at this stage of worldwide tension (thanks a whole lot Washington) it's best to keep a very open and skeptical mind about anything reported in any press...
I've only seen the better part of one season's worth of Frasier, but I'd hardly say that "the content of jokes are taken from extreme upper-class society."
They come from working-class stock... dad's an ex-cop. Frasier and Niles were definately not born with a silver spoon in their mouths. And that's part of the absurdity of the premise. Frasier and Niles act sooo new-vo rich, so prissy and spoiled, delusions of grandeur... most of which get them into goofy-ass predicaments.
Both took to distinguished professions, only now Frasier is relegated to hosting a Dr. Laura-caliber talk show after having a go at private practice. Yet his ego is uncontrollable (hence the lovely metaphor of his "big head") and his elitest aspirings only conjoin to blind him to his Emporers New Clothes status. We laugh at the man. He is a failure and he does not realize it. But he is not a hero...
...and, for what it's worth, I only started watching the show cause this filly I'm all hot & bothered over loves it. Perhaps I criticize only to find a reason for her to spend more time laughing at me as I fail|succeed|establish my way through this world.
and I'm not talking about his Hamlet performance. Here's one of the most popular comedies and it revolves around a guy, Frasier Cranium, who failed at marriage, is middle-aged & still lives with his dad, gets involved in the lamest mis-communication setups... and viewers eat this stuff up.
While I'm at it, you could say Seinfield was a failure... mediocre comedy career, spending his days doing nothing important with goofy/oddball/ecentric friends, just coasting through life.
And without trying to hurt my brain remembering more shows, esp sitcoms, that revolve around buffoons or losers or idiots, I'll have to stop. My point is that these shows exist and pull in the ratings because people like to watch other people fail or make fools out of themselves. So maybe they're not heroes... okay. Douglas has a point. But maybe if he combs his hair right, or wears a hat....
I disagree with your "easy answer" and writing it off as a biological thing. It's roots are deeper in the human psyche. You're saying it's all about sex? Screw that. It's about self-image, trying to buy some self-esteem. If joeBlow goes out and buys clothes or shoes that associate himself with a certain "identity", he can reinvent himself. "Will identifying myself with this brand gain me more acceptance or even the envy of others?" "I'm just an automaton, will wearing some Tommy make me feel better about myself?" "I might not get the respect I deserve, but at least those yahoos will look at me and know I got style||class||grip..."
I managed inner city Foot Locker stores for many years... kids didn't come in and buy overpriced merchandise to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. They bought into an "identity" created for them by savvy marketers and businessmen. Brainwashing. Control. I would argue that brand-worship is not necessarily a conscious decision. Making yourself more attractive to the other gender in order to propogate your genetic inheritants is only a superficial part of the game. That's what Madison Ave wants you to think. That is not the source of the issue.
uidesign.net reviewed the book in March and gave it a 3/5 rating with solid criticisms. The url is http://www.uidesign.net/2000/b ooks/webusability.html for those interested in a review that doesn't cater to bandwagoneering. (I'm not necessarily refering to the/. reviewers with that comment, but the overall industry's blind acceptance of Mr. Nielsen's cash cow. His daily fees just doubled to US$20,000 after this book came out. Make up your own mind.
and came to the conclusion that Bill Joy is finally getting to the point of life where he has to face his own mortality and, quite simply, he's afraid of dying. Though he did offer better solutions than Ted K. (did the Unabomber Manifesto even mention any solutions... or just a means to returning us to hunter/gatherers?), he painted some broad strokes which probably put unneccessary limits of progress and individual rights. Of course, this article is opening up a discourse. I heard Bill on Diane R.'s NPR program last week. And there are already quite a few news stories spawned by it. So people have perked up their ears and began more critical thinking on the subjects.
Overall, however, the tone of the Wired article came across to me as a "fear of death" which took an all too easy pessimistic outlook toward technology and culture and the future of our lives and that of our children.
it seems unlikely that a recovering cocaine addict would really want to associate themselves with a program named coke.whatever. would a rape victim want to spend time at rape.com? would a MS-basher want to spend time as msn.com? Something sounds fishy. I'm betting Coca-cola & their legal counsel have a tough time trying to side with you on that defense.
Variety has an article today about how Speilberg is slated to do both movies, AI starts production July 10th, Minority Report to begin April 2001. No release date yet. Lots of hollywood exec hyperbole about 'the talented mr. speilberg' please.... kissing up to $$$
Kubrick brought an individual vision to his movies. Speilberg tries to appeal/exploit the collective consciousness.
Kubrick wrestled with dichotomies like mother/whore and whether human traits are wired in us or learned through our environment. Speilberg only wants to tell a story.
Kubrick explored isolation. Speilberg explores fables and broad morals.
Kubrick realized that the importance of the aural aspect of cinema was paramount to presenting a strong vision, meticulously detailing every sound, score and format (he didn't like THX). Speilberg relies on strings to instruct us what to feel about a scene or how to react.
Speilberg can make any movie he wants to. Why does he feel that he can contribute to or continue Kubrick's vision? I see them coming at cinema from two non-complementary camps. Speilberg is a manager. Kubrick was a creator.
How much longer are you going to keep pushing the "blue, underlined" convention for designating links on a web page? With more and more newbies getting online every week, and the shift from text document presentation to a more visually-oriented content presentation, insisting that users expect and are confused by anything other than "blue, underlined" styles on links seems rather antiquated and limiting. How long do we continue to conform to what worked in one stage of the WWW and miss opportunities to open new possibilities in design and interaction as the web evolves?
Newspapers suck, but they serve as the basis for everything you call news. If it's on TV or in a magazine, it's because a newspaper has usually done the story first.
I disagree... I've been thinking about this subject for years, out of curiosity as to why a particular story comes up and receives ubiquitous coverage across a variety of different media. I'm not talking about headline events like war or disasters. I'm thinking along the lines of coverage re social movements, highlighted scandals, and consumer & special interest stories. From any number of potential stories out there each day, week, month & year, only certain ones get picked up, and then it's everywhere. Many times, a story will surface that receives that extra push from the media. First you might catch a blurb on the local or national televised news, you might see it covered on those soft-news programs like Dateline, 20/20, Hard Copy, ET. You might also see articles in a mag, a paper, on somebody's web site. And then you hear people at the office commenting on it. You hear a comedian or talk show host crack on it. It becomes a little part of our culture for however long the story or subject stays in the spotlight (from an American perspective, since that's where I am). And then, just as suddenly and inexplicably as it surfaced, it sinks back down to the tar pits of our Americana. Forgotten and not really having made any lasting impact.
So, I started asking myself, who generates popular news first? Do most news organizations and publishers look to a limited elite group or channel of specific sources for their ideas? After all, bandwagoneering in the news biz is just like it is in the movie studio biz... I really don't have a strong answer (and I'm not trying to spawn any conspiracy-spew) but I have noticed that many newspaper series & tv-news cover stories follow on the heels of stories that first appeared in certain magazines, like Time, etc... I find these sources to have a lot of influence. With the exception of a few respected newspapers, I think that the rest make a practice of reporting ON news, not reporting THE news.
I don't think newspapers can provide this type of leading-edge, advance new generation. They might extend it and provoke more discussion of it. But too many other factors hinder this for them (deadlines, appealing to a broad audience, turnover involved in putting out daily issues, etc...). And that's not really their job, anyway.
The newspaper was king in the industrial age, using assembly line, linear-oriented delivery of information. But this is the digital age and the industrial age is behind us. We are breaking out of the linear-mindset and newspapers will be left-behind. As your post states, news will always be around. How it's presented is increasingly up to us. Interaction and individual voices will be the key. Shoot, now I'm off-topic
At one point in time, the newspaper acted as an extension of ourselves, allowing us to gather information (not News, News is a marketing term) we either didn't have access to, weren't aware of or wanted to keep up on. Other extensions have evolved that have replaced those roles of the newspaper, along with an incredible volume of instantaneous access to events and topics. More than we can probably handle. Our culture is saturated with news... news blips... headline news... action news... cover stories... in the news...
There's a niche there, however, that can be capitalized on, and magazines have been able to that, by specializing in a limited range of subjects. But newspapers for the most part have missed the boat. With the exception of papers like Barons, WSJ, etc... that specialize in target audiences, most newspapers try to be everything to everybody, in the hopes that they can at least appeal to every member of a household with at least one section. With this, they open themselves up to problems. Namely, failing to define themselves as having a specific, indespensible value. I can live without the paper. I can live without the editorials. I can live without reading the comics. I can check the movie listings with online or over the phone. I can definately get better movie reviews elsewhere. I can get my world and national news elsewhere. Their forte is local news stories and issues. Stuff going on in the community that affects local citizens. But even this does not make newspapers valuable anymore, since papers return a profit and reflect interests not always in line with fair, objective coverage. You only get what the papers controllers want you to read.
I myself have not really sat down and read a paper for over 4 years. When the local paper calls about subscriptions, I tell them I can read their paper online (for free) if I felt the need. What I'm trying to say is that newspapers do not provide the same service they once did and have helped themselves along the path to declining readership and obselescence (?). The only time I can see newspapers being conveinent are at airports, on the transit, or avoiding conversation around the dinner table.
The people that still want to make a living off newspaper production need to specialize. Forget about appealing to the lowest common denominator. Forget about hiring reporters that don't have a specialized area of expertise or access. Forget newspapers as they've been defined in the past. Things change. Think outside the box. Despite the technophobes desire to return to life the way they used to know it (or more likely, imagine it to have been), there is no turning back. There is no need for daily print publications dispensing watered-down coverage of information that has already been covered. You can not appeal to people on these terms. Realize that the media and its distribution channels have entered a new paradigm.
but the execution is wrong. Perhaps refering to the Matrix in the course literature for an intro Philosophy course ("hey kids, were the concepts in the Matrix new to you? wanna learn more?")would be a better approach.
As anyone who has used their own brain to any degree and developed a thirst for knowledge could attest, the ideas enumerated in the film are not original and not elaborated upon to do them justice. However, there is a generation of tv-babies that have been spoonfed a manipulated sense of reality to whom this movie might initiate a desire to learn more. Opening their eyes to other possibilities. Books don't neccesarily appeal to those who like their thinking to be done for them. Target these potential students in the course description or a flyer campaign, but don't discredit the name of Philosophy & the great thinkers throughout existence by linking (limiting) it to a hollywood creation (no matter how un-conventional it might have been in that it presupposed a certain amount of intellect to enjoy on a higher level).
There are better ways to manipulate enrollment that don't have such recursive effects on mentality and credibility to actual open-mindedness. What next? A Jerry Springer Social Behavior course? Big Daddy Single Parenting? ER Medical School?
I seem to distantly remember Aerosmith playing "Kings and Queens" in one of those little hologram boxes.... was that one of the ewok specials then? I recall having to turn down my John Denver 8-track to hear what the commotion was on the telly.....
(l) to restrict access to certain Internet content that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult;
I found the definition for adult (individual 18 and up), but I'm a little fuzzy on the terms "offence" and "reasonable". I like to provide reason behind my actions... does that make me a reasonable person? Or is it up to the courts to determine who is reasonable and what might cause "offence"? Hmmm. Too ambiguous.
Backend = java + XML Front = HTML + JavaServerPages + XML + IE/mozilla (if it ever gets past beta)
We're putting this to use in an international application & so far things are smooth! One drawback is the sorry state of browsers re compliance to standards. Unfortunately, Netscrape just can't cut it for serious GUI development right now so the focus is on IE as the target interface. One advantage of thin client is a malleable look & feel to the interface. If you know yer way around CSS, with a couple stokes of the keyboard you can have a completely different look, or even a customizable interface.
not sure if anyones mentioned this yet, but EDGE has a feature interview with Mr. Barbour on their site at the moment. interesting read if you're intrigued by his concept....
Slashdot Mirror
earth to moron
didn't you learn anything about the pathology of anti-communism?
for your own sanity and the safety of those around you, I hope you are just spewing troll bait
stop moralizing until you learn some facts.
your grasp of history is fantasy.
your logic is moronic.
sounds like you have some real problems...
Where is the proof?
Pakistan Accused of Staging Bin Laden Aide Arrest
at this stage of worldwide tension (thanks a whole lot Washington) it's best to keep a very open and skeptical mind about anything reported in any press...
They come from working-class stock... dad's an ex-cop. Frasier and Niles were definately not born with a silver spoon in their mouths. And that's part of the absurdity of the premise. Frasier and Niles act sooo new-vo rich, so prissy and spoiled, delusions of grandeur... most of which get them into goofy-ass predicaments.
Both took to distinguished professions, only now Frasier is relegated to hosting a Dr. Laura-caliber talk show after having a go at private practice. Yet his ego is uncontrollable (hence the lovely metaphor of his "big head") and his elitest aspirings only conjoin to blind him to his Emporers New Clothes status. We laugh at the man. He is a failure and he does not realize it. But he is not a hero...
While I'm at it, you could say Seinfield was a failure... mediocre comedy career, spending his days doing nothing important with goofy/oddball/ecentric friends, just coasting through life.
And without trying to hurt my brain remembering more shows, esp sitcoms, that revolve around buffoons or losers or idiots, I'll have to stop. My point is that these shows exist and pull in the ratings because people like to watch other people fail or make fools out of themselves. So maybe they're not heroes... okay. Douglas has a point. But maybe if he combs his hair right, or wears a hat....
I managed inner city Foot Locker stores for many years... kids didn't come in and buy overpriced merchandise to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. They bought into an "identity" created for them by savvy marketers and businessmen. Brainwashing. Control. I would argue that brand-worship is not necessarily a conscious decision. Making yourself more attractive to the other gender in order to propogate your genetic inheritants is only a superficial part of the game. That's what Madison Ave wants you to think. That is not the source of the issue.
uidesign.net reviewed the book in March and gave it a 3/5 rating with solid criticisms. The url is http://www.uidesign.net/2000/b ooks/webusability.html for those interested in a review that doesn't cater to bandwagoneering. (I'm not necessarily refering to the /. reviewers with that comment, but the overall industry's blind acceptance of Mr. Nielsen's cash cow. His daily fees just doubled to US$20,000 after this book came out. Make up your own mind.
and came to the conclusion that Bill Joy is finally getting to the point of life where he has to face his own mortality and, quite simply, he's afraid of dying. Though he did offer better solutions than Ted K. (did the Unabomber Manifesto even mention any solutions... or just a means to returning us to hunter/gatherers?), he painted some broad strokes which probably put unneccessary limits of progress and individual rights. Of course, this article is opening up a discourse. I heard Bill on Diane R.'s NPR program last week. And there are already quite a few news stories spawned by it. So people have perked up their ears and began more critical thinking on the subjects.
Overall, however, the tone of the Wired article came across to me as a "fear of death" which took an all too easy pessimistic outlook toward technology and culture and the future of our lives and that of our children.
it seems unlikely that a recovering cocaine addict would really want to associate themselves with a program named coke.whatever. would a rape victim want to spend time at rape.com? would a MS-basher want to spend time as msn.com? Something sounds fishy. I'm betting Coca-cola & their legal counsel have a tough time trying to side with you on that defense.
Variety has an article today about how Speilberg is slated to do both movies, AI starts production July 10th, Minority Report to begin April 2001. No release date yet. Lots of hollywood exec hyperbole about 'the talented mr. speilberg' please.... kissing up to $$$
Kubrick brought an individual vision to his movies. Speilberg tries to appeal/exploit the collective consciousness.
Kubrick wrestled with dichotomies like mother/whore and whether human traits are wired in us or learned through our environment. Speilberg only wants to tell a story.
Kubrick explored isolation. Speilberg explores fables and broad morals.
Kubrick realized that the importance of the aural aspect of cinema was paramount to presenting a strong vision, meticulously detailing every sound, score and format (he didn't like THX). Speilberg relies on strings to instruct us what to feel about a scene or how to react.
Speilberg can make any movie he wants to. Why does he feel that he can contribute to or continue Kubrick's vision? I see them coming at cinema from two non-complementary camps. Speilberg is a manager. Kubrick was a creator.
How much longer are you going to keep pushing the "blue, underlined" convention for designating links on a web page? With more and more newbies getting online every week, and the shift from text document presentation to a more visually-oriented content presentation, insisting that users expect and are confused by anything other than "blue, underlined" styles on links seems rather antiquated and limiting. How long do we continue to conform to what worked in one stage of the WWW and miss opportunities to open new possibilities in design and interaction as the web evolves?
I disagree... I've been thinking about this subject for years, out of curiosity as to why a particular story comes up and receives ubiquitous coverage across a variety of different media. I'm not talking about headline events like war or disasters. I'm thinking along the lines of coverage re social movements, highlighted scandals, and consumer & special interest stories. From any number of potential stories out there each day, week, month & year, only certain ones get picked up, and then it's everywhere. Many times, a story will surface that receives that extra push from the media. First you might catch a blurb on the local or national televised news, you might see it covered on those soft-news programs like Dateline, 20/20, Hard Copy, ET. You might also see articles in a mag, a paper, on somebody's web site. And then you hear people at the office commenting on it. You hear a comedian or talk show host crack on it. It becomes a little part of our culture for however long the story or subject stays in the spotlight (from an American perspective, since that's where I am). And then, just as suddenly and inexplicably as it surfaced, it sinks back down to the tar pits of our Americana. Forgotten and not really having made any lasting impact.
So, I started asking myself, who generates popular news first? Do most news organizations and publishers look to a limited elite group or channel of specific sources for their ideas? After all, bandwagoneering in the news biz is just like it is in the movie studio biz... I really don't have a strong answer (and I'm not trying to spawn any conspiracy-spew) but I have noticed that many newspaper series & tv-news cover stories follow on the heels of stories that first appeared in certain magazines, like Time, etc... I find these sources to have a lot of influence. With the exception of a few respected newspapers, I think that the rest make a practice of reporting ON news, not reporting THE news.
I don't think newspapers can provide this type of leading-edge, advance new generation. They might extend it and provoke more discussion of it. But too many other factors hinder this for them (deadlines, appealing to a broad audience, turnover involved in putting out daily issues, etc...). And that's not really their job, anyway.
The newspaper was king in the industrial age, using assembly line, linear-oriented delivery of information. But this is the digital age and the industrial age is behind us. We are breaking out of the linear-mindset and newspapers will be left-behind. As your post states, news will always be around. How it's presented is increasingly up to us. Interaction and individual voices will be the key. Shoot, now I'm off-topic
There's a niche there, however, that can be capitalized on, and magazines have been able to that, by specializing in a limited range of subjects. But newspapers for the most part have missed the boat. With the exception of papers like Barons, WSJ, etc... that specialize in target audiences, most newspapers try to be everything to everybody, in the hopes that they can at least appeal to every member of a household with at least one section. With this, they open themselves up to problems. Namely, failing to define themselves as having a specific, indespensible value. I can live without the paper. I can live without the editorials. I can live without reading the comics. I can check the movie listings with online or over the phone. I can definately get better movie reviews elsewhere. I can get my world and national news elsewhere. Their forte is local news stories and issues. Stuff going on in the community that affects local citizens. But even this does not make newspapers valuable anymore, since papers return a profit and reflect interests not always in line with fair, objective coverage. You only get what the papers controllers want you to read.
I myself have not really sat down and read a paper for over 4 years. When the local paper calls about subscriptions, I tell them I can read their paper online (for free) if I felt the need. What I'm trying to say is that newspapers do not provide the same service they once did and have helped themselves along the path to declining readership and obselescence (?). The only time I can see newspapers being conveinent are at airports, on the transit, or avoiding conversation around the dinner table.
The people that still want to make a living off newspaper production need to specialize. Forget about appealing to the lowest common denominator. Forget about hiring reporters that don't have a specialized area of expertise or access. Forget newspapers as they've been defined in the past. Things change. Think outside the box. Despite the technophobes desire to return to life the way they used to know it (or more likely, imagine it to have been), there is no turning back. There is no need for daily print publications dispensing watered-down coverage of information that has already been covered. You can not appeal to people on these terms. Realize that the media and its distribution channels have entered a new paradigm.
What happened to your little cartoon show on Comedy Central?
those beach boys biopic commercials! ABC actually expects viewers to watch that crap?
As anyone who has used their own brain to any degree and developed a thirst for knowledge could attest, the ideas enumerated in the film are not original and not elaborated upon to do them justice. However, there is a generation of tv-babies that have been spoonfed a manipulated sense of reality to whom this movie might initiate a desire to learn more. Opening their eyes to other possibilities. Books don't neccesarily appeal to those who like their thinking to be done for them. Target these potential students in the course description or a flyer campaign, but don't discredit the name of Philosophy & the great thinkers throughout existence by linking (limiting) it to a hollywood creation (no matter how un-conventional it might have been in that it presupposed a certain amount of intellect to enjoy on a higher level).
There are better ways to manipulate enrollment that don't have such recursive effects on mentality and credibility to actual open-mindedness. What next? A Jerry Springer Social Behavior course? Big Daddy Single Parenting? ER Medical School?
them's my thoughts....
Pay attention to the news there. AOL is buying TW. Kinda shoots that theory to pieces, eh?
Now that you can afford it, do you have plans on getting out of Michigan?
Them's gotta be some of the butt-ugliest models I think I've ever seen in my life. You are dead wrong-- this event fulfilled many dreams that day...
I seem to distantly remember Aerosmith playing "Kings and Queens" in one of those little hologram boxes.... was that one of the ewok specials then? I recall having to turn down my John Denver 8-track to hear what the commotion was on the telly.....
I found the definition for adult (individual 18 and up), but I'm a little fuzzy on the terms "offence" and "reasonable". I like to provide reason behind my actions... does that make me a reasonable person? Or is it up to the courts to determine who is reasonable and what might cause "offence"? Hmmm. Too ambiguous.
Front = HTML + JavaServerPages + XML + IE/mozilla (if it ever gets past beta)
We're putting this to use in an international application & so far things are smooth! One drawback is the sorry state of browsers re compliance to standards. Unfortunately, Netscrape just can't cut it for serious GUI development right now so the focus is on IE as the target interface. One advantage of thin client is a malleable look & feel to the interface. If you know yer way around CSS, with a couple stokes of the keyboard you can have a completely different look, or even a customizable interface.
- Eno
- Robert Rich
- Steve Roach
- early tangerine dream
- 'lifeforms' by FSOL
- 'one AD'
- any of the 'from here to tranquility' series
- miles davis / john coltrane-era jazz
- good dub
- DCD
sounds that pump that adrenalin though those fingers and relevant neural net:not sure if anyones mentioned this yet, but EDGE has a feature interview with Mr. Barbour on their site at the moment. interesting read if you're intrigued by his concept....