. But for the most part, we aren't asking those questions in the context of prophetic expectation. Only a whacko would, right?
The concepts of the "Mark of the Beast" and the Antichrist are well-known to most of us, but mostly as a pop-culture punchline. They were once concepts which inspired nothing short of terror in their consideration. They are now simply formulas leveraged for b-grade Hollywood horror films or are the basis for corny, "dangerous" deathmetal songs. As symbols and portents, they have been drained of their intrinsic terror and are now like Sartre's "Flies", which only have the power to torment those stupid enough to believe in their potency.
Vexingly, the Christian would counter that the symbols HAVE to be drained of their horror and emptied of biblical context before the world is ultimately confronted with them in the actual- otherwise, they would not succeed in being adopted by the masses... That this very thread itself is contributing in a tiny but necessary way to the further proliferation of the idea of a global cashless society, softening our resistance, removing it from its original prophetic context.
The non-believer is forced to laugh at the solipsism, the circular reasoning of the silly Christian who can not escape the bonds of dogma and should not be allow to infect others with their contagious Cassandra complex. So some old Jew-for-Jesus on an island made a lucky guess- is that any reason to become a paranoid, jabbering bible-thumper?
Slashdot frequently touches on subjects that avail themselves, directly or indirectly, to the mentioning of biblical prophecy. But given the scientific disposition of many on/., it is considered intellectually suicidal to pose the question of how advances in science/technology might relate to prophetic events foretold thousands of years ago. Not so long ago, Slashdot had a post called "Barcode Tatoo(sic) as Permanent ID - Arrgh". It cited, disturbingly, that a Houstonian inventor had received a patent (#5,878,155) for "Method for verifying human identity during electronic sale transactions". Many made mention of the fact that all UPC barcodes contain, according to the UPC standard, three 6s. The thread saw some mentioning prophecy, some mocking prophecy, and most of us on either side of the religion fence feeling a strange sense of disquiet. Because we sense our world moving towards a fearful destination, whether or not God is involved or interested.
I would normally in closing offer a specific conclusion, but it seems only proper in this instance to instead simply ask a question. If a cashless society ultimately comes about, and if mankind is ultimately required to subject their very person to some physical alteration (be they barcode tattoos or microchip implants or what have you) in order to participate in the system, who would resist it? On what basis would anyone who didn't believe in prophecy, Antichrists, Hell or God, even resist?
It is so sad, and so wrong, to write a Katzian essay about this. It is also the wrong time to bash you, Jon, so I won't do it. But I am sad to see what and how you have written about this.
+4 Insightful? Try -1 Uninformed / Prejudiced
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 2
We know absolutely *nothing* about who is responsible. What we do know is that in less than an hour our nation lost potentially tens of thousands of citizens. Countless more are injured. Relief organizations need blood and donations from ALL OF US. And, though it curl your toes to hear, the widows, orphans and bereaved need and deserve OUR PRAYERS.
In the midst of these certainties, you would prefer we not be distracted by the known. You would have us focus on blame-appropriation and judgment- lets blame the Jews and Muslims in the middle east for their troublesome ideas about God and religion. That is what is important right now.
What's next, Sebastopol? How about we all strike back against these evil forces by saying racist things to the Middle Eastern guy who runs the cash register at the nearby 7-11? He probably has relatives that have relatives that have relatives that came from the hotbed of intolerance.
If you believed in tolerance, you'd be tolerant of those you believe are intolerant. But you don't. You just a confused, ignorant bigot. And that you're moderated up to +4 Insight should be an embarrassment to anyone who confesses any sort of loyalty to Slashdot.
Oh good. You've been moderated down to 1 even as I authored this. Two more points outta do it.
After British died, his 2nd-in-command, Lord Blackthorne panicked. He summoned 4 daemons to the scene, who promptly slaughtered many of the innocent bystanders who had gathered simply to be addressed by their virtual monarch.
"Now we see the violence inherent in the system!", as it were.
Read the Village Voice account of the event, and keep the memory alive. Truly, for fans of videogame folklore, the assassination of Lord British is Grade A stuff. Golden.
"Finally, I'm no brain expert, but I'm very skeptical of the notion that generic, childhood frontal lobe activity is sure-and-certain associated with moral development. If it were, wouldn't we be doing frontal lobe exercises each morning?"
What an odd comment.
Firstly, ignorance of the functions of the frontal-lobe (and all parts of the human brain) can and should be remedied before offering dissenting opinions, based solely on a combination of your admitted lack of expertise and your skepticism. You could do worse than a search on Google on "Frontal lobe" + "Human brain".
Secondly, as you continue being skeptical of the purpose and utility of the frontal lobe in the regulation of moral developement in human beings, consider the sad case of Phineas Gage, a railroad construction worker in the late 1800s, who had the misfortune of having a steel rod driven through his frontal lobe while working with explosives.
In a rather remarkable stroke of curious luck, the rod, which went completely through Gage's skull by way of his cheek, avoided piercing that part of the lobe associated with motor activity and speech. Gage could continue walking, and talking, and being basically a productive personality after recovering from the accident.
And yet, within months very startling changes in personality and behavior were manifest in Gage's life. He became impulsive, incredibly crude, vulgar, boisterous, and given over to constant lying. He became, in effect, a person without a conscience. His physician, John Harlow, wrote of his accident, "The equilibrium between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities seems to have been destroyed.".
Science is in many ways indebted to Mr. Gage's tragic accident. It was because of the ghastly transformation of person that followed in the wake of his accident that the medical community of the day began to associate behavior with biology. This marks, then, the (forgive the pun) 'big bang' event of neuroscience.
Now, a study is released which suggests that certain types of activity (playing certain types of videogames) can retard the development of that part of the frontal lobe which provides a seat of human conscience. Whether the study is perfect science, flawed science or quackery, we have the opportunity to give the matter the serious consideration it deserves. (We can see, by way of the Gage tragedy, that scientists have known for 150 years that the frontal lobe in some respect controls / regulates decision-making and impulse regulation.)
If the study is biased, incomplete or otherwise lacking, find the sound basis to make that assertion. (HINT: Don't fall prey to the seductive lie that the passion of your conviction can somehow be translated into the merit of your belief, lest you make comments like 'I don't know much about this subject, but I DO know I'm skeptical, which should be of SOME relevance'.)
And as for your comment about doing frontal-lobe exercises each morning, you've got to be kidding. I can think of a LOT of activities that can lead to the physical development or cognitive edification of mankind. Yet I know few people who are disciplined enough in lifestyle to engage in these activities on a daily basis. Why is this? Because the work is hard, and the rewards are longterm, not immediate. We know a lot of ways to improve ourselves. Few people choose them. They'd rather sit at home, eating DingDongs and playing Quake.
(dramatic music swells as this lengthy retort ends with an abrupt, ironic conclusion.)
FIN
Re:Love of pop culture? My Ass...
on
Seanbaby.com
·
· Score: 2
No. I referred one to a book. If I was being compensated in some way to plug the book, that would be advertising. I am not the author, and I don't get a commission on sales generated by my link provided to Amazon.
Disdain for the consumption culture is certainly warranted. Where one draws the boundries are a matter of personal opinion and principle. You recommend products to friends- albums, movies, books, ideas. Is it advertising? Word-of-mouth is a form of advertising wherein the incentives to suggest a particular product are the rewards of seeing others benefit from them in some way (edification, entertainment, etc.). The motivations of adveristing are monetary- the motivations of word-of-mouth are more likely altruistic. (I do not directly benefit in any way if you or a stranger buy the book on my suggestion, and learn something useful from it.)
Re:You say de rigueur
on
Seanbaby.com
·
· Score: 2
A perfect opportunity presents itself for your own edification (edification - n. - "Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.")
Consider referencing a dictionary when you encounter words currently not in your vocabulary, rather than complaining about your lack of comprehension.
de rigueur - adj. - Required by the current fashion or custom; socially obligatory.
Re:Love of pop culture? My Ass...
on
Seanbaby.com
·
· Score: 2
Seabrook is certainly not the first to address the problem, and I suspect there are superior works on the subject. But this is a good starting point.
Re:Why Katz is largely unloved on Slashdot
on
Seanbaby.com
·
· Score: 2
Katz-bashing is so de rigueur on Slashdot that I find myself increasingly less interested in participating in it.
I do have to say, however, that I agree with your general assertion. I would only disagree with your statement that Katz emphasizes "the stuff cultural theorists care about".
With respect to cultural theorists, media ecologists and sociologists, their concerns are considerably more weighty and substantive than the techpop-culture musings that pass for thoughtful commentary here (most often prompted by a Katz article).
I would say, then, that Katz emphasizes "the stuff that tech/pop-culture columnists care about". Small distinct, but I think necessary to show respect for the complex (if soft) sciences of media/cultural theory.
...I don't mean to be critical of the reviewer, but I do think for the sake of Expidant that he might want to take some of the messages about branding/communications to heart.
Personally, I found the homepage of Expidant to be somewhat at odds with some of the basic branding theory discussed in the review. A Management Team section which shows no Management Team? A Corporate Overview section called "Then/Now/Next" which doesn't state what the company does (but brags that it very well and gets paid good money to do so)? A company name that is meaningless, unfortunately forgettable, that feels like a misspelling of "Expedient", and could as easily be used for a subcompact Japanese automobile or a new sports drink. A self-description as "An Interactive Foundry" (shouldn't the name, then, nod to metal-working? All the "alloy" and "alchemy" domains already scooped up by other interactive foundries?)
I hope my opinions are perceived as constructive criticism. On the positive side, I do think the site was pretty clean, easy to navigate, and that this testifies to their skills despite the shortcomings. I don't doubt that the company gets a lot of business, and hope that they continue to do so in this harsher economic climate.
I also know this constitutes a "review-of-a-review", and that this sort of meta-commentary-on-commentary is all-too-often the rule in the solipsistic community of opinionated pinheads that is Slashdot (not throwing stones, I live in this glass house, too). So please forgive me if I'm playing to the stereotype, and if by doing so, I am actually furthering the stereotype here by offering a review-of-my-review-of-a-review. And stop me before I descend into an infinite feedback loop. Because I don't mean to be critical of the reviewer, but I do think for the sake of Expidant that he might want to take some of the messages about branding/communications to heart...
It is true that Keanu isn't exactly this generation's Marlon Brando- however, give the W brothers props for joking about our own audience assessments of Keanu in the Oracle kitchen scene:
Oracle:
"You're cuter than I thought. I can see why she likes you."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry to be contrarian, but as a reader of both "Shift" and "Wired" (all the way back to issue #1), I couldn't help but laugh at your characterization of "Shift" as "like Wired Lite without any of the insight...".
l ogy-diefication.
In the opinion of this random bloke, Shift would be more fairly characterized as Wired-sans-pretension-sans-narcissism-sans-techno
In my opinion, Wired's steadfast embrace of the Whig view of history- that the new is inherently better than the old, was always it's Achilles heel.
To wit, Shift never made so bold (and idiotic) a proclamation as Wired's infamous " Kiss Your Browser Goodbye! exhortation, which predicted the imminent death of the web browser and the pending future domination of luminary upstarts like "Pointcast" (dead), "Marimba" (seriously hurting), "Backweb" (reinvented).
I'll miss Shift. And one day I'm sure I'll miss Wired, too, for very different reasons.
Frankly, it should've happened a lot sooner- because there are a lot of great videogame pioneers who deserved more recognition than they got, including the geniuses at Infocom, Howard Scott Warsaw (despite the travesty that was E.T. for Atari...), ID and so on.
/. or The Onion, but the Webby Awards (recognizing "the best of the Web both in quality and quantity") is the most ridiculous and pointless awards ceremony of the last century.
And no offense to
If the Internet is, as is often claimed, one of the most important mediums of the last century (and perhaps even last 1000 years), doesn't it deserve a better body for the recognition of its best-and-brightest contributors than this? An awards ceremony created by a pretty actress cum filmmaker cum Good Morning America 'internet expert'?
(inserting obligatory karma-whore reply, "I dunno man- her body looks pretty good to me!")
Here.
(included below for reference...)
Of course it must be so. The New Testament was written by authors who were persecuted and imprisoned by the Roman Empire, of course, and is absolutely bursting with pointed criticisms of Rome- many uttered by the, er, 'enlightened teacher' Jesus (crucified by the Romans, as pointedly observed in all four Gospels you claim to be pro-Roman propaganda...). The last book of the Bible, 'Revelation', which predicts among other things the then unthinkable future cashless economic society and the Mark of the Beast (among other things also becoming manifest in our time) must also somehow be pro-Roman propaganda, too. Right? Even though the author was writing the book in exile on the Isle of Patmos by the Romans? Even though the Romans decimated Jerusalem in 70AD and persecuted the Christians for sport?
The Old Testament was written prior to the existence of any dominant Roman empire, but I'll set those facts aside like any
Calling the Bible "Roman propaganda", in the face of so many more facts than you would have the attention span to endure reading, is about as ludicrious as calling 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' a pro-slavery tract, or the Constitution of the United States a pro-Monarchy creed. It is flatly, even laughably ignorant. But if you say it with enough conviction, in a flurry of equally uninformed but impassioned errors, I'll simply but reason aside like any other child of postmodernism here and mod you up to +5 Insightful.
Let me guess, too, while we're at it. You're 'pro-chip implant', right? I should ignore those pro-Roman ravings from that apostle John dude who warned that taking the 'Mark of the Beast' (some tattoo or implant required in the last days in order to buy or sell goods) was consigning oneself to eternal damnation. If his prophecy comes to pass in our lifetimes, I should trust your insights about the non-linear universe? I mean, if I'm wrong to trust you over him, its no biggie. It's just eternal damnation, separation from God for all eternity in a place where the fire isn't quenched and the worm does not die, right? It's not like I'd have anything better to do, forever. And ever. And ever.
what- like edison's GE did?
(oh wait, it didn't. its one of the biggest corporations in the world.)
...likening Edison to Gates is quite on-the-mark.
As inventors / innovators, they have a great deal in common. They lack the sublime genius of their superior contemporaries (Tesla in Edison's day, Doug Engelbart in Bill Gates' day...). But what they lack in true vision they more than compensate for in cunning and ambition.
100 years from now, our great grandchildren will probably be informed by the education system that Bill Gates invented personal computing singlehandledly, in addition to the GUI and a bunch of other crap. The gazillions of dollars in the Gates trust will constantly be invested in extending the historical footprint of William Gates III, even while parts are also appropriated to noble philanthropic causes.
Some of you Linux-loving libertarian squints are telling yourselfs, "Ah! But you're wrong! Because the Internet will have a perfect record of today's history! The media in Tesla's day wasn't digital- it wasn't permanent. That's how he got so marginalized over time."
And all I can say is that whatever the digital network ends up turning into - even if its the bloody Matrix itself - or its a global cashless society where you can't buy or sell without having a barcode tattoo- it is going to be owned and operated by Microsoft.
Sucks. But history's gonna repeat itself. Until it ends.
...that he would be retiring from writing "while still at the top of his game", news of Chris Carter's plans to end X-Files this year "before-it-gets-stale" is simply sad.
King and Carter both created some fantastic entertainment- one producing some of the most popular horror and fiction books of his generation- the other creating one of the greatest television series in two decades.
But both have signaled their plans to leave only after overstaying their welcomes. They have exhausted their respective imaginations but keep mining, occasionally pulling out a tiny gold nuggest from the mines that once were their motherlodes.
King's last great works came in the early 90s- and Carter's last great season of X-Files was at least two or three seasons ago.
so bummer. I'll watch- but not because I've any interest in seeing what happens to characters I once cared about. Instead, morbid curiousity makes me wonder "How bad will it be? How bloody bad can it get?" And methinks the answer will surprise us all.
the whole thing vaguely reminds of the last line of a beautiful poem I remember reading in high school.
"his face turned to the face of a man who has said goodbye, and can not find the door".
Don't forget white phosphorus. It spontaneously combusts at room temperature, like a Spinal Tap drummer.
Cheap grab for box-office bucks? Hardly.
First, you assert rather blatantly and incorrectly that "movie-making is a business, of which entertainment is a by-product". Filmmaking is an artform. Hollywood is an industry which uses and very often abuses the artform in the pursuit of wealth. The establishment within Hollywood largely, but not exclusively, pursues films which cost less to make than they can probably be assumed to gross. The artform, then, often suffers, because marketing forces affect both the sort of films which are made, and frequently the way in which films are made.
Having clarified that, let us move on.
Filmmaking is an artform, and certain films are universally recognized as being fantastic works of art- regardless of the processes or powers that created them. You can not look at many of the masterpieces of modern cinema and pretend otherwise. Tell me, was "Taxi Driver" a cheap-grab for box-office bucks? "Citizen Kane"? "Sex, Lies and Videotape"? "Run Lola Run"? "This Is Spinal Tap"?
Few films are both artistic masterpieces and box-office blockbusters. Nevertheless, some films are, and it is elitist and cynical to be dismissive of high art that just happens to be popular and financially successful.
"The Matrix" is, regardless of your somewhat low-regard for the film, a true masterpiece of science-fiction. Yes, the creators of the film offhandedly said the "Matrix is about robots vs. kung fu". That comment was a humble, joking hypersimplification. Sorry if you missed that.
Do some reading. Consider Simulacra and Simulations for starters (a book which Neo has early in the film). Read up on Culture Jamming. There is a war underway, RIGHT NOW, for the control of the minds of mankind. "The Matrix" is a film which addresses that very subject- co-opting the form of a shoot-them-up-sci-fi-FX-supermovie in order to make a bigger point than most of you seem to have realized.
The 60s were a period of great civil unrest and cultural change. Many great films of the day reflected the social upheaval our nation experienced- touching on the subjects of the civil rights (for minorities and women), the counter-culture, etc.
As we speak, a new war rages- but it is a quiet war, an invisible one. The war is being waged by corporate interests, using media and advertising, to create and control a complete version of reality, one which allows them to encourage endless consumption and one that discourages them from questioning the reality. The rebellion is being fought by individuals and groups that realize that the consumption culture is creating empty shells of all of us. It is isolating us from family and community.
The rebellion has no leader- it has no center. It is a thousand small pockets of rebellion, each attempting to use novel means to awaken others to the war. Noteworthy authors include Thomas Frank (One Market Under God), Adbusters, Neil Postman ("The Disappearance of Childhood" and "Amusing Ourselves to Death"), Mark Osborn ("More" (a FANTASTIC short film)and so many, many others.
The film "The Matrix" is a part of this movement. It isn't just a cool sci-fi. Yes, the film is being marketed and used by the Producer Joel Silver to generate a serious mint. The system is necessarily co-opted to subsidize the creation of the expensive, incredibly complex work. Is this hypocritical? You decide. Do the ends justify the means? I would say yes. I'd rather see "The Matrix" realized as a $100M work than see what the Brothers would've been able to come up with using only the money they made painting houses and doing their first film, "Bound".
Watch the movie again with these facts in mind. Research the culture-jamming movement and read everything you can if you want to be a part of the fight. If you don't, at least be aware that it is being waged- and that you minds are the spoils if the powers win the war.
A dumb assumption based on nothing more than the author's own admitted lack of vision for the sequels?
It was intended, from the beginning, to be a trilogy.
The authors have barely scratched the surface of their own mythology. Did you feel that the end of the film rendered sequels impossible? Remember the final quote, with Neo addressing the creators of the Matrix which STILL enslaves almost all of humankind?
The entire film is simply a set-up so that the sequels can TELL THE STORY OF THE ATTEMPTS OF A SMALL-GROUP OF SELF-AWARE REBELS TO LIBERATE A HUMAN POPULATION FROM MENTAL CAPTIVITY. In short, THE STORY HASN'T BARELY EVEN BEGUN YET.
As you may or may not know, the film- in addition to being one bad-azz science-fiction masterpiece- is a profound philosophical statement, as well. It is a message to YOU and to ME, about our OWN captivity by OUR MEDIA, which represents a FALSE version of reality that most assume to be TRUE. The Matrix is real- it is being fed to us through television sets 24/7. It is being delivered to us every morning by the paperboy. It is being used to create WANT, so that CORPORATIONS can SELL products we don't NEED but CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT.
In order to hope to escape it, we must first know that it exists- and that it is distinct from the existence we assume to be real.
SPOILER ALERT.
"The Matrix" sequels are going to touch upon many subjects it hadn't yet addressed in the first. We already know that much of what will be taking place to propel the plot will be sci-fi versions of "culture jamming"- in which the lucid rebels use the tools of the Matrix to waken the sleeping citizenry. Television sets which help to keep the population dumb and entertained ( in both the films and in our real world) might suddenly be overrided by the hackers- so that unexpected, jarring programming comes through- perhaps warning them of their enslavement, or of the reality of the Matrix, or whatever...
There are acts of culture-jamming going on all around us right now. They aren't simply random, unrelated happenings like some dork running onto the stage at the Grammys naked with the words "SOY BOMB" on his chest. They are a part of a movement, one that you might not even be aware of but should be. A movement to fight an enemy common to all of us.
Give the sequels the benefit of the doubt. If you want to speculate about spurious sequels for the express purpose of generating major bucks at the box office, get out your light sabre and take a few swings at George Lucas.
Here endeth the lesson.
EXT - NAMELESS AFGHAN PLAIN - MORNING.
An Apache helicopter settles onto the barren plain. Out from it emerge three plain males. They wear an assortment of camouflage combined with curious t-shirts, with sayings like "I don't work here" and "will frag for bandwidth".
Just as Geek1 begins to aim his machine gun at JonKatz, to put an end to his ravings once and for all, a crazed member of the Taliban comes flying over the desert horizon. He is screaming something.
The Geeks all stop and look at him. Terror strikes into their very hearts and souls. The words of their enemy shock them into utter panic. The three begin to flee in the opposite direction, now heading directly into a minefield. Geek1 stops running, a serene expression coming across his face. He grabs Geek2's shoulder by his t-shirt, quietly, allowing JonKatz to continue to flee further into the minefield. The two geeks turn to face their adversary, brandishing their weapons with a newfound confidence and sense of purpose. JonKatz vanishes over the horizon, screaming wildly.
CUT TO...
Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all of the unhappy people...
I must say, on a more serious note, that I'm in the middle of a great book as I write this that I'd highly recommend to all. It is by Thomas Frank, the author of The Conquest of Cool and Commodify Your Dissent(some essays in it, anyway).
The book is One Market Under God . It is a profoundly engaging read, and discusses more than the matter of the eroding social contract that Katz touches on (and someone else rightly notes has been worsening over decades). It really delves deeply into mid-to-late 90s "New Economy" mythology- examining the religious texts of the myth (FastCompany, RedHerring, Wired (esp. Kevin Kelly's insufferable and blasphemous revisitations of the original luciferic lie itself, we-shall-be-as-gods!)), the Gods of the religion (the dotcom wunderkinds, the new economy billionaires, the venture capitalists, etc.), the mad prophets of the religion (Tom Peters et al), and of course, the religion itself- our New Economy!
HIGHLY recommended.
Two thousand years ago, the last living Apostle of Christ, John, sat in permanent exile on the Island of Patmos, and was given a glimpse of the future of human history, which he committed to writing. It is our last book of the New Testament, called simply "Revelation".
At the time this was written, around AD 100, the "technological feasibility" of the prediction was simply inconceivable. Ironically, we are forced by the passage of time to instead consider the feasibility of predictive prophecy. And just as no one could imagine a worldwide cashless economy in AD 100, few can imagine that a prophetic vision of that economy could possibly be divinely inspired, now that we live in the enlightened year of AD 2001.
We now see ourselves living in an age where we are asking feasibility questions about a cashless society. But for the most part, we aren't asking those questions in the context of prophetic expectation. Only a whacko would, right?
The concepts of the "Mark of the Beast" and the Antichrist are well-known to most of us, but mostly as a pop-culture punchline. They were once concepts which inspired nothing short of terror in their consideration. They are now simply formulas leveraged for b-grade Hollywood horror films or are the basis for corny, "dangerous" deathmetal songs. As symbols and portents, they have been drained of their intrinsic terror and are now like Sartre's "Flies", which only have the power to torment those stupid enough to believe in their potency.
Vexingly, the Christian would counter that the symbols HAVE to be drained of their horror and emptied of biblical context before the world is ultimately confronted with them in the actual- otherwise, they would not succeed in being adopted by the masses... That this very thread itself is contributing in a tiny but necessary way to the further proliferation of the idea of a global cashless society, softening our resistance, removing it from its original prophetic context.
The non-believer is forced to laugh at the solipsism, the circular reasoning of the silly Christian who can not escape the bonds of dogma and should not be allow to infect others with their contagious Cassandra complex. So some old Jew-for-Jesus on an island made a lucky guess- is that any reason to become a paranoid, jabbering bible-thumper?
Slashdot frequently touches on subjects that avail themselves, directly or indirectly, to the mentioning of biblical prophecy. But given the scientific disposition of many on
I would normally in closing offer a specific conclusion, but it seems only proper in this instance to instead simply ask a question. If a cashless society ultimately comes about, and if mankind is ultimately required to subject their very person to some physical alteration (be they barcode tattoos or microchip implants or what have you) in order to participate in the system, who would resist it? On what basis would anyone who didn't believe in prophecy, Antichrists, Hell or God, even resist?
It is so sad, and so wrong, to write a Katzian essay about this. It is also the wrong time to bash you, Jon, so I won't do it. But I am sad to see what and how you have written about this.
We know absolutely *nothing* about who is responsible. What we do know is that in less than an hour our nation lost potentially tens of thousands of citizens. Countless more are injured. Relief organizations need blood and donations from ALL OF US. And, though it curl your toes to hear, the widows, orphans and bereaved need and deserve OUR PRAYERS.
In the midst of these certainties, you would prefer we not be distracted by the known. You would have us focus on blame-appropriation and judgment- lets blame the Jews and Muslims in the middle east for their troublesome ideas about God and religion. That is what is important right now.
What's next, Sebastopol? How about we all strike back against these evil forces by saying racist things to the Middle Eastern guy who runs the cash register at the nearby 7-11? He probably has relatives that have relatives that have relatives that came from the hotbed of intolerance.
If you believed in tolerance, you'd be tolerant of those you believe are intolerant. But you don't. You just a confused, ignorant bigot. And that you're moderated up to +4 Insight should be an embarrassment to anyone who confesses any sort of loyalty to Slashdot.
Oh good. You've been moderated down to 1 even as I authored this. Two more points outta do it.
You left out the best part.
After British died, his 2nd-in-command, Lord Blackthorne panicked. He summoned 4 daemons to the scene, who promptly slaughtered many of the innocent bystanders who had gathered simply to be addressed by their virtual monarch.
"Now we see the violence inherent in the system!", as it were.
Read the Village Voice account of the event, and keep the memory alive. Truly, for fans of videogame folklore, the assassination of Lord British is Grade A stuff. Golden.
Firstly, ignorance of the functions of the frontal-lobe (and all parts of the human brain) can and should be remedied before offering dissenting opinions, based solely on a combination of your admitted lack of expertise and your skepticism. You could do worse than a search on Google on "Frontal lobe" + "Human brain".
Secondly, as you continue being skeptical of the purpose and utility of the frontal lobe in the regulation of moral developement in human beings, consider the sad case of Phineas Gage, a railroad construction worker in the late 1800s, who had the misfortune of having a steel rod driven through his frontal lobe while working with explosives.
In a rather remarkable stroke of curious luck, the rod, which went completely through Gage's skull by way of his cheek, avoided piercing that part of the lobe associated with motor activity and speech. Gage could continue walking, and talking, and being basically a productive personality after recovering from the accident.
And yet, within months very startling changes in personality and behavior were manifest in Gage's life. He became impulsive, incredibly crude, vulgar, boisterous, and given over to constant lying. He became, in effect, a person without a conscience. His physician, John Harlow, wrote of his accident, "The equilibrium between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities seems to have been destroyed.".
Science is in many ways indebted to Mr. Gage's tragic accident. It was because of the ghastly transformation of person that followed in the wake of his accident that the medical community of the day began to associate behavior with biology. This marks, then, the (forgive the pun) 'big bang' event of neuroscience.
Now, a study is released which suggests that certain types of activity (playing certain types of videogames) can retard the development of that part of the frontal lobe which provides a seat of human conscience. Whether the study is perfect science, flawed science or quackery, we have the opportunity to give the matter the serious consideration it deserves. (We can see, by way of the Gage tragedy, that scientists have known for 150 years that the frontal lobe in some respect controls / regulates decision-making and impulse regulation.)
If the study is biased, incomplete or otherwise lacking, find the sound basis to make that assertion. (HINT: Don't fall prey to the seductive lie that the passion of your conviction can somehow be translated into the merit of your belief, lest you make comments like 'I don't know much about this subject, but I DO know I'm skeptical, which should be of SOME relevance'.)
And as for your comment about doing frontal-lobe exercises each morning, you've got to be kidding. I can think of a LOT of activities that can lead to the physical development or cognitive edification of mankind. Yet I know few people who are disciplined enough in lifestyle to engage in these activities on a daily basis. Why is this? Because the work is hard, and the rewards are longterm, not immediate. We know a lot of ways to improve ourselves. Few people choose them. They'd rather sit at home, eating DingDongs and playing Quake.
(dramatic music swells as this lengthy retort ends with an abrupt, ironic conclusion.)
FIN
No. I referred one to a book. If I was being compensated in some way to plug the book, that would be advertising. I am not the author, and I don't get a commission on sales generated by my link provided to Amazon.
Disdain for the consumption culture is certainly warranted. Where one draws the boundries are a matter of personal opinion and principle. You recommend products to friends- albums, movies, books, ideas. Is it advertising? Word-of-mouth is a form of advertising wherein the incentives to suggest a particular product are the rewards of seeing others benefit from them in some way (edification, entertainment, etc.). The motivations of adveristing are monetary- the motivations of word-of-mouth are more likely altruistic. (I do not directly benefit in any way if you or a stranger buy the book on my suggestion, and learn something useful from it.)
A perfect opportunity presents itself for your own edification (edification - n. - "Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.")
Consider referencing a dictionary when you encounter words currently not in your vocabulary, rather than complaining about your lack of comprehension.
de rigueur - adj. - Required by the current fashion or custom; socially obligatory.
For those interested, this matter is actually given a rather thorough examination in a recent book called "Nobrow - the Culture of Marketing, the Marketing of Culture".
The "Kirkus Review" of the book offers the following summation, Seabrook is certainly not the first to address the problem, and I suspect there are superior works on the subject. But this is a good starting point.
Katz-bashing is so de rigueur on Slashdot that I find myself increasingly less interested in participating in it.
I do have to say, however, that I agree with your general assertion. I would only disagree with your statement that Katz emphasizes "the stuff cultural theorists care about".
With respect to cultural theorists, media ecologists and sociologists, their concerns are considerably more weighty and substantive than the techpop-culture musings that pass for thoughtful commentary here (most often prompted by a Katz article).
I would say, then, that Katz emphasizes "the stuff that tech/pop-culture columnists care about". Small distinct, but I think necessary to show respect for the complex (if soft) sciences of media/cultural theory.
...I don't mean to be critical of the reviewer, but I do think for the sake of Expidant that he might want to take some of the messages about branding/communications to heart.
Personally, I found the homepage of Expidant to be somewhat at odds with some of the basic branding theory discussed in the review. A Management Team section which shows no Management Team? A Corporate Overview section called "Then/Now/Next" which doesn't state what the company does (but brags that it very well and gets paid good money to do so)? A company name that is meaningless, unfortunately forgettable, that feels like a misspelling of "Expedient", and could as easily be used for a subcompact Japanese automobile or a new sports drink. A self-description as "An Interactive Foundry" (shouldn't the name, then, nod to metal-working? All the "alloy" and "alchemy" domains already scooped up by other interactive foundries?)
I hope my opinions are perceived as constructive criticism. On the positive side, I do think the site was pretty clean, easy to navigate, and that this testifies to their skills despite the shortcomings. I don't doubt that the company gets a lot of business, and hope that they continue to do so in this harsher economic climate.
I also know this constitutes a "review-of-a-review", and that this sort of meta-commentary-on-commentary is all-too-often the rule in the solipsistic community of opinionated pinheads that is Slashdot (not throwing stones, I live in this glass house, too). So please forgive me if I'm playing to the stereotype, and if by doing so, I am actually furthering the stereotype here by offering a review-of-my-review-of-a-review. And stop me before I descend into an infinite feedback loop. Because I don't mean to be critical of the reviewer, but I do think for the sake of Expidant that he might want to take some of the messages about branding/communications to heart...
(EOM)