Value is based on the principal of scarcity. With print medium the publishers could control the scarcity, AND create the demand through marketing, thereby increasing the value i.e. the price. But when talking about profit margins, I will hazard a calculated guess and say that e-books are far more profitable even at the lower price point.
The real issue here is that Murdoch and other redundant publishers no longer get to control the scarcity in the market, plus with the lowered cost barriers to market entry, a LOT more fish are now feeding in the same pond.
I'm talking about today, 2010, after the great wars of the last century, with our societies today. Note - I'm not saying that the leaders are not dangerous and self motivated - fools and mad men are weak by nature and do not get very far in life before they are either locked up, sedated, or preyed upon.
Its easy enough (and foolish) to form opinions based on news reports we get today. I often read about a politician the news and think 'what an idiot' forgetting that most of the news is released and orchestrated by very savvy PR and media teams. News today is designed to invoke readers to form specific opinions. It's called propaganda, and most of us are so immersed in it, that we hardly have a clue as to what is really happening.
I'll give you an example: I don't live in America. When the Iraq war broke, We got to see media reports from all sides of the conflict, while Americans only got to see a very controlled and orchestrated media coverage. We got to hear about the body counts, and the villages of innocent women and children that were slaughtered by American troops. We got to see that later the actual conflict was/is being dealt with by mercenaries, while the US troops merely coordinated the strategies. The American people did not see that. These are just a few examples, of how your perception of reality is shaped for you without you even knowing it. More importantly, you use this spoon fed reality to form your decisions, and it effects your every day life. More often than not, this spoon fed reality is what is recorded as history and taught as the historical facts.
American Companies were supplying the Nazis throughout the war. America had ample forewarning about Pearl harbor and could have prevented it. America also lied about the attacks on the ships that started the Vietnam war. As for Japan - they were already finished by the time USA dropped the bombs. Everyone on the inside knew that, but the USA went ahead and murdered countless innocent civilians anyway.
So who's the real pig in the fairy tale with mad men running the show here?
Honestly, do you really think that in a time of peace (and probably even at war) someone in charge of running a country would be foolish enough to authorize a nuclear missile strike against another sovereign country? I'm afraid you have bought the hyped up bullshit from the military industrial complex lock, stock and barrel.
As poorly as these leaders are portrayed through the use of propaganda, please bear in mind that they are the leaders of their nations (regardless of whether you like them or not). They are not fools, and definitely not mad men.
I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions presented here. Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins have described evolution differently - http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html . The idea relates to replicators, and that the replicators actually evolve, and that genetic replicators are only one form of replication. Wherever there is replication, there is evolution. This relates to genes, and the category described by Dawkins, memes. Susan Blackmore identified a new replicator named temes. (described in the linked video). In this paradigm, evolution relates to replicators adapting to new environments to survive, which could easily apply to organisms that do not partake in genetic evolution.
Over the last 10 years, papers have been laying off reporters and publishing syndicated crap, a business practice that resulted in huge profits without considering long term survival strategies. The syndication practice worked fine in print because we tend to only buy one news-paper, but online it absolutely destroys the value of the business.
The only way publications will EVER be able regain market value is to hire their own reporters again and produce unique content that adds value for the reader, and this can be evidenced today by the more respected publications in the market.
Long live the journalists!!
I could kill you with a tightly rolled newspaper. This would also not generally be considered a potentially lethal weapon - although it might be fairly difficult to hijack an airliner with one......
Frankly, I don't think that there are many 'climate change deniers' among us. The climate does change.
The real issue in question is about how significant AGW really is, and of course, the huge political agenda and the consequences thereof that surrounds this somewhat shaky theory.
Virtually useless fact for the day: We call them cell phones in South Africa too (its a historical artifact - cellular phones were the first type of widely used mobile communications here)
Is evolution even a theory any more? It seems that there is definitely enough scientific evidence to validate it. Your point is a definitely valid one.
The results of an applied scientific method can be used for propaganda. The purpose of the scientific method is to observe and record the result in an unbiased manner, and to present the results, regardless of ones personal stake in the matter.
Propaganda on the other hand has the intention of convincing people to support a specific viewpoint. The intention of Propaganda has no basis in whether something is true or not. Its intention is to win popular support so that a group can wield their Zombie armies and take control of the situation. (generally for personal gain). It is for exactly this reason that I think that our democratic processes need a total overhaul, some evolution if you will..
Here we go - back to the insults (ala Gordon Brown). Have you ever noticed that when its time to pull the insult card out of the pack it is only because there is no other card (i.e. real facts) to play?
But I will bite anyway.
Is the climate changing? Yes it always has, and for as long as it matters, it always will.
Is the earth flat? Well flat is a relative term. So if you can be more specific about the context, I can be more specific about my answer.
Now for the real question - Are humans causing the climate to change? Well the verdicts still out on that one because no evidence has been presented so far to validate this claim. (and when it is, I will be able to make an informed decision - you insulting me doesn't count). Note that I am not disputing the possibility. What I am disputing is the logic that is being sold to the public to motivate a large agenda which is going to make a lot of people stinking rich at my expense based on what is currently a fairy tale. Sounds ominously like religion, doesn't it?
The issue in this specific case, is that the data has never been presented for peer review. A large portion of the sceptics argument hinges on this simple fact. How can there be actual peer review without the data to actually review?
The current state of affairs is that we have a few rock-star scientists whose word we have been asked to take on pure faith - because the data has not been made public. This is called religion - not science.
Now we get a look at some of the behind the scenes communications between the new high priests that actually confirms the suspicions if the sceptics.
And it looks like that this is actually been a play and not science.
http://www.google.com/search?q=An+Inconvenient+Truth+inaccuracies
Yes. Some of the science was valid. But some of the facts presented as true were blatantly designed to mislead.
My point is, one either supports the scientific method or one does not. There are no grey areas. Either its science, or its propaganda. It cannot be both. 'An Inconvenient Truth' is propaganda masquerading as science, which is actually what this forum topic is about.
I think the issue here is that someone like Al Gores makes a film full of factual inaccuracies, wins a Nobel peace prize for his efforts and is lauded by the pro Climate change scientists.
The scientists should actually have pointed out the inaccuracies in the video, but they didn't. So when average Joe like me sees this, what do I use to draw my conclusions? Well its not rocket science - Al Gore talks rubbish and the scientists still support him. Where does that leave the credibility of the scientists? Well in my book, up the creek without a paddle.
As far as I am concerned, this is an engineered crisis to manipulate people to start being more conservative with their energy consumption, while moving towards using sustainable and renewable forms of energy and manufacturing. While I am all for the objective, I object being lied to and coerced, and will never be able consciously align myself ethically with people who believe that they have the right to behave in such a manner.
Its called demographic profiling, and its been used since advertising began. Google has already mastered it with their adwords product. Their level of demographic profiling is in fact what is scaring the likes of Rupert Murdoch, because they cannot effectively compete in the online advertising space. This is the logic behind them wanting Google to compensate them.
You are correct. Google's real product that it sells, is its users, much like a newspapers real product is the people that reads it. Everything one does while logged into Google enhances their product value because the demographic profiling just becomes better and more refined over time. Googles 'don't be evil' policy only relates to how they treat their users, which is a good policy considering their users are actually their product that they sell.
Slashdot Mirror
Recent studies in rural South Africa where DDT is still used extensively has shown a significant statistical increase in transgendererd humans.
Good plan. I'll join you :-)
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry...
Yeah. They need to make Chopper Minister for Communications. That should do the trick.
Value is based on the principal of scarcity. With print medium the publishers could control the scarcity, AND create the demand through marketing, thereby increasing the value i.e. the price. But when talking about profit margins, I will hazard a calculated guess and say that e-books are far more profitable even at the lower price point.
The real issue here is that Murdoch and other redundant publishers no longer get to control the scarcity in the market, plus with the lowered cost barriers to market entry, a LOT more fish are now feeding in the same pond.
I was going to respond, and then I realised that there was absolutely not point to it. I like my delete key.
I'm talking about today, 2010, after the great wars of the last century, with our societies today. Note - I'm not saying that the leaders are not dangerous and self motivated - fools and mad men are weak by nature and do not get very far in life before they are either locked up, sedated, or preyed upon.
Its easy enough (and foolish) to form opinions based on news reports we get today. I often read about a politician the news and think 'what an idiot' forgetting that most of the news is released and orchestrated by very savvy PR and media teams. News today is designed to invoke readers to form specific opinions. It's called propaganda, and most of us are so immersed in it, that we hardly have a clue as to what is really happening.
I'll give you an example: I don't live in America. When the Iraq war broke, We got to see media reports from all sides of the conflict, while Americans only got to see a very controlled and orchestrated media coverage. We got to hear about the body counts, and the villages of innocent women and children that were slaughtered by American troops. We got to see that later the actual conflict was/is being dealt with by mercenaries, while the US troops merely coordinated the strategies. The American people did not see that. These are just a few examples, of how your perception of reality is shaped for you without you even knowing it. More importantly, you use this spoon fed reality to form your decisions, and it effects your every day life. More often than not, this spoon fed reality is what is recorded as history and taught as the historical facts.
American Companies were supplying the Nazis throughout the war. America had ample forewarning about Pearl harbor and could have prevented it. America also lied about the attacks on the ships that started the Vietnam war. As for Japan - they were already finished by the time USA dropped the bombs. Everyone on the inside knew that, but the USA went ahead and murdered countless innocent civilians anyway.
So who's the real pig in the fairy tale with mad men running the show here?
Honestly, do you really think that in a time of peace (and probably even at war) someone in charge of running a country would be foolish enough to authorize a nuclear missile strike against another sovereign country? I'm afraid you have bought the hyped up bullshit from the military industrial complex lock, stock and barrel.
As poorly as these leaders are portrayed through the use of propaganda, please bear in mind that they are the leaders of their nations (regardless of whether you like them or not). They are not fools, and definitely not mad men.
Well at least the Chinese had the good sense to take the perpetrators out and publicly execute them.
I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions presented here. Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins have described evolution differently -
http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html . The idea relates to replicators, and that the replicators actually evolve, and that genetic replicators are only one form of replication. Wherever there is replication, there is evolution. This relates to genes, and the category described by Dawkins, memes. Susan Blackmore identified a new replicator named temes. (described in the linked video). In this paradigm, evolution relates to replicators adapting to new environments to survive, which could easily apply to organisms that do not partake in genetic evolution.
Over the last 10 years, papers have been laying off reporters and publishing syndicated crap, a business practice that resulted in huge profits without considering long term survival strategies. The syndication practice worked fine in print because we tend to only buy one news-paper, but online it absolutely destroys the value of the business.
The only way publications will EVER be able regain market value is to hire their own reporters again and produce unique content that adds value for the reader, and this can be evidenced today by the more respected publications in the market.
Long live the journalists!!
I could kill you with a tightly rolled newspaper. This would also not generally be considered a potentially lethal weapon - although it might be fairly difficult to hijack an airliner with one......
I'm holding out for the iPhone 7....
Especially if they cost 0 to run...
Frankly, I don't think that there are many 'climate change deniers' among us. The climate does change.
The real issue in question is about how significant AGW really is, and of course, the huge political agenda and the consequences thereof that surrounds this somewhat shaky theory.
Virtually useless fact for the day: We call them cell phones in South Africa too (its a historical artifact - cellular phones were the first type of widely used mobile communications here)
Is evolution even a theory any more? It seems that there is definitely enough scientific evidence to validate it. Your point is a definitely valid one.
The results of an applied scientific method can be used for propaganda. The purpose of the scientific method is to observe and record the result in an unbiased manner, and to present the results, regardless of ones personal stake in the matter.
Propaganda on the other hand has the intention of convincing people to support a specific viewpoint. The intention of Propaganda has no basis in whether something is true or not. Its intention is to win popular support so that a group can wield their Zombie armies and take control of the situation. (generally for personal gain). It is for exactly this reason that I think that our democratic processes need a total overhaul, some evolution if you will..
Here we go - back to the insults (ala Gordon Brown). Have you ever noticed that when its time to pull the insult card out of the pack it is only because there is no other card (i.e. real facts) to play?
But I will bite anyway.
Is the climate changing? Yes it always has, and for as long as it matters, it always will.
Is the earth flat? Well flat is a relative term. So if you can be more specific about the context, I can be more specific about my answer.
Now for the real question - Are humans causing the climate to change? Well the verdicts still out on that one because no evidence has been presented so far to validate this claim. (and when it is, I will be able to make an informed decision - you insulting me doesn't count).
Note that I am not disputing the possibility. What I am disputing is the logic that is being sold to the public to motivate a large agenda which is going to make a lot of people stinking rich at my expense based on what is currently a fairy tale. Sounds ominously like religion, doesn't it?
The issue in this specific case, is that the data has never been presented for peer review. A large portion of the sceptics argument hinges on this simple fact. How can there be actual peer review without the data to actually review?
The current state of affairs is that we have a few rock-star scientists whose word we have been asked to take on pure faith - because the data has not been made public. This is called religion - not science.
Now we get a look at some of the behind the scenes communications between the new high priests that actually confirms the suspicions if the sceptics.
And it looks like that this is actually been a play and not science.
some of the 'right wing' publications
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/.../10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/an-inconvenient/
need I go on?
http://www.google.com/search?q=An+Inconvenient+Truth+inaccuracies
Yes. Some of the science was valid. But some of the facts presented as true were blatantly designed to mislead.
My point is, one either supports the scientific method or one does not. There are no grey areas. Either its science, or its propaganda. It cannot be both. 'An Inconvenient Truth' is propaganda masquerading as science, which is actually what this forum topic is about.
I think the issue here is that someone like Al Gores makes a film full of factual inaccuracies, wins a Nobel peace prize for his efforts and is lauded by the pro Climate change scientists.
The scientists should actually have pointed out the inaccuracies in the video, but they didn't. So when average Joe like me sees this, what do I use to draw my conclusions? Well its not rocket science - Al Gore talks rubbish and the scientists still support him. Where does that leave the credibility of the scientists? Well in my book, up the creek without a paddle.
As far as I am concerned, this is an engineered crisis to manipulate people to start being more conservative with their energy consumption, while moving towards using sustainable and renewable forms of energy and manufacturing. While I am all for the objective, I object being lied to and coerced, and will never be able consciously align myself ethically with people who believe that they have the right to behave in such a manner.
Its called demographic profiling, and its been used since advertising began. Google has already mastered it with their adwords product. Their level of demographic profiling is in fact what is scaring the likes of Rupert Murdoch, because they cannot effectively compete in the online advertising space. This is the logic behind them wanting Google to compensate them.
You are correct. Google's real product that it sells, is its users, much like a newspapers real product is the people that reads it. Everything one does while logged into Google enhances their product value because the demographic profiling just becomes better and more refined over time. Googles 'don't be evil' policy only relates to how they treat their users, which is a good policy considering their users are actually their product that they sell.