Others may take more work, but suggesting that it won't happen until it can cover every specific need is like arguing that the printing press won't replace copying by hand because it can't do calligraphy.
so I feel I can make an observation. I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse.
Nostalgia goggles.
When was this magical period of public discourse of which you speak? During the Slavery era? WW2? The Watts riots?
Public discourse is the most widely available as it has ever been, you just need to apply some filters to who you choose to have a discourse with, rather than relying in media outlets to do it for you.
Wrong.
Utterly wrong.
Go back and watch the debates between Gore Vidal and William Buckley.
Go back and watch(as others have pointed out) what the political landscape was like on television when the Fairness Doctrine was enforced:
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine."
In general, people today view anyone with opposing opinions as "the other", someone to dehumanize.
These are the tactics used during the rise of fascism in the 1920's and 30's.
You assume everyone uses a DVR or such to do that.
Sure, there are those who roll their own Myth TV or somesuch, but...
the VAST MAJORITY of people with a DVR like device GET IT FROM THE CABLE OR SATELLITE company...
Thanks for letting me clear that up for you.
Myself, I don't have a DVR.
I have NF and watch that or PBS.
Occaisionally I watch the usual broadcast digital OTA channels also, which is when people mute the commercials.
The audio of commercials is the worst part for me.
I HAVE TO mute commercials.
It would be interesting for someone to do a study, using some kind of brain wave, ecg, eeg, whatever to monitor people.
They would be watching something they enjoy, and then the commercials come on.
How do they feel?
How is their brain affected?
Heart rate, blood pressure, anxiety levels, etc
IMHO you could definitely see the negative affects of advertising.
I will be watching some tv program on NF, one that was designed/edited to be shown with commercials.
Perhaps something from the History Channel.
You can tell when the program is going to cut to a commercial, the music queues it up...
But then...
No commercial!
I love it!
What is interesting is sometimes I get an almost anticipatory anxiety, when I can tell it would normally go to a commercial.
But then when the ad doesn't show and the program just keeps on going, its almost blissful.
If you need it explained to you then you haven't been paying attention.
Really all it takes is some critical thinking, listening to what FB users say regarding news, current events, politics, etc.
I don't have a FB account, but I know a lot of people who do, and I have poked around on other peoples accounts, so I know what it looks like, how its setup, privacy settings(which I've helped people with...), etc.
I have no account to close.
What I do have is an understanding about human nature, and that people are generally lazy when it comes to where/when/how they get their news/current events/etc; I've noticed that FB engenders this laziness, with a sort of "trust us" vibe, that too many are ok with.
I think that a lot of people that get their news from Facebook truly believe it is unfiltered and crowd-sourced.
Exactly.
Most FB users I know think exactly that, or some close variant of it.
FB purposely tries to obfuscate where things come from.
With a firehose newsfeed, etc, FB "spams" their world view onto its users.
The big story here is that facebook wants to become the *only* way you get your news.
Exactly.
That is the real problem with FB and those who use it as their primary news and info source.
If there is one fact of our current media/news/journalism reality, the more sources you have the better.
My politics usually fall on the liberal side, but this is really disgusts me.
"Trending News"?
Really? More like FB propaganda.
The sad thing are the millions who get their "news" from FB.
FB has the monopoly, and it using it well.
Yea, the only problem is that the political process has very effectively split the American public and has them fighting each other. It is the same strategy that has been used for thousands of years. Divide and conquer.
The Romans did it extremely well.
The British empire as well.
Now the American empire is using the same tactic against its own people.
Combine those tactics with essentially full time monitoring of all online and almost all offline activities, opinions, etc. Throw in some drone and satellite monitoring, and the ever increasing nascent technologies yet to come and you have the perfect police state.
I agree about the cynicism, but really we can only change ourselves and our perceptions of the world.
I think it was Gandhi who said “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”
Really the question here is whether we as a civilization should more rapidly embrace renewable energy technologies, and phase out our use of carbon based energy sources like coal and oil.
Pointing out who/what gets subsidies doesn't really matter.
The points Musk makes are valid and should be discussed at length by anyone who has a stake in the health of this planet.
Thats everybody.
His argument is that every engine or generator powered by fossil fuels has an inherent subsidy because they are not paying for all of the environmental damage they cause.
If you look at the impacts of carcinogenic waste products, global warming, and acidic rain / ocean acidification, then you can see there are huge costs associated with fossil fuels that the producers and consumers of those products are not paying.
He is arguing that fossil fuels have an unfair advantage in the energy market until we slap them with fees that pay for the damage.
The solar/wind subsidies may compensate for some of the unfairness, but Musk apparently believes fossil fuels still have an unfair or unreasonable advantage.
Actually I think its feral cats(the real problem...) that are doing the killing.
Or maybe thats what you meant.
When I read domestic I think of my spoiled cats.
When I watch, say, old Star Trek episodes(TOS), streamed on Netflix, they look great:
Crystal clear and no blocky pixelation to speak of...
When I watch episodes of a new Netflix created series, such as "House of Cards", it looks terrible.
Blocky pixelation all around, and Kevin Spacey looks like he came out of Minecraft.
I have confirmed this behavior over and over with these two series.
I have friends who also confirm this behavior(especially HoC).
Is there some setting in Netflix I need to enable, such as "Make our new shows look great while streaming".
I do the same thing for the same reasons.
This just shows you know what you're doing, as opposed to those who blindly accept what Apple or the rest spoon feed them.
When I first heard relatives complain about how hard it was to transfer music to/from other "I" devices and all the headaches they went through I knew I had made the correct choice.
I've got around.5T of mp3's, and some flacs, and there is no way in hell I would let iTunes or anything else like that "manage" my music.
For about ten years, I’ve been warning people, “hang onto your media. One day, you won’t buy a movie. You’ll buy the right to watch a movie, and that movie will be served to you. If the companies serving the movie don’t want you to see it, or they want to change something, they will have the power to do so. They can alter history, and they can make you keep paying for things that you formerly could have bought. Information will be a utility rather than a possession. Even information that you yourself have created will require unending, recurring payments just to access.”
We all can see where this is heading.
Apple, Amazon, Google, et al will eventually control all media.
They will control all books, magazines, journalism, music, films, etc;
They will control ALL MEDIA period.
It is only a matter of time.
Once the "big three" or "big five" or whoever has this control, just think of how they can(and will) use that control to manipulate peoples views and opionions. They will manipulate history, the publics knowledge of virtually anything they want. They can(and will) "curate" the publics perceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
You're powers of observation are off the scale sir.
Others may take more work, but suggesting that it won't happen until it can cover every specific need is like arguing that the printing press won't replace copying by hand because it can't do calligraphy.
Best analogy yet.
so I feel I can make an observation. I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse.
Nostalgia goggles. When was this magical period of public discourse of which you speak? During the Slavery era? WW2? The Watts riots? Public discourse is the most widely available as it has ever been, you just need to apply some filters to who you choose to have a discourse with, rather than relying in media outlets to do it for you.
Wrong.
Utterly wrong.
Go back and watch the debates between Gore Vidal and William Buckley.
Go back and watch(as others have pointed out) what the political landscape was like on television when the Fairness Doctrine was enforced:
"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine."
In general, people today view anyone with opposing opinions as "the other", someone to dehumanize.
These are the tactics used during the rise of fascism in the 1920's and 30's.
I ran out of mod points right before I read this.
Bravo!
You assume everyone uses a DVR or such to do that.
Sure, there are those who roll their own Myth TV or somesuch, but...
the VAST MAJORITY of people with a DVR like device GET IT FROM THE CABLE OR SATELLITE company...
Thanks for letting me clear that up for you.
Myself, I don't have a DVR.
I have NF and watch that or PBS.
Occaisionally I watch the usual broadcast digital OTA channels also, which is when people mute the commercials.
The audio of commercials is the worst part for me.
I HAVE TO mute commercials.
It would be interesting for someone to do a study, using some kind of brain wave, ecg, eeg, whatever to monitor people.
They would be watching something they enjoy, and then the commercials come on.
How do they feel?
How is their brain affected?
Heart rate, blood pressure, anxiety levels, etc
IMHO you could definitely see the negative affects of advertising.
It's also the reason why I put such a high value on the BBC (yes, I'm in the UK) and why I really don't mind paying the license fee.
The BBC kicks ass.
I listen to it at night sometimes driving home.
I will be watching some tv program on NF, one that was designed/edited to be shown with commercials.
Perhaps something from the History Channel.
You can tell when the program is going to cut to a commercial, the music queues it up...
But then...
No commercial!
I love it!
What is interesting is sometimes I get an almost anticipatory anxiety, when I can tell it would normally go to a commercial.
But then when the ad doesn't show and the program just keeps on going, its almost blissful.
There is no downhill for anything to roll to in Florida.
Yea, I agree completely.
Good points.
If you need it explained to you then you haven't been paying attention.
Really all it takes is some critical thinking, listening to what FB users say regarding news, current events, politics, etc.
I don't have a FB account, but I know a lot of people who do, and I have poked around on other peoples accounts, so I know what it looks like, how its setup, privacy settings(which I've helped people with...), etc.
I have no account to close.
What I do have is an understanding about human nature, and that people are generally lazy when it comes to where/when/how they get their news/current events/etc;
I've noticed that FB engenders this laziness, with a sort of "trust us" vibe, that too many are ok with.
I think that a lot of people that get their news from Facebook truly believe it is unfiltered and crowd-sourced.
Exactly.
Most FB users I know think exactly that, or some close variant of it.
FB purposely tries to obfuscate where things come from.
With a firehose newsfeed, etc, FB "spams" their world view onto its users.
The big story here is that facebook wants to become the *only* way you get your news.
Exactly.
That is the real problem with FB and those who use it as their primary news and info source.
If there is one fact of our current media/news/journalism reality, the more sources you have the better.
My politics usually fall on the liberal side, but this is really disgusts me.
"Trending News"?
Really? More like FB propaganda.
The sad thing are the millions who get their "news" from FB.
FB has the monopoly, and it using it well.
Yea, the only problem is that the political process has very effectively split the American public and has them fighting each other. It is the same strategy that has been used for thousands of years. Divide and conquer.
The Romans did it extremely well.
The British empire as well.
Now the American empire is using the same tactic against its own people.
Combine those tactics with essentially full time monitoring of all online and almost all offline activities, opinions, etc.
Throw in some drone and satellite monitoring, and the ever increasing nascent technologies yet to come and you have the perfect police state.
I agree about the cynicism, but really we can only change ourselves and our perceptions of the world.
I think it was Gandhi who said “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”
Really the question here is whether we as a civilization should more rapidly embrace renewable energy technologies, and phase out our use of carbon based energy sources like coal and oil.
Pointing out who/what gets subsidies doesn't really matter.
The points Musk makes are valid and should be discussed at length by anyone who has a stake in the health of this planet.
Thats everybody.
His argument is that every engine or generator powered by fossil fuels has an inherent subsidy because they are not paying for all of the environmental damage they cause.
If you look at the impacts of carcinogenic waste products, global warming, and acidic rain / ocean acidification, then you can see there are huge costs associated with fossil fuels that the producers and consumers of those products are not paying.
He is arguing that fossil fuels have an unfair advantage in the energy market until we slap them with fees that pay for the damage.
The solar/wind subsidies may compensate for some of the unfairness, but Musk apparently believes fossil fuels still have an unfair or unreasonable advantage.
He's right.
Actually I think its feral cats(the real problem...) that are doing the killing.
Or maybe thats what you meant.
When I read domestic I think of my spoiled cats.
I have a question about Netflix streaming.
When I watch, say, old Star Trek episodes(TOS), streamed on Netflix, they look great:
Crystal clear and no blocky pixelation to speak of...
When I watch episodes of a new Netflix created series, such as "House of Cards", it looks terrible.
Blocky pixelation all around, and Kevin Spacey looks like he came out of Minecraft.
I have confirmed this behavior over and over with these two series.
I have friends who also confirm this behavior(especially HoC).
Is there some setting in Netflix I need to enable, such as "Make our new shows look great while streaming".
Its like the Slayer album, "Rein in Blood".
ISIS launching CyberAttacks!!!
I do the same thing for the same reasons. .5T of mp3's, and some flacs, and there is no way in hell I would let iTunes or anything else like that "manage" my music.
This just shows you know what you're doing, as opposed to those who blindly accept what Apple or the rest spoon feed them.
When I first heard relatives complain about how hard it was to transfer music to/from other "I" devices and all the headaches they went through I knew I had made the correct choice.
I've got around
For about ten years, I’ve been warning people, “hang onto your media. One day, you won’t buy a movie. You’ll buy the right to watch a movie, and that movie will be served to you. If the companies serving the movie don’t want you to see it, or they want to change something, they will have the power to do so. They can alter history, and they can make you keep paying for things that you formerly could have bought. Information will be a utility rather than a possession. Even information that you yourself have created will require unending, recurring payments just to access.”
We all can see where this is heading.
Apple, Amazon, Google, et al will eventually control all media.
They will control all books, magazines, journalism, music, films, etc;
They will control ALL MEDIA period.
It is only a matter of time.
Once the "big three" or "big five" or whoever has this control, just think of how they can(and will) use that control to manipulate peoples views and opionions. They will manipulate history, the publics knowledge of virtually anything they want. They can(and will) "curate" the publics perceptions.
Yes, hang onto your media
Yes, you are correct sir.
Don't bother...
The terms "nerd" and "geek" lost their true meaning about ten years ago.