Thanks for a thoughtful and well-constructed response this time.
I hadn't seen his signature before his orginal post in this thread, and in this context, it's provocative and game for comment.
As for bong hits and hippies, they have nothing to do with me, or any the progressives i know, so i have nothing to say about them. I could point out similarly negative stereotypes of people on the right, but that wouldn't be productive. I object to the macho, bullying style of argument that seeks to belittle your opponents through name-calling and characature. You dont need it, and it puts off anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It also makes it seem as though your arguments are motivated more by anger or dislike of other people than by having a rational opinion on the matter.
I really dont have time, unfortunately, to engage in a "field day", as you put it, so will respectfully trust that you have strong arguments in support of your statement, end it here, and go back to work.
I actually asked what made me a wingnut, but now that you've called me a troll as well, i'll respond to both:
It is not being troll to comment on a signature that is clearly a provocative political response to the recent election (he's confirmed as much), especially a signature that calls people he seems to disagree with "common idiots." Using that signature while calling the left "wingnuts" and pre-emptively attacking anything they might post as "fucking nonsense" IS in fact acting like a troll.
It is not being a wingnut to point out to someone that he discredits his argument by indulging in stereotypes and making intentionally insulting generalizations about those who might disagree with him.
His stereotype of all Islamic groups as not being "moral enough" to follow the Geneva Conventions is wrong. Many Islamic groups adhere quite strictly to a moral code, and, in fact, many of the Islamic militants fighting in Iraq are acting on the conviction that our culture and our invasion of Iraq go against that code. You might not agree with them, but they are certainly "moral enough" to follow an agreement and adhere to a code of behavior.
His generalization that the left needs to do "homework" because they lack an understanding of the Geneva Conventions has no basis. Many people on the left have studied the Geneva Conventions quite thoroughly.
As for "attacking a perfectly valid statement without proof to the contrary": He offered no proof of the statements I've commented on in the first place, and so I do not see how you can call them valid. Those statements are faulty generalizations on which he seems to have built at least part of his argument. I actually called most of his argument reasonable, but pointed out that his provocative style and faulty generalizations undercut it.
what have i possibly written to qualify myself as a wingnut? you discredit yourself further by insulting people who disagree with you. you are now acting like a troll, and so I'll now reply in kind by completely ignoring you. goodbye.
You had a reasonable argument until "not, again, that any Islamic group has ever been moral enough to follow the Geneva Conventions anyways" and "Oh, and here's a homework assignment for the left wingnuts" and then, of course, your signature. All of which discredit your argument by showing your propensity to rely on stereotypes and emotional generalizations in your thinking.
The problem with advertising isn't just that it is annoying when when we aren't interested in the product, or even that it might be deceptive. Advertising plays a large role in creating and shaping what we desire in the first place. It also contributes to our notions of identity and our sense of the things we should own in order to think of ourselves as successful and happy. Targeted advertising can be abused. Think of Joe Camel and the targeting of children by cigarette companies using cartoon-y ads. Think of the disproportionate number of posters and billboards for alcohol in "lower-class" areas of the city. It isn't as simple, straightforward and neutral as consumer wants x, so supplier advertises x to consumer, and everyone is happy
the strategy is more, do one thing unbelievably well so that you have the freedom to experiment with lots of other things without worrying about how successful they might be economically. you get the benefit of being seen as a free-thinking innovator
exactly! the article says nothing about DRM, and it is a big leap to assume that DRM is the driving concern of people who do not buy digital music. In fact I would bet that only a small percentage of the people studied even knew what DRM is. I agree that DRM is a short-sighted and overly-restrictive practice, but talk about reading what you want into a study.
HUH? you almost had me until you blamed Apple, a company that has put a lot of pressure on the record labels to keep the price down instead of caving to their demands to raise it. although i agree that the artist has made the Faustian bargain to pay for the label's distribution and promotional services, the label is charging for services it is not providing: 'packaging' et al.
> ads that are more highly targeted will have a better chance of showing something relevant to you that you might actually appreciate an ad for.
in fact, the better targeted the ads are, the less they will seem like advertisements and the more they will look like useful information - and the better they capitalize on the social connectivity of social software, the more they will seem like 'word of mouth' info from 'friends' and affinity groups. think posts or 'reviews' of new products rather than goofy banner ads- it's less obvious and more insidious than that.
i just got an email this morning from moveon.org encouraging members to forward moveon's internet freedom political ad to 'your myspace friends'. While this isn't corporate advertising, and is actually something I pay attention to and choose to be solicited about, I'm sure corporate advertisers of things 14 yr old kids pay attention to have been using this technique for a while now.
While we seem to think of myspace members as 14 yr old kids, we dont seem to think about the large percentage of myspace members that are advertisers and promoters. Case in point, there sure are a lot of bands on myspace, and if the band is active and aggressive enough, it works - i've seen new bands play their first ever shows to packed venues in a major market - on a monday night, no less! Event invitations from music venues or bands dont seem like advertisements to me, but neither would things from corporate advertisers if they seemed to authenticately derive from my interests and friends on myspace.
the best "punishment" is social exile - if bullies become the social outcasts instead of the victims then bulliying would happen less. unfortunately our culture values competitive, aggessive, a-type behavior, and so bullying will always be socially acceptable.
i think the author intended to write that the exploit grants admin priviledges to a non-admin user. a cursory google search of dsidentity also shows that this was fixed in an update last summer, anyway
The current discussion around the educational value of games is not about how games teach "content" or basic skills. Games are educational in that players learn how to interact with complex systems, something they will need to do increasingly in science and engineering. As a primer, read James Gee, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. ISBN 1403965382
I can understand being concerned about compression and dynamic range with a classical or jazz recording, but Bare Naked Ladies? The point of music is not always the quality or fidelity of reproduction. In some cases, it might actually be the opposite. Do you really take a silly pop album so seriously that you need lossless encoding?
The main point is the distribution gimmick and what it might point to as the future of recorded music. The de-emphasis of the permanent delivery format (a glass-mastered cd) might actually lead to more spontaneous, less product-oriented music production. It might be great if we could hear a band's album evolve rather than just "finished" songs - releasing the very early versions, and then gradually replacing them as the songs matured. Furthermore, If recorded music becomes cheap and disposable, and people pay more to see performances (lets forget about the evils of ticketmaster for a moment), a shift might occur in the way music is valued. Process, performance, improvisation and connecting to an audience might become much more highly valued than composition and production and packaging.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for a thoughtful and well-constructed response this time.
I hadn't seen his signature before his orginal post in this thread, and in this context, it's provocative and game for comment.
As for bong hits and hippies, they have nothing to do with me, or any the progressives i know, so i have nothing to say about them. I could point out similarly negative stereotypes of people on the right, but that wouldn't be productive. I object to the macho, bullying style of argument that seeks to belittle your opponents through name-calling and characature. You dont need it, and it puts off anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It also makes it seem as though your arguments are motivated more by anger or dislike of other people than by having a rational opinion on the matter.
I really dont have time, unfortunately, to engage in a "field day", as you put it, so will respectfully trust that you have strong arguments in support of your statement, end it here, and go back to work.
I actually asked what made me a wingnut, but now that you've called me a troll as well, i'll respond to both:
It is not being troll to comment on a signature that is clearly a provocative political response to the recent election (he's confirmed as much), especially a signature that calls people he seems to disagree with "common idiots." Using that signature while calling the left "wingnuts" and pre-emptively attacking anything they might post as "fucking nonsense" IS in fact acting like a troll.
It is not being a wingnut to point out to someone that he discredits his argument by indulging in stereotypes and making intentionally insulting generalizations about those who might disagree with him.
His stereotype of all Islamic groups as not being "moral enough" to follow the Geneva Conventions is wrong. Many Islamic groups adhere quite strictly to a moral code, and, in fact, many of the Islamic militants fighting in Iraq are acting on the conviction that our culture and our invasion of Iraq go against that code. You might not agree with them, but they are certainly "moral enough" to follow an agreement and adhere to a code of behavior.
His generalization that the left needs to do "homework" because they lack an understanding of the Geneva Conventions has no basis. Many people on the left have studied the Geneva Conventions quite thoroughly.
As for "attacking a perfectly valid statement without proof to the contrary": He offered no proof of the statements I've commented on in the first place, and so I do not see how you can call them valid. Those statements are faulty generalizations on which he seems to have built at least part of his argument. I actually called most of his argument reasonable, but pointed out that his provocative style and faulty generalizations undercut it.
what have i possibly written to qualify myself as a wingnut? you discredit yourself further by insulting people who disagree with you. you are now acting like a troll, and so I'll now reply in kind by completely ignoring you. goodbye.
You had a reasonable argument until "not, again, that any Islamic group has ever been moral enough to follow the Geneva Conventions anyways" and "Oh, and here's a homework assignment for the left wingnuts" and then, of course, your signature. All of which discredit your argument by showing your propensity to rely on stereotypes and emotional generalizations in your thinking.
The problem with advertising isn't just that it is annoying when when we aren't interested in the product, or even that it might be deceptive. Advertising plays a large role in creating and shaping what we desire in the first place. It also contributes to our notions of identity and our sense of the things we should own in order to think of ourselves as successful and happy. Targeted advertising can be abused. Think of Joe Camel and the targeting of children by cigarette companies using cartoon-y ads. Think of the disproportionate number of posters and billboards for alcohol in "lower-class" areas of the city. It isn't as simple, straightforward and neutral as consumer wants x, so supplier advertises x to consumer, and everyone is happy
he's making a subtle reference to Bush.
they're morally equivalent.
the strategy is more, do one thing unbelievably well so that you have the freedom to experiment with lots of other things without worrying about how successful they might be economically. you get the benefit of being seen as a free-thinking innovator
exactly! the article says nothing about DRM, and it is a big leap to assume that DRM is the driving concern of people who do not buy digital music. In fact I would bet that only a small percentage of the people studied even knew what DRM is. I agree that DRM is a short-sighted and overly-restrictive practice, but talk about reading what you want into a study.
HUH? you almost had me until you blamed Apple, a company that has put a lot of pressure on the record labels to keep the price down instead of caving to their demands to raise it. although i agree that the artist has made the Faustian bargain to pay for the label's distribution and promotional services, the label is charging for services it is not providing: 'packaging' et al.
um, so the RECORD COMPANY is ripping the artist off, not iTunes!
> ads that are more highly targeted will have a better chance of showing something relevant to you that you might actually appreciate an ad for.
in fact, the better targeted the ads are, the less they will seem like advertisements and the more they will look like useful information - and the better they capitalize on the social connectivity of social software, the more they will seem like 'word of mouth' info from 'friends' and affinity groups. think posts or 'reviews' of new products rather than goofy banner ads- it's less obvious and more insidious than that.
i just got an email this morning from moveon.org encouraging members to forward moveon's internet freedom political ad to 'your myspace friends'. While this isn't corporate advertising, and is actually something I pay attention to and choose to be solicited about, I'm sure corporate advertisers of things 14 yr old kids pay attention to have been using this technique for a while now.
While we seem to think of myspace members as 14 yr old kids, we dont seem to think about the large percentage of myspace members that are advertisers and promoters. Case in point, there sure are a lot of bands on myspace, and if the band is active and aggressive enough, it works - i've seen new bands play their first ever shows to packed venues in a major market - on a monday night, no less! Event invitations from music venues or bands dont seem like advertisements to me, but neither would things from corporate advertisers if they seemed to authenticately derive from my interests and friends on myspace.
the best "punishment" is social exile - if bullies become the social outcasts instead of the victims then bulliying would happen less. unfortunately our culture values competitive, aggessive, a-type behavior, and so bullying will always be socially acceptable.
actually, we all do, its just a matter of proximity and how much wealth you have to keep us away
i think the author intended to write that the exploit grants admin priviledges to a non-admin user. a cursory google search of dsidentity also shows that this was fixed in an update last summer, anyway
The current discussion around the educational value of games is not about how games teach "content" or basic skills. Games are educational in that players learn how to interact with complex systems, something they will need to do increasingly in science and engineering. As a primer, read James Gee, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. ISBN 1403965382
I can understand being concerned about compression and dynamic range with a classical or jazz recording, but Bare Naked Ladies? The point of music is not always the quality or fidelity of reproduction. In some cases, it might actually be the opposite. Do you really take a silly pop album so seriously that you need lossless encoding? The main point is the distribution gimmick and what it might point to as the future of recorded music. The de-emphasis of the permanent delivery format (a glass-mastered cd) might actually lead to more spontaneous, less product-oriented music production. It might be great if we could hear a band's album evolve rather than just "finished" songs - releasing the very early versions, and then gradually replacing them as the songs matured. Furthermore, If recorded music becomes cheap and disposable, and people pay more to see performances (lets forget about the evils of ticketmaster for a moment), a shift might occur in the way music is valued. Process, performance, improvisation and connecting to an audience might become much more highly valued than composition and production and packaging.