I think you have only to read these posts to see that this is the right place for this article. There is much work and leisure time going on around/. it isn't only for people trawling at all. I think anything to do with technology is a good subject for/., as is obvious by the response to this piece. I always find it odd that people are so quick to self-censor the subject matter they read or talk about.
Yes, it's not just a matter of employees demanding this. We all have new expectations about technology. College kids stay on ICQ for hours because they say they fear their friendw will think somethings wrong if they don't answer instantly. Companies may be exploiting this, but it's much bigger issue than that. It goes to our expectations for technology.
I did work as a trackman, as it happens, for two summers in New England. Made a ton of money, too, though I made more driving a truck with the Teamsters the next two summers. And no, I'm not a communist. Very repulsive ideology for me. What this has to do with my column is completely beyond me. But yes, absolutely, greed is a very important factor, both from the employee and employer level.
Interesting posts, thank..I wonder exactly what the consequences of unplugging are? Do people lose their jobs? fall behind? Miss lots of important advances?
I forgot telecommuting..but it's a good point. There, the boundaries between work andplay are even tougher, no? Would love to hear from some of you who do it..
The two forms most frequently mentioined are ads, and transactional software fees..But I'd be very interested in everybody's ideas on possible forms of revenue..I'd also be interested in an grateful for any sites being mentioned here in this forum that you think qualify as Open Media sites worthy of attention...
Well, I'd say from the posts that this concerns a lot of you. And you sure are hazy on your Dylan. I write about stuff that concerns me, of course, and the people who run/.. If you want to write about stuff that concerns you, get your own column.
from watching the Yankees lost a heartbreaker to the Baltimore O's. But I'm going through these posts and answering my e-mail, and thanks for both. My job is to provoke exactly this kind of discussion and I feel very good about it and the column.
Interesting discussion, and many great e-mails, as always. Thanks. I find it odd that on this site of all places, and among people who grew up with a particular conscious of monopolies and corporatists like Bill Gates, that one would really have to explain what this farmer's grievance is. He and the people he represents can't compete with McD's anymore than an individual programmer can compete with MS Word...If you broaden the anology to include Wal-Mart, agricultural combines, McD's and the scores of others (AOL/Time Warner) that are forming around the world, it should be clear: no small individual or entrepeneur can compete. MCD's didn't do anythign to Jose, except it's a symbol in much of the world of a noxious kind of American culture that destroys local culture, small businesses and the opportunity to do business outside the context of a giant corporation. It's strange to me that on this site, of all places, people have no real political consciousness of how big a threat to individualism corporatism is..and this on a website stuffed to the gills with individuals!
Since we know -- here's another example -- that many people post before they bother to read or understand, I just want to make one point in what I hope turns out to be an ingelligent conversation on this topic, rather than another degenerating and embarrasing round of posturing..I'm not against the Human Genome Project, nor does the column suggest in any way that it shouldn't have been done or completed. The issue here is how is society supposed to deal with its many consequences. Here's the lst of a series of posters who are sort of/. "flashers"..they just want to expose themselves in public. But I sure hope we can actually have a conversation about this that reflects the amazing brainpower on the site, rather than the high tostosterone level. This poster should re-read lst, then fire.. But remember..this isn't an attack on the HGP, which has astounding potential for good..But it also has astounding potential for evil..Who's going to work on sorting out its consequences is the only question being raised here? If you want to attack me, just e-mail or open a thread..We can actually have a great conversation here and people will be reading. I hope they don't end up, as usual, just e-mail me and shaking their hads at the handful of you that like to whip off completely meaningless and incomprehensible posts like this.
I see that many of you aren't aware that CNN and MSNBC are struggling mightily with tiny audiences and little revenue. They are not growing and prospering. They are in big trouble. I'm surprised so few people know this. If they wren't both owned and subsidized by behemoths with deep pockets, they be long gone. CNN has terrible problems when there isn't a huge story and MSNBC has never had much of a tv audience..a huge disappointment.
I think this is an interesting and important post. Media used to be tremendously passive..20 years ago, 94 per cent of all Americans sat and watched TV news in the evening. Now, 14 per cent do. They are forced into some interactivity..zappers, switchers, multi-channels, cable, the Net. I think most people do want to receive info passively, but the best open sites offer readers a number of options for participating. I think those will ultimately be successful. Certainly some passive sites will be as well. But media users have many choices and much new technology that requires choices to made..That mitigates against the total passivity of previous generations.
I find this a bizarre post.. To write about open media is hypocritical, because it's about open media? How precisely is one to write about an interesting subject if you can't write about it..I'd say this is a case of a leopard who hasn't thought this through..Now that we are deeply into non sequiturs..But let's get past Jon Katz for a sec..Do you think the column is right? Wrong? Flawed? Why so tough to not personalize a non personal subject?
..that people are posting inaccurate, self-righteous posts under their own names. If you read the comments of the choir, I don't see how you can argue that they are converted. And you are dead wrong. CNN, MSNBC and newspapers and magazines have very serious ratings and audience problems.Mainstream media audience's are aging an advertising markets are fragmenting. CNN's audience share problems have been extremely well publicized. Why would you make statements that are so demonstrably false as if you knew them to be true. These problems are widely known and discussed in the media industry and the media.
No, that's a silly argument, I think. Slashdot was successful before Andover bought it, which is WHY Andover bought it. Open Media isn't more virtuous than closed, just more timely and successful. Both mean to make money. But I'm not into the Andover/Slashdot paranoia thread, though it's a perfectly legitimate line of discussion. I've worked for too many true corporate beasts. And I did define them, if you read the column. And at considerable length, according to some people here.
This is sort of the point, though..Open Media takes info from lots of new sources (traditional media included). The NYTimes isn't interested in posting your comments. Slashdot, bless it's heart is committed to giving teens a release for their violent impulses. This probably saves lots of windows. But it isn't a matter of altruism. On the Net, the news is there for the taking, for better or worse. That's what makes old info distribution models so difficult. And makes competitition so challenging. Anybody here can take this column and have their way with it..It is already, in fact, being linked all over the place, judging by my e-mail. So it is there for the taking.
You're mixing two different issues. The corporate media model reduces workforces over ratings. That's not a new or open media model. Salon ambitiously expanded to try and be a major commercial media player. It overextended. Most open media don't make that kind of investment in staff and resources. They link to informed from all sorts of sites, closed and open. (do I have to sign off three times?) THanks, thanks, thanks.
No doubt I could have written it shorter, but we thought it was important to go into some history here, even though it strains some attention spans..But it isn't just about cost..People are willing to spend money in different contexts for information that is useful to them. So are advertisers. The larger point made in this post is true though..The closed media model works less and less well in an environment where the price of information is dropping and the availability of information is going up...People have always been willing to pay for useful information, the change here is that it's free.But new media like the Industry Standard, which has a print and e-component is making a lot of money, and charging as well. It isn't insider info, but useful info. Big distinction.
Finally, somebody who actually read the column and posted an intelligent thought about it..Here we go, maybe even to the point of having an intelligent discussion (we can dream) A miracle..Thanks, dude. I think the pundit point is interesting. I think pundits have completely lost their power in traditional media and there really aren't any pundits on the Web. It's just not possible to dominate discussions that way.
Am I missing something here? I'm a hypocrite for commenting on a story in Time, but you are not for reading it? Troll logic? I'm going to come on Threads more from now on in the hopes of encountering an actual reader..doesn't look promising though, but I'll stay with it..
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have only to read these posts to see that this is the right place for this article. There is much work and leisure time going on around
Yes, it's not just a matter of employees demanding this. We all have new expectations about technology. College kids stay on ICQ for hours because they say they fear their friendw will think somethings wrong if they don't answer instantly. Companies may be exploiting this, but it's much bigger issue than that. It goes to our expectations for technology.
I did work as a trackman, as it happens, for two summers in New England. Made a ton of money, too, though I made more driving a truck with the Teamsters the next two summers. And no, I'm not a communist. Very repulsive ideology for me. What this has to do with my column is completely beyond me. But yes, absolutely, greed is a very important factor, both from the employee and employer level.
Interesting posts, thank..I wonder exactly what the consequences of unplugging are? Do people lose their jobs? fall behind? Miss lots of important advances?
about the post.industrial economy, plse..You mean we are moving towards it now?
I read this post and thought, "gee, this is interesting"...Robokatz..an idea whose time has come
I forgot telecommuting..but it's a good point. There, the boundaries between work andplay are even tougher, no? Would love to hear from some of you who do it..
The two forms most frequently mentioined are ads, and transactional software fees..But I'd be very interested in everybody's ideas on possible forms of revenue..I'd also be interested in an grateful for any sites being mentioned here in this forum that you think qualify as Open Media sites worthy of attention...
Well, I'd say from the posts that this concerns a lot of you. And you sure are hazy on your Dylan.
I write about stuff that concerns me, of course, and the people who run
from watching the Yankees lost a heartbreaker to the Baltimore O's. But I'm going through these posts and answering my e-mail, and thanks for both. My job is to provoke exactly this kind of discussion and I feel very good about it and the column.
Interesting discussion, and many great e-mails, as always. Thanks. I find it odd that on this site of all places, and among people who grew up with a particular conscious of monopolies and corporatists like Bill Gates, that one would really have to explain what this farmer's grievance is. He and the people he represents can't compete with McD's anymore than an individual programmer can compete with MS Word...If you broaden the anology to include Wal-Mart, agricultural combines, McD's and the scores of others (AOL/Time Warner) that are forming around the world, it should be clear: no small individual or entrepeneur can compete. MCD's didn't do anythign to Jose, except it's a symbol in much of the world of a noxious kind of American culture that destroys local culture, small businesses and the opportunity to do business outside the context of a giant corporation.
It's strange to me that on this site, of all places, people have no real political consciousness of how big a threat to individualism corporatism is..and this on a website stuffed to the gills with individuals!
Since we know -- here's another example -- that many people post before they bother to read or understand, I just want to make one point in what I hope turns out to be an ingelligent conversation on this topic, rather than another degenerating and embarrasing round of posturing..I'm not against the Human Genome Project, nor does the column suggest in any way that it shouldn't have been done or completed. The issue here is how is society supposed to deal with its many consequences. Here's the lst of a series of posters who are sort of
But remember..this isn't an attack on the HGP, which has astounding potential for good..But it also has astounding potential for evil..Who's going to work on sorting out its consequences is the only question being raised here? If you want to attack me, just e-mail or open a thread..We can actually have a great conversation here and people will be reading. I hope they don't end up, as usual, just e-mail me and shaking their hads at the handful of you that like to whip off completely meaningless and incomprehensible posts like this.
...Must be cause it's from a Jersey person..
I see that many of you aren't aware that CNN and MSNBC are struggling mightily with tiny audiences and little revenue. They are not growing and prospering. They are in big trouble. I'm surprised so few people know this. If they wren't both owned and subsidized by behemoths with deep pockets, they be long gone. CNN has terrible problems when there isn't a huge story and MSNBC has never had much of a tv audience..a huge disappointment.
I think this is an interesting and important post. Media used to be tremendously passive..20 years ago, 94 per cent of all Americans sat and watched TV news in the evening. Now, 14 per cent do. They are forced into some interactivity..zappers, switchers, multi-channels, cable, the Net. I think most people do want to receive info passively, but the best open sites offer readers a number of options for participating. I think those will ultimately be successful. Certainly some passive sites will be as well. But media users have many choices and much new technology that requires choices to made..That mitigates against the total passivity of previous generations.
I find this a bizarre post.. To write about open media is hypocritical, because it's about open media? How precisely is one to write about an interesting subject if you can't write about it..I'd say this is a case of a leopard who hasn't thought this through..Now that we are deeply into non sequiturs..But let's get past Jon Katz for a sec..Do you think the column is right? Wrong? Flawed? Why so tough to not personalize a non personal subject?
As a former Baltimore newspaper editor, I sort of agree. On the Net ivory towers don't last long either, one of the things I like about it.
..that people are posting inaccurate, self-righteous posts under their own names. If you read the comments of the choir, I don't see how you can argue that they are converted. And you are dead wrong. CNN, MSNBC and newspapers and magazines have very serious ratings and audience problems.Mainstream media audience's are aging an advertising markets are fragmenting. CNN's audience share problems have been extremely well publicized. Why would you make statements that are so demonstrably false as if you knew them to be true. These problems are widely known and discussed in the media industry and the media.
...and I thank you for it.A perfect example of what I was writing about from somebody who actually read it. Can I send you a box of Twizzlers?
No, that's a silly argument, I think. Slashdot was successful before Andover bought it, which is WHY Andover bought it. Open Media isn't more virtuous than closed, just more timely and successful. Both mean to make money. But I'm not into the Andover/Slashdot paranoia thread, though it's a perfectly legitimate line of discussion. I've worked for too many true corporate beasts.
And I did define them, if you read the column. And at considerable length, according to some people here.
This is sort of the point, though..Open Media takes info from lots of new sources (traditional media included). The NYTimes isn't interested in posting your comments. Slashdot, bless it's heart is committed to giving teens a release for their violent impulses. This probably saves lots of windows.
But it isn't a matter of altruism. On the Net, the news is there for the taking, for better or worse. That's what makes old info distribution models so difficult. And makes competitition so challenging. Anybody here can take this column and have their way with it..It is already, in fact, being linked all over the place, judging by my e-mail. So it is there for the taking.
You're mixing two different issues. The corporate media model reduces workforces over ratings. That's not a new or open media model. Salon ambitiously expanded to try and be a major commercial media player. It overextended. Most open media don't make that kind of investment in staff and resources. They link to informed from all sorts of sites, closed and open.
(do I have to sign off three times?) THanks, thanks, thanks.
No doubt I could have written it shorter, but we thought it was important to go into some history here, even though it strains some attention spans..But it isn't just about cost..People are willing to spend money in different contexts for information that is useful to them. So are advertisers. The larger point made in this post is true though..The closed media model works less and less well in an environment where the price of information is dropping and the availability of information is going up...People have always been willing to pay for useful information, the change here is that it's free.But new media like the Industry Standard, which has a print and e-component is making a lot of money, and charging as well. It isn't insider info, but useful info. Big distinction.
Finally, somebody who actually read the column and posted an intelligent thought about it..Here we go, maybe even to the point of having an intelligent discussion (we can dream) A miracle..Thanks, dude. I think the pundit point is interesting. I think pundits have completely lost their power in traditional media and there really aren't any pundits on the Web. It's just not possible to dominate discussions that way.
Am I missing something here? I'm a hypocrite for commenting on a story in Time, but you are not for reading it? Troll logic? I'm going to come on Threads more from now on in the hopes of encountering an actual reader..doesn't look promising though, but I'll stay with it..