Oh, come on.....
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
We have reached new heights of ridiculous, premature geek hyperbole. TV is nowhere near dead. Go to any random neighborhood, of any income level, and poll the residents. How many of the households use their computers for their primary (an important distinction) means of receiving and watching video content versus how many are getting it on a dedicated receiver via cable, satellite, or OTA? TV as a distinct medium is alive and well, and isn't going away anytime soon. TV programming delivered online is certainly becoming another choice, among many, to get our daily dose of information and escapism. But it has hardly become anywhere near the conventional, common, default option. Come talk to me in about 20 years and maybe we will be having a different conversation.
This is so typical of the demographic that tends to be attracted to sites like Slashdot. Younger, better educated, technically savvy, etc. A small subset of the citizenry that tends to be automatically and passionately enamored of anything new, different, and "cool." Hardly descriptive of the U.S. population as a whole. Networks and cable channels are still viable business entities, advertisers and content providers still make money hand over fist, and TV sets are still flying off store shelves every day. Guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but you are in the minority here -- you are the unconventional freaks and not in any way representative of the typical American.
Right now, this is not about obsolescence or a wholesale quantum shift in the way we do things -- it is about having different options for achieving the same goal, and about expanding choices, not locking everybody into some new paradigm. TV via the Web is just another available option, among many. It is an excellent choice for people who spend much of their lives in front of their computers anyway. Most people -- most normal people don't use their computers as a 24/7 umbilical cord. Sure, they surf the Web, and maybe even watch some videos there (especially unusual, quirky, or amateur content that is not available through conventional TV). They also watch TV, listen to the radio, listen to ipods, read books, go to the theater (cinema or stage), attend live concerts, take long walks, play with their kids, indulge in a hobby, screw their significant others, and have pleasant conversations with their friends and loved ones (whether by phone or -- horror -- face to face), and more. All of these activities are still regarded as rather distinct entities, all are important to a well-rounded life, and they do not have to be all combined, integrated, and streamlined into a single delivery source in one magic box.
This thread reminds me of that guy a few weeks back who was beside himself figuring out how to set up a computer to provide live, streaming video of the Inauguration to his students via the Web, when the simplest, most practical and effective solution was to simply drag a TV into the classroom and turn it on. Folks, everything doesn't have to be accomplished in some new, flashy, and high tech manner -- sometimes, perhaps most of the time, the tried and true solutions still work best for most of us.
I'm sure that Disney is aware of the situation and is frustrated that they can't suck the blood from these spinster pirates because of the bad PR involved with suing confused grandmothers.
Never stopped the RIAA. Maybe that's why Disney is a thriving concern and the RIAA is in its death throes.
The appallingly bad knowledge, especially about new drugs, family doctors have is downright frightening.
All the points being made here are very pertinent, but one factor I have been dealing with (handling my elderly mother's medical care as she is no longer capable of keeping track of things) is that doctors today just have too heavy of a workload. They are juggling so many patients that they cannot possibly devote the time they really need to every individual case. The tendency is to just diagnose and order tests/prescribe drugs based on the most common knee-jerk diagnosis that comes to mind. The House M.D. depiction of a group of doctors having the time to sit around and debate diagnoses with intricate knowledge of every exotic possibility and with ready knowledge of all the latest medical research simply does not happen in most hospitals.
Example: for over two decades, my mother has dealt with achalasia, a swallowing disorder. It is not a common problem, but certainly not some exotic rare disease that no one has heard of. She does have a very capable gastroenterologist, and the problem is currently under control, but it does rear its ugly head now and then. When my mother has been hospitalized and treated for other problems, the achalsia is still a factor as it affects her diet and eating schedule. You would be amazed at the number of attending physicians to whom I have had to explain and define what achalsia is and how it should be handled. Different doctors will all come and go in the course of her stay, none of whom seem to talk to each other at all, or have any inclination to inquire of her gastro doc about the problem, and all of them skeptical at best and disdainful at most of this "layman" son of hers trying to tell them how to do their job. When the achalasia begins to manifest (usually because they ignore or are clueless about the standard recommendations for diet), they keep automatically attributing it to nausea or reflux or some other unrelated condition and try to treat her for that. I can't sit in her room 24/7 waiting to intercept any random new doctor that happens to breeze in at odd times for one of their brief drive-by visits to "educate" them about achalasia (and somehow this information either never gets into her chart, or gets overlooked by these doctors in their overworked haste), so she ends up getting unnecessary treatment for problems she doesn't have. And this is not in some hellhole of a hospital -- this is in the highest-rated, most modern facility in our metro area.
Much as I would like to see some form of universal health care soon, this phenomenon will just be exacerbated by suddenly adding 30 or 40 million new formerly uninsured patients into the system. Doctors already do not have the time to give each patient the time and care they need. Unless they train or import a whole lot of new medical talent quickly, it's just going to jam up the system even more, and there will be an even greater tendency for doctors to make diagnoses and treatment decisions "on the fly" as they breeze through on their way to their next patient.
In spite of the right wing screeching about Obama being a far-left stealth candidate, he's a cleaner, more efficient Bill Clinton, without the personal ethical lapses to interfere with his objectives.....
Um...none that we know of...yet. You never know. Obama seems like a pretty upstanding guy, but so did Clinton at first. Anyway, to me, Bubba getting blow jobs from interns is his own business -- as far as I am concerned, if it put a smile on his face and enabled him to face the country's business in a more relaxed and less stressed frame of mind, all the better. It was the way he tried to fudge, obfuscate, and lie his way out of it that diminished his stature in my eyes. A flawed man, but we had a pretty good 8 years under him -- a fantastically great 8 years compared to the last 8.
I'm pretty sure the parents of these kids didn't want them sharing naked photos of themselves with each other. I'm also pretty sure, however, that they didn't consider that doing so would result in their kids possibly facing criminal charges, the scarlet letter of "sex offenders," and an adulthood ruined before it even starts. Yet, I wonder how many of the parents were previously 100% in favor of the paranoid, overly-broad, "one size fits all" laws that have now ensnared their children?
There's a lesson to be learned for the kids, too. In the electronic age, kids think nothing of digitally documenting the most intimate aspects of their lives and baring themselves (figuratively AND literally) to their peers. A hard and fast rule: never commit to text, image, or video any act which you would not want parents, teachers, or cops to know about.
All that said, dude, this is pretty fucked up right here.
This old fogy is getting a good laugh at the thread. Some (very few) have already touched on it, but what the hell is wrong with watching TV on a TV? Borrow someone's huge-ass plasma and set it up in a large classroom. You don't even need cable or satellite as the broadcast networks will be covering the inauguration stem-to-stern in beautiful 1080i HD.
But no, the parent is hellbound to do this via computer. (And most of the responses seem to be troubleshooting and spitballing the idea.) Why? Because it's "cool" or the latest thing? Because he has some anti-TV bias? Or because he's so caught up in that "it's newer, so it must be better" mentality and literally did not even think of good old broadcast TV?
Sometimes the best and most appropriate technology is the good ol' tried and true. There are many applications in life where previously existing and "old fashioned" solutions are good enough. (And much simpler.) Often it's also cheaper, and it's almost always a hell of a lot less convoluted and headache-inducing.
Alas, so many are caught up in this "newer must be better" mentality. And the companies who develop and more importantly sell the stuff feed the frenzy by insuring that there's always something new out there to shell out the big bucks for. Today's new, neat-o technological breakthrough will be "obsolete" next year (hell, maybe next month) and of course you are encouraged to upgrade or replace what you already have that still works perfectly well for the newest, biggest, fastest, sharpest, shiniest, coolest thing. Feel free. I sit here with my old computer, relatively tiny picture-tube TVs, $29 radio and CD player, books and printed newspapers, and enjoy the hell out of all of them with no diminishment of my quality of life because all of these things are "old-fashioned." And I laugh.
Now, turn down that music and get off my lawn, you whippersnappers...
Anyone who thinks such a study will change the hearts and minds of people is naive at best. Consider that:
-- Human beings have a strong inclination to cling to the anecdotal, the intuitive, the "obvious." There is a dearth of ability to look at things in a well-rounded, complete, scientific manner or to allow facts to override innate prejudices.
-- Never forget that many of the "think of the children" campaigns are not about "the children" at all -- the kids are just a convenient, emotional peg on which to hang the desire to ban or sanitize things for all of us.
-- Facts are simply not viewed as "facts" when they conflict with a strongly held belief, most especially one based at least in part on religious grounds.
These factors rear their ugly heads time and time again. Every yardstick shows that the War on Drugs is a failure, and actually counterproductive, yet the notion of legalizing/decriminalizing those substances (and shifting money and resources away from law enforcement and punishment, and towards education, prevention, and treatment) is anathema because "using drugs is wrong." Climate change is a fact that must be dealt with, but you will find countless naysayers who either have their own interests to protect (the oil companies, big business), or have such a limited and narrow understanding of the phenomenon that every colder than average event, trend, or season in isolated areas (such as what has been happening this winter in some parts of the U.S.) is instantly seen as "proof" that no such change is taking place. In the same manner, studies such as the one cited will not deter many individuals from believing that scads of ogreish perverts are stalking our children and that the "Internets" are a cesspool of danger.
Until and unless evolution produces more humans capable of accepting fact over emotion, of embracing the scientifically proven in lieu of the simplistically observed, of seeing the big picture and not focusing on isolated exceptions to the rule, then we shall continue to have studies like this marginalized or outright ignored. Maybe someday...don't hold your breath.
I think every Obama supporter (and I am one) needs to temper their lofty expectations with a dose of reality. He's not the Second Coming -- he's both human and a politician, so he already has two strikes against him. He will make (and already has made) some decisions and appointments that will piss us off. It's all a matter of contrast and degree. Considering the debacle of the last 8 years, if Obama is even moderately successful, it will be a vast improvement. He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.
If you've been living off rice and gruel for years, you may dream of steak and lobster, but at that point even a humble peanut butter and jelly sandwich is going to taste pretty damn good.
I'll bet if the Huckabee staffers were accused not of whitewashing Wikipedia articles, but rather downloading copyrighted music on BitTorrent, the tone of this/. discussion would be entirely different. (I'm just sayin'...)
That's OK -- we're all a bit hypocritical about some things. I, myself, have been known to indulge in the fine art of hypocrisy now and then...
The whole notion that one can be prohibited from photographing something viewable to the naked eye from public property is patently absurd. If it's so secret, put a wall around it.
Oh, wait...
"Their digital camera too had clippings of some prohibited spots - a photo of Jamnagar airport's main gate, boundary walls and also buildings."
Maybe they need to erect a boundary wall to prevent people from taking pictures of the boundary wall....
Ridiculous prediction. Can someone explain how it would be "progress" or an "improvement" if, instead of my hand comfortably resting on my desk manipulating the mouse, I would have to repeatedly lift my arm and poke at my screen? Especially since in my case, poor circulation and some arthritis make repeated lifting or movement of my arm rather painful over time. (Not to mention that a self-cleaning screen would be a necessity -- my screen gets dirty enough on its own without my fat fingers smearing it up on a regular basis.)
Touchscreen technology has its place, but this is a perfect example of how a technology some people think is "cool" or "advanced" leads them to feel that it should be universally adopted.
there's folie à deux (madness shared by two), folie à trois (by three), folie à quatre (by four), and folie à plusieurs (by many)--all of which are considered psychiatric disorders. but there's no discrete boundary between mass delusion and a legitimate subculture. so how many people have to share in an irrational belief before it becomes socially acceptable?
It's not a simple matter of just numbers. One factor that helps is when rulers, leaders, or influential figures begin to embrace the delusion (e.g., one of the early critical turning points for Christianity was Constantine's conversion). Once that happens, the masses begin to be strongly encouraged, if not coerced, into following suit. There is also a point at which a large enough critical mass of citizens have done this, so that the symbolism, basic belief system, and overall culture of the delusion begins to be integrated into the society at large. Finally, the delusion has to become so commonplace an aspect of the culture at large that you begin to have more "casual" or "cultural" adherents, for many of whom it is a matter of tenets and beliefs and concepts being handed down from generation to generation as heritage rather than individuals experiencing their own "Damascus Road" epiphany. (Remember: most in our own Western culture who call themselves "Christian" didn't convert from nothing or from something else; they merely absorbed and "inherited" the beliefs through family, community, and culture.) All religious movements start out as cults, with just a small band of usually outcast or at least socially shunned fanatics carrying the banner; once more respectable or influential people begin to come aboard, and it is no longer necessary to make great personal sacrifices and risk ostracization to partake, then you have your critical mass.
I have always maintained that chatting on the phone requires more concentration and attention than talking to a live person next to you. There is the vast difference between the frequency range and quality of even the best phone connection versus natural sound -- listening to a phone requires much more concentrated effort. With a cellphone, a poor connection, lousy receiver, or ambient noise can all exacerbate this. Moreover, psychologically when we are talking to someone who is not actually "there," our minds are in a sense "far away."
Anecdotally, I can tell you that as a frequent pedestrian (no car), I have nearly been rundown in intersections or parking lots several times. Invariably, the driver has a damn phone glued to his/her ear. Any conversation short of a dire life-and-death emergency in which time is of the essence can wait until you have a chance to pull over, or have reached your destination.
Once the technology is available, it *will* be abused, and we know this, because such abuses have always happened. I don't know of a government (or a business) that had a technology available and decided not to use it because doing so would be unethical or even illegal. How many times must the same stories repeat before we learn?
An old saying puts it best: "What the government wants to do, and has the means to do, it will do -- logic, ethics, and common sense notwithstanding."
What I don't get is how Xenu and his nukes is treated as bunk, but the invisible man in the sky who can hear a billion people whisper to him at the same time is treated like a celebrity who dare not be questioned by anyone who wants to run for elected office in America.
Because the Christian delusion has many things going for it: a long history, vast numbers, and, yes, money and influence. It is also well-integrated into Western culture at large; think of all the music, art, and philanthropy that has been influenced by Christianity. Plus whereas many delusions produce fear, paranoia, and anxiety, the Christian message also provides comfort, a reason to go on, and answers to those deep, dark questions that have always plagued mankind. Seriously. Many of us on Slashdot look askance at faith, but for someone who is not very rational and emotionally hurting, Christianity can be a very seductive philosophy. Science says that we are merely super-intelligent animals who arose by chance, that the universe serves no particular purpose or has any meaning for its existence, and that when we die, we cease to exist. Contrast that against the notion of being a special creation in a universe run by a beneficent God who cares about us and listens to us, and being rewarded after a brief struggle on this planet with eternal life in paradise. It doesn't matter that one happens to be scientific and reasoned while the other is based on pure blind faith: which worldview do you think is easier to "market" to "consumers?"
I wouldn't be surprised. Here in the U.S., I've been wondering how long it will take the guvmint to clamp down on those pre-paid phones. (The Brits, as usual lately, just beat us to the punch every time.) Considering that anyone can walk into a 7-11 and purchase such a phone for cash (I have two, BTW...probably should stockpile a few more) with no forms to fill out, no credit check, no record ever linking you with the phone or the number -- well, that's a "loophole" in Total Surveillance(TM) just begging to be closed.
.....for even a few moderately large (and perfectly legal) businesses to experience a massive drop in sales because their customers suddenly can't connect to them anymore (because they have been mistakenly blocked), let the lawsuits fly, and the whole scheme will be dropped or drastically modified. Even if there is a provision for individual sites to be manually approved, the inconvenience of the need to appeal the block, and the loss of even a few days sales in the process, cries out for compensation.
Misguided ideas like this one can never be headed off prematurely -- usually the implementers have to learn the hard way.
And that is why any politician who wants to take away my 2nd Amendment rights will never get my vote, or, in the event that they do win, my guns. Better a criminal than a subject.
Took a lot of scrolling to get down to this -- whew, for a minute I was afraid we might be violating the Slashdot "Every thread must contain a 2nd Amendment reference" rule.....
Maybe you like waiting in line for health care. I don't.
Those of us who cannot afford insurance nor huge medical bills would gladly stand in line for health care versus having no health care at all. It all depends on where you're coming from. In my conversations, I find that here in the U.S. almost invariably the folks who say "Universal health care won't work...too expensive...long waits...etc." are the ones who already have decent, affordable health insurance, while those who live in dread of an illness or injury bankrupting them with huge bills and/or crippling them because they couldn't afford preventative care and waited too long to address the problem, are all in favor of the idea. Generally, them that has don't care much about them that don't.
The Government is clearly lying about their intentions with this! They don't want to prevent another King's Cross, or 9/11-type attack through this latest move to enhanced ability to conduct surveillance. They just want to listen in on my phone calls!
This whole plan is clearly designed to prepare the UK for some kind of neofascist information-based coup from within the government.
Precisely. It's not about protecting you (and never has been) -- it's about controlling you. Terrorism, and the disproportionate fear thereof, is merely the excuse -- the "hook" on which they hang it to make the whole concept palatable to the largely ignorant masses. And therein lies the problem -- most citizens fall into one of three categories: (1)Those who grumble a bit about the surveillance, but are too concerned with merely surviving on a daily basis to care; (2)Those who wholeheartedly support it with huzzahs and flag-waving (the "I've got nothing to hide/stop the infidels from attacking us" crowd); or (3)Those who haven't got the faintest fucking idea of what's going on in the first place because their entire cultural and educational existence consists of pop magazines and reality TV shows.
Slashdot Mirror
We have reached new heights of ridiculous, premature geek hyperbole. TV is nowhere near dead. Go to any random neighborhood, of any income level, and poll the residents. How many of the households use their computers for their primary (an important distinction) means of receiving and watching video content versus how many are getting it on a dedicated receiver via cable, satellite, or OTA? TV as a distinct medium is alive and well, and isn't going away anytime soon. TV programming delivered online is certainly becoming another choice, among many, to get our daily dose of information and escapism. But it has hardly become anywhere near the conventional, common, default option. Come talk to me in about 20 years and maybe we will be having a different conversation.
This is so typical of the demographic that tends to be attracted to sites like Slashdot. Younger, better educated, technically savvy, etc. A small subset of the citizenry that tends to be automatically and passionately enamored of anything new, different, and "cool." Hardly descriptive of the U.S. population as a whole. Networks and cable channels are still viable business entities, advertisers and content providers still make money hand over fist, and TV sets are still flying off store shelves every day. Guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but you are in the minority here -- you are the unconventional freaks and not in any way representative of the typical American.
Right now, this is not about obsolescence or a wholesale quantum shift in the way we do things -- it is about having different options for achieving the same goal, and about expanding choices, not locking everybody into some new paradigm. TV via the Web is just another available option, among many. It is an excellent choice for people who spend much of their lives in front of their computers anyway. Most people -- most normal people don't use their computers as a 24/7 umbilical cord. Sure, they surf the Web, and maybe even watch some videos there (especially unusual, quirky, or amateur content that is not available through conventional TV). They also watch TV, listen to the radio, listen to ipods, read books, go to the theater (cinema or stage), attend live concerts, take long walks, play with their kids, indulge in a hobby, screw their significant others, and have pleasant conversations with their friends and loved ones (whether by phone or -- horror -- face to face), and more. All of these activities are still regarded as rather distinct entities, all are important to a well-rounded life, and they do not have to be all combined, integrated, and streamlined into a single delivery source in one magic box.
This thread reminds me of that guy a few weeks back who was beside himself figuring out how to set up a computer to provide live, streaming video of the Inauguration to his students via the Web, when the simplest, most practical and effective solution was to simply drag a TV into the classroom and turn it on. Folks, everything doesn't have to be accomplished in some new, flashy, and high tech manner -- sometimes, perhaps most of the time, the tried and true solutions still work best for most of us.
I'm sure that Disney is aware of the situation and is frustrated that they can't suck the blood from these spinster pirates because of the bad PR involved with suing confused grandmothers.
Never stopped the RIAA. Maybe that's why Disney is a thriving concern and the RIAA is in its death throes.
The appallingly bad knowledge, especially about new drugs, family doctors have is downright frightening.
All the points being made here are very pertinent, but one factor I have been dealing with (handling my elderly mother's medical care as she is no longer capable of keeping track of things) is that doctors today just have too heavy of a workload. They are juggling so many patients that they cannot possibly devote the time they really need to every individual case. The tendency is to just diagnose and order tests/prescribe drugs based on the most common knee-jerk diagnosis that comes to mind. The House M.D. depiction of a group of doctors having the time to sit around and debate diagnoses with intricate knowledge of every exotic possibility and with ready knowledge of all the latest medical research simply does not happen in most hospitals.
Example: for over two decades, my mother has dealt with achalasia, a swallowing disorder. It is not a common problem, but certainly not some exotic rare disease that no one has heard of. She does have a very capable gastroenterologist, and the problem is currently under control, but it does rear its ugly head now and then. When my mother has been hospitalized and treated for other problems, the achalsia is still a factor as it affects her diet and eating schedule. You would be amazed at the number of attending physicians to whom I have had to explain and define what achalsia is and how it should be handled. Different doctors will all come and go in the course of her stay, none of whom seem to talk to each other at all, or have any inclination to inquire of her gastro doc about the problem, and all of them skeptical at best and disdainful at most of this "layman" son of hers trying to tell them how to do their job. When the achalasia begins to manifest (usually because they ignore or are clueless about the standard recommendations for diet), they keep automatically attributing it to nausea or reflux or some other unrelated condition and try to treat her for that. I can't sit in her room 24/7 waiting to intercept any random new doctor that happens to breeze in at odd times for one of their brief drive-by visits to "educate" them about achalasia (and somehow this information either never gets into her chart, or gets overlooked by these doctors in their overworked haste), so she ends up getting unnecessary treatment for problems she doesn't have. And this is not in some hellhole of a hospital -- this is in the highest-rated, most modern facility in our metro area.
Much as I would like to see some form of universal health care soon, this phenomenon will just be exacerbated by suddenly adding 30 or 40 million new formerly uninsured patients into the system. Doctors already do not have the time to give each patient the time and care they need. Unless they train or import a whole lot of new medical talent quickly, it's just going to jam up the system even more, and there will be an even greater tendency for doctors to make diagnoses and treatment decisions "on the fly" as they breeze through on their way to their next patient.
IIRC from Driver's Ed, the vehicle to the right has the right of way.
The Russian satellite had lights and siren going, so the Iridium was supposed to pull over.
In spite of the right wing screeching about Obama being a far-left stealth candidate, he's a cleaner, more efficient Bill Clinton, without the personal ethical lapses to interfere with his objectives.....
Um...none that we know of...yet. You never know. Obama seems like a pretty upstanding guy, but so did Clinton at first. Anyway, to me, Bubba getting blow jobs from interns is his own business -- as far as I am concerned, if it put a smile on his face and enabled him to face the country's business in a more relaxed and less stressed frame of mind, all the better. It was the way he tried to fudge, obfuscate, and lie his way out of it that diminished his stature in my eyes. A flawed man, but we had a pretty good 8 years under him -- a fantastically great 8 years compared to the last 8.
I'm pretty sure the parents of these kids didn't want them sharing naked photos of themselves with each other. I'm also pretty sure, however, that they didn't consider that doing so would result in their kids possibly facing criminal charges, the scarlet letter of "sex offenders," and an adulthood ruined before it even starts. Yet, I wonder how many of the parents were previously 100% in favor of the paranoid, overly-broad, "one size fits all" laws that have now ensnared their children?
There's a lesson to be learned for the kids, too. In the electronic age, kids think nothing of digitally documenting the most intimate aspects of their lives and baring themselves (figuratively AND literally) to their peers. A hard and fast rule: never commit to text, image, or video any act which you would not want parents, teachers, or cops to know about.
All that said, dude, this is pretty fucked up right here.
Do I just have a dirty mind, or did others upon first glance read this as the "Cornfucker" worm?
This old fogy is getting a good laugh at the thread. Some (very few) have already touched on it, but what the hell is wrong with watching TV on a TV? Borrow someone's huge-ass plasma and set it up in a large classroom. You don't even need cable or satellite as the broadcast networks will be covering the inauguration stem-to-stern in beautiful 1080i HD.
But no, the parent is hellbound to do this via computer. (And most of the responses seem to be troubleshooting and spitballing the idea.) Why? Because it's "cool" or the latest thing? Because he has some anti-TV bias? Or because he's so caught up in that "it's newer, so it must be better" mentality and literally did not even think of good old broadcast TV?
Sometimes the best and most appropriate technology is the good ol' tried and true. There are many applications in life where previously existing and "old fashioned" solutions are good enough. (And much simpler.) Often it's also cheaper, and it's almost always a hell of a lot less convoluted and headache-inducing.
Alas, so many are caught up in this "newer must be better" mentality. And the companies who develop and more importantly sell the stuff feed the frenzy by insuring that there's always something new out there to shell out the big bucks for. Today's new, neat-o technological breakthrough will be "obsolete" next year (hell, maybe next month) and of course you are encouraged to upgrade or replace what you already have that still works perfectly well for the newest, biggest, fastest, sharpest, shiniest, coolest thing. Feel free. I sit here with my old computer, relatively tiny picture-tube TVs, $29 radio and CD player, books and printed newspapers, and enjoy the hell out of all of them with no diminishment of my quality of life because all of these things are "old-fashioned." And I laugh.
Now, turn down that music and get off my lawn, you whippersnappers...
Anyone who thinks such a study will change the hearts and minds of people is naive at best. Consider that:
-- Human beings have a strong inclination to cling to the anecdotal, the intuitive, the "obvious." There is a dearth of ability to look at things in a well-rounded, complete, scientific manner or to allow facts to override innate prejudices.
-- Never forget that many of the "think of the children" campaigns are not about "the children" at all -- the kids are just a convenient, emotional peg on which to hang the desire to ban or sanitize things for all of us.
-- Facts are simply not viewed as "facts" when they conflict with a strongly held belief, most especially one based at least in part on religious grounds.
These factors rear their ugly heads time and time again. Every yardstick shows that the War on Drugs is a failure, and actually counterproductive, yet the notion of legalizing/decriminalizing those substances (and shifting money and resources away from law enforcement and punishment, and towards education, prevention, and treatment) is anathema because "using drugs is wrong." Climate change is a fact that must be dealt with, but you will find countless naysayers who either have their own interests to protect (the oil companies, big business), or have such a limited and narrow understanding of the phenomenon that every colder than average event, trend, or season in isolated areas (such as what has been happening this winter in some parts of the U.S.) is instantly seen as "proof" that no such change is taking place. In the same manner, studies such as the one cited will not deter many individuals from believing that scads of ogreish perverts are stalking our children and that the "Internets" are a cesspool of danger.
Until and unless evolution produces more humans capable of accepting fact over emotion, of embracing the scientifically proven in lieu of the simplistically observed, of seeing the big picture and not focusing on isolated exceptions to the rule, then we shall continue to have studies like this marginalized or outright ignored. Maybe someday...don't hold your breath.
I think every Obama supporter (and I am one) needs to temper their lofty expectations with a dose of reality. He's not the Second Coming -- he's both human and a politician, so he already has two strikes against him. He will make (and already has made) some decisions and appointments that will piss us off. It's all a matter of contrast and degree. Considering the debacle of the last 8 years, if Obama is even moderately successful, it will be a vast improvement. He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.
If you've been living off rice and gruel for years, you may dream of steak and lobster, but at that point even a humble peanut butter and jelly sandwich is going to taste pretty damn good.
I'll bet if the Huckabee staffers were accused not of whitewashing Wikipedia articles, but rather downloading copyrighted music on BitTorrent, the tone of this /. discussion would be entirely different. (I'm just sayin'...)
That's OK -- we're all a bit hypocritical about some things. I, myself, have been known to indulge in the fine art of hypocrisy now and then...
The whole notion that one can be prohibited from photographing something viewable to the naked eye from public property is patently absurd. If it's so secret, put a wall around it.
Oh, wait...
"Their digital camera too had clippings of some prohibited spots - a photo of Jamnagar airport's main gate, boundary walls and also buildings."
Maybe they need to erect a boundary wall to prevent people from taking pictures of the boundary wall....
Ridiculous prediction. Can someone explain how it would be "progress" or an "improvement" if, instead of my hand comfortably resting on my desk manipulating the mouse, I would have to repeatedly lift my arm and poke at my screen? Especially since in my case, poor circulation and some arthritis make repeated lifting or movement of my arm rather painful over time. (Not to mention that a self-cleaning screen would be a necessity -- my screen gets dirty enough on its own without my fat fingers smearing it up on a regular basis.)
Touchscreen technology has its place, but this is a perfect example of how a technology some people think is "cool" or "advanced" leads them to feel that it should be universally adopted.
there's folie à deux (madness shared by two), folie à trois (by three), folie à quatre (by four), and folie à plusieurs (by many)--all of which are considered psychiatric disorders. but there's no discrete boundary between mass delusion and a legitimate subculture. so how many people have to share in an irrational belief before it becomes socially acceptable?
It's not a simple matter of just numbers. One factor that helps is when rulers, leaders, or influential figures begin to embrace the delusion (e.g., one of the early critical turning points for Christianity was Constantine's conversion). Once that happens, the masses begin to be strongly encouraged, if not coerced, into following suit. There is also a point at which a large enough critical mass of citizens have done this, so that the symbolism, basic belief system, and overall culture of the delusion begins to be integrated into the society at large. Finally, the delusion has to become so commonplace an aspect of the culture at large that you begin to have more "casual" or "cultural" adherents, for many of whom it is a matter of tenets and beliefs and concepts being handed down from generation to generation as heritage rather than individuals experiencing their own "Damascus Road" epiphany. (Remember: most in our own Western culture who call themselves "Christian" didn't convert from nothing or from something else; they merely absorbed and "inherited" the beliefs through family, community, and culture.) All religious movements start out as cults, with just a small band of usually outcast or at least socially shunned fanatics carrying the banner; once more respectable or influential people begin to come aboard, and it is no longer necessary to make great personal sacrifices and risk ostracization to partake, then you have your critical mass.
I have always maintained that chatting on the phone requires more concentration and attention than talking to a live person next to you. There is the vast difference between the frequency range and quality of even the best phone connection versus natural sound -- listening to a phone requires much more concentrated effort. With a cellphone, a poor connection, lousy receiver, or ambient noise can all exacerbate this. Moreover, psychologically when we are talking to someone who is not actually "there," our minds are in a sense "far away."
Anecdotally, I can tell you that as a frequent pedestrian (no car), I have nearly been rundown in intersections or parking lots several times. Invariably, the driver has a damn phone glued to his/her ear. Any conversation short of a dire life-and-death emergency in which time is of the essence can wait until you have a chance to pull over, or have reached your destination.
Once the technology is available, it *will* be abused, and we know this, because such abuses have always happened. I don't know of a government (or a business) that had a technology available and decided not to use it because doing so would be unethical or even illegal. How many times must the same stories repeat before we learn?
An old saying puts it best: "What the government wants to do, and has the means to do, it will do -- logic, ethics, and common sense notwithstanding."
Country music is the most popular form of music in America according to Arbitron radio ratings.
And McDonald's is the most popular restaurant. Which just proves the American people have no taste in either music or food...
What I don't get is how Xenu and his nukes is treated as bunk, but the invisible man in the sky who can hear a billion people whisper to him at the same time is treated like a celebrity who dare not be questioned by anyone who wants to run for elected office in America.
Because the Christian delusion has many things going for it: a long history, vast numbers, and, yes, money and influence. It is also well-integrated into Western culture at large; think of all the music, art, and philanthropy that has been influenced by Christianity. Plus whereas many delusions produce fear, paranoia, and anxiety, the Christian message also provides comfort, a reason to go on, and answers to those deep, dark questions that have always plagued mankind. Seriously. Many of us on Slashdot look askance at faith, but for someone who is not very rational and emotionally hurting, Christianity can be a very seductive philosophy. Science says that we are merely super-intelligent animals who arose by chance, that the universe serves no particular purpose or has any meaning for its existence, and that when we die, we cease to exist. Contrast that against the notion of being a special creation in a universe run by a beneficent God who cares about us and listens to us, and being rewarded after a brief struggle on this planet with eternal life in paradise. It doesn't matter that one happens to be scientific and reasoned while the other is based on pure blind faith: which worldview do you think is easier to "market" to "consumers?"
So, you take each phone you have "stockpiled" and call any random number once every couple months. Problem solved.
I wouldn't be surprised. Here in the U.S., I've been wondering how long it will take the guvmint to clamp down on those pre-paid phones. (The Brits, as usual lately, just beat us to the punch every time.) Considering that anyone can walk into a 7-11 and purchase such a phone for cash (I have two, BTW...probably should stockpile a few more) with no forms to fill out, no credit check, no record ever linking you with the phone or the number -- well, that's a "loophole" in Total Surveillance(TM) just begging to be closed.
.....for even a few moderately large (and perfectly legal) businesses to experience a massive drop in sales because their customers suddenly can't connect to them anymore (because they have been mistakenly blocked), let the lawsuits fly, and the whole scheme will be dropped or drastically modified. Even if there is a provision for individual sites to be manually approved, the inconvenience of the need to appeal the block, and the loss of even a few days sales in the process, cries out for compensation.
Misguided ideas like this one can never be headed off prematurely -- usually the implementers have to learn the hard way.
And that is why any politician who wants to take away my 2nd Amendment rights will never get my vote, or, in the event that they do win, my guns. Better a criminal than a subject.
Took a lot of scrolling to get down to this -- whew, for a minute I was afraid we might be violating the Slashdot "Every thread must contain a 2nd Amendment reference" rule.....
Maybe you like waiting in line for health care. I don't.
Those of us who cannot afford insurance nor huge medical bills would gladly stand in line for health care versus having no health care at all. It all depends on where you're coming from. In my conversations, I find that here in the U.S. almost invariably the folks who say "Universal health care won't work...too expensive...long waits...etc." are the ones who already have decent, affordable health insurance, while those who live in dread of an illness or injury bankrupting them with huge bills and/or crippling them because they couldn't afford preventative care and waited too long to address the problem, are all in favor of the idea. Generally, them that has don't care much about them that don't.
The Government is clearly lying about their intentions with this! They don't want to prevent another King's Cross, or 9/11-type attack through this latest move to enhanced ability to conduct surveillance. They just want to listen in on my phone calls!
This whole plan is clearly designed to prepare the UK for some kind of neofascist information-based coup from within the government.
Precisely. It's not about protecting you (and never has been) -- it's about controlling you. Terrorism, and the disproportionate fear thereof, is merely the excuse -- the "hook" on which they hang it to make the whole concept palatable to the largely ignorant masses. And therein lies the problem -- most citizens fall into one of three categories: (1)Those who grumble a bit about the surveillance, but are too concerned with merely surviving on a daily basis to care; (2)Those who wholeheartedly support it with huzzahs and flag-waving (the "I've got nothing to hide/stop the infidels from attacking us" crowd); or (3)Those who haven't got the faintest fucking idea of what's going on in the first place because their entire cultural and educational existence consists of pop magazines and reality TV shows.
All innocent people should be equal in the eyes of the law.
But some are more equal than others.....
Sincerely,
Mr. G. Orwell