Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
The differences you describe are mostly semantic rather than real and any such "small units" still typically have little to do with majority opinion or even empirical evidence over pet theories or the financial urgings of special interests so I'm not sure what it achieves anyway.
Saying you are against "government" doesn't say much, because there are many different forms of government. Here's an example.
I doubt these devices will be banned because there is too much money to be made in getting people to track/monitor/tag themselves and others all the time (that is the principle behind Facebook, after all).
But as this article says, once you are aware that everything you do potentially gets recorded, if you are smart, you modify your behavior in response.
The surveillance is non-stop, and most of it isn't being done by government.
The Real Privacy Implications of Google Glass | TIME.com: "On social networks, the general rule is that you should always assume anything could become public. While most of us will never have to deal with a scandal caused by information leaked from social media, the mere possibility is enough for us to watch what we say on social networks. Google Glass has the potential to bring that kind of guarded approach to the real world, even in private settings."
I found this be enlightening, too. What I am quoting is a comment to the article I have linked to rather than from the article itself (which is worth reading, too).
Of Course Hyundai Knew That Suicide Ad Was Offensive! | DigitalNext: A Blog on Emerging Media and Technology - Advertising Age: "The ads were created to enter in award shows to bolster the agencies' ranking in the Gunn Report, so that the senior execs can claim their bonuses and their five-star trips to Cannes. The fact that this is the kind of garbage (1) fake; 2) offensive to 95% of the "real world") shows how far this industry has strayed from the idea of helping sell things to people. And we wonder why our margins are continually getting squeezed and CMOs don't listen to us anymore."
Brenda Kilgour Montréal
It's actually a pretty smart decision on their part. They look better actively taking it down by making them appear "that they really, really are sorry" as you put it, while at the same time drawing more and more attention to their brand. It may or may not have been intentional but saving face with the perk of increased attention to your brand can't be a bad thing.
You've got a very good point. Not only do they look responsive by taking it down, they also get all the attention they may have wanted in the first place.
Anti-biotics, hormones, washing the meat in ammonia and chloride to prevent infection when all they had to do is give the cows more space and feed them grass. It's the grass that allows their digestive system to keep e. coli down in the first place.
The industrialization of agriculture has created its own set of problems, most evident in the rise of antibiotic-resistant illnesses linking to the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture.
There are real reasons why a significant number of people are wary of the "solutions" agri-business provides.
If for example the GMO is developed to be resistant to insects and viruses, the net result will be that you get less toxins from damaged infected plants.
Some of the GMO plants were developed to be resistant to herbicides, so the farmers could use the herbicides around them. But now weeds are developing a resistance to the herbicide so the farmers and agri-business are back to square one.
Similarly, GMO plants that have been engineered to include their own pesticide are resulting in pests who are resistant to that pesticide.
And there are now genes that are becoming antibiotic-resistant because of GMO use.
Here's one such article about what is happening.
Trouble on the horizon for genetically modified crops?: "Pests are adapting to genetically modified crops in unexpected ways, researchers have discovered. The findings underscore the importance of closely monitoring and countering pest resistance to biotech crops."
Re: Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
We also need to have serious discussions about the value of industrialization of food supply/production versus localization of the food supply.
Citizens in the US have more than enough calories (hence the obesity problem), but in many poor areas, there's not enough affordable or available quality food. So industry hasn't been addressing the right problems.
And in some countries it isn't the amount of food being produced (which is adequate), but the ability of the system to get it to people who need it. Producing more crops with GMOs doesn't solve starvation problems if there is no way to get that food to starving people.
Being able to produce mass amounts of food at low cost isn't all that much of value if the produced food isn't very good and if it doesn't get to the places where it is most needed.
Do we really need a system, for example, that produces corn to make more corn syrup to go into soft drinks? Maybe we'd be much better off have lots of local gardens so people can have cheap, fresh, healthful food.
In other words, some of the innovation that the argi-business has given is to solve problems we didn't really have.
Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
If the GMO companies re-solve the problem, they then get control of the food supply. Is that what you really want? Privatized food supplies, just like the Pharaohs?
That's one of the very big problems with GMOs these days. It's about control of the food supply by a few companies. That's one reason people are wary of it.
Even if you got rid of patents, if GMOs end up invading non-GMO plants/animals and wiping them out, that's a negative for the environment. We want more diversity, not a few super-species.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Of course there is. They're not towing the party line. Anyone who disagrees with the dogma on the subject of AGW is considered suspect by those who have so much invested in it.
So you think all of the scientists who think there is global warming are either stupid or part of a mass conspiracy?
But honestly, if you have a large number of scientists adding research to the discussion and you're citing one particular place as the source of the other side, I don't think it will be enough to counter momentum about climate change.
Yes, scientists have been revising their models. From what I have been reading, they are revising them to say the globe appears to be warming faster than what they predicted before. As a group they aren't tossing out their conclusions. If you want to say they are all part of a vast conspiracy, so be it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Here's some research reported in that tree hugging site, The Wall Street Journal.
In Study, Past Decade Ranks Among Hottest - WSJ.com: "New research suggests average global temperatures were higher in the past decade than over most of the previous 11,300 years, a finding that offers a long-term context for assessing modern-day climate change."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
The fact is, we were already supposed to be in a full-blown melt-down according to the predictions these same people were making 10-15 years ago. Now that none of that has come to pass, and the opposite seems to be happening, they're backpedaling and saying, "Well, maybe it's 30 to 40 years, but it's still a crisis, so give us money!"
Now, if you don't trust a large community of scientists, how do you verify anything? If there is evidence that requires a change of thinking, then sooner or later the models and theories will be adjusted.
We've seen with some politicians if the evidence doesn't fit what they want to hear, ignore the evidence.
A company that may turn out to be disruptive in ways that people haven't been focusing on is Kickstarter.
People continually point to it as a fundraising platform, and how that can replace more traditional fundraising platforms. But I think it's real potential is that it might get more of us thinking in terms of discrete projects rather than companies. A group of people can come together to create a project, get it funded on Kickstarter or something similar, and then perhaps move on to a new project.
The lack of business structure has been a negative for some Kickstarter projects because there have been people successfully raising money and then not being very skilled at the necessary steps afterward. If there are enough projects where donors become dissatisfied for one reason or another, it could hurt Kickstarter and other similar sites.
However, if the Kickstarter project-by-project approach changes people's ideas about whether it is necessary to build companies, then that will be quite disruptive.
"International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years 'at least' to break the long-term warming trend."
Now with endless amounts of content online, and the info delivery systems available to everyone, companies have far more choices available to reach consumers, provide INFO to them, and to sell to them.
The Internet can support a much more distributed, and at times anarchic, approach to business, politics and culture.
I believe it can, too. But I have wondered whether those big companies which have grown big using the Internet will readily step aside to accommodate this. As I look at the world's increasing concentration of wealth and power, I don't see a push from those currently in power to hand it over. There are all sorts of justifications about why they have become rich and powerful and perhaps deserve it, but I wonder what they might do if their hold on the current world economic system is challenged.
One reason I am concerned about this is that based on what I have read coming from those living/working in Silicon Valley, there is a disconnect between their lives/their worldview and what happens elsewhere. So my impressions are being formed by what they say about themselves and how they think the world operates or should operate.
There are disruptive forces in the world, but to be disruptive for the next generation, I don't think you can be part of the system that funds and reinforces the way things work in Silicon Valley and the larger financial/economic systems. When the system depends on rich people funding companies to make the same group of people even more rich, it's not all that disruptive.
If your goal in being disruptive is to create a company that makes you and your investors wealthy, will you take the necessary steps to be disruptive when it disrupts what you have built or trying to build?
Advertising used to be the primary way to reach large numbers of people because the media provided both an information delivery system and an audience.
Now with endless amounts of content online, and the info delivery systems available to everyone, companies have far more choices available to reach consumers, provide to them, and to sell to them.
The advertisers have the control now. There are a few places that still command top prices (like the Super Bowl), but for the most part advertisers can shop around and drive down prices.
That's why I mentioned that I am always expecting any website depending on advertising money for income to fail. There is too much content and not enough ad money to go around to support it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
Because the government as a whole take much the same tack with national security warnings as is taken with package warnings - "more is better".
And what I have wanted to point out is that there is no "government as a whole." My local city government is a different beast than the US Congress.
It is possible to break down government into small units which reflect the wishes of the people within those small units and to operate based on a consensus within the group.
I also like to point out that some groups want to get rid of or modify IP in the name of capitalism and others want to modify or get rid of IP in the name of replacing capitalism with something else.
So I tend to jump ahead to what develops in the post-IP world and particularly how that might foster a more sustainable approach to the planet.
If the primary result of dropping copyright is to make life easier for Google, then I don't think we've accomplished much. I'd rather focus on how we change ownership and business so that there isn't really any need for companies as big as Google. Right now our financial system tends to reward big and growing companies. But I'd like to look at alternatives.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
Saying you are against "government" doesn't say much, because there are many different forms of government. Here's an example.
How a Community-Based Co-op Economy Might Work
On the post: Moral Panic Over Google Glass: White House Petition Asks To Ban Them To Prevent 'Indecent' Public Surveillance
People are wary
But as this article says, once you are aware that everything you do potentially gets recorded, if you are smart, you modify your behavior in response.
The surveillance is non-stop, and most of it isn't being done by government.
The Real Privacy Implications of Google Glass | TIME.com: "On social networks, the general rule is that you should always assume anything could become public. While most of us will never have to deal with a scandal caused by information leaked from social media, the mere possibility is enough for us to watch what we say on social networks. Google Glass has the potential to bring that kind of guarded approach to the real world, even in private settings."
On the post: Hyundai Tries, And Fails, To Make Its Awful Suicide Ad Disappear From The Internet
Re: Re:
Of Course Hyundai Knew That Suicide Ad Was Offensive! | DigitalNext: A Blog on Emerging Media and Technology - Advertising Age: "The ads were created to enter in award shows to bolster the agencies' ranking in the Gunn Report, so that the senior execs can claim their bonuses and their five-star trips to Cannes. The fact that this is the kind of garbage (1) fake; 2) offensive to 95% of the "real world") shows how far this industry has strayed from the idea of helping sell things to people. And we wonder why our margins are continually getting squeezed and CMOs don't listen to us anymore."
Brenda Kilgour Montréal
On the post: Hyundai Tries, And Fails, To Make Its Awful Suicide Ad Disappear From The Internet
Re:
You've got a very good point. Not only do they look responsive by taking it down, they also get all the attention they may have wanted in the first place.
On the post: Frankencows: A Complete Misunderstanding Of Science
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The industrialization of agriculture has created its own set of problems, most evident in the rise of antibiotic-resistant illnesses linking to the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture.
There are real reasons why a significant number of people are wary of the "solutions" agri-business provides.
On the post: Frankencows: A Complete Misunderstanding Of Science
Re: Re: DNA
Some of the GMO plants were developed to be resistant to herbicides, so the farmers could use the herbicides around them. But now weeds are developing a resistance to the herbicide so the farmers and agri-business are back to square one.
Similarly, GMO plants that have been engineered to include their own pesticide are resulting in pests who are resistant to that pesticide.
And there are now genes that are becoming antibiotic-resistant because of GMO use.
Here's one such article about what is happening.
Trouble on the horizon for genetically modified crops?: "Pests are adapting to genetically modified crops in unexpected ways, researchers have discovered. The findings underscore the importance of closely monitoring and countering pest resistance to biotech crops."
On the post: Frankencows: A Complete Misunderstanding Of Science
Re: Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
Citizens in the US have more than enough calories (hence the obesity problem), but in many poor areas, there's not enough affordable or available quality food. So industry hasn't been addressing the right problems.
And in some countries it isn't the amount of food being produced (which is adequate), but the ability of the system to get it to people who need it. Producing more crops with GMOs doesn't solve starvation problems if there is no way to get that food to starving people.
Being able to produce mass amounts of food at low cost isn't all that much of value if the produced food isn't very good and if it doesn't get to the places where it is most needed.
Do we really need a system, for example, that produces corn to make more corn syrup to go into soft drinks? Maybe we'd be much better off have lots of local gardens so people can have cheap, fresh, healthful food.
In other words, some of the innovation that the argi-business has given is to solve problems we didn't really have.
On the post: Frankencows: A Complete Misunderstanding Of Science
Re: It's difficult to discuss this rationally - for everyone
That's one of the very big problems with GMOs these days. It's about control of the food supply by a few companies. That's one reason people are wary of it.
Even if you got rid of patents, if GMOs end up invading non-GMO plants/animals and wiping them out, that's a negative for the environment. We want more diversity, not a few super-species.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
So you think all of the scientists who think there is global warming are either stupid or part of a mass conspiracy?
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But honestly, if you have a large number of scientists adding research to the discussion and you're citing one particular place as the source of the other side, I don't think it will be enough to counter momentum about climate change.
Yes, scientists have been revising their models. From what I have been reading, they are revising them to say the globe appears to be warming faster than what they predicted before. As a group they aren't tossing out their conclusions. If you want to say they are all part of a vast conspiracy, so be it.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
In Study, Past Decade Ranks Among Hottest - WSJ.com: "New research suggests average global temperatures were higher in the past decade than over most of the previous 11,300 years, a finding that offers a long-term context for assessing modern-day climate change."
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Now, if you don't trust a large community of scientists, how do you verify anything? If there is evidence that requires a change of thinking, then sooner or later the models and theories will be adjusted.
We've seen with some politicians if the evidence doesn't fit what they want to hear, ignore the evidence.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People continually point to it as a fundraising platform, and how that can replace more traditional fundraising platforms. But I think it's real potential is that it might get more of us thinking in terms of discrete projects rather than companies. A group of people can come together to create a project, get it funded on Kickstarter or something similar, and then perhaps move on to a new project.
The lack of business structure has been a negative for some Kickstarter projects because there have been people successfully raising money and then not being very skilled at the necessary steps afterward. If there are enough projects where donors become dissatisfied for one reason or another, it could hurt Kickstarter and other similar sites.
However, if the Kickstarter project-by-project approach changes people's ideas about whether it is necessary to build companies, then that will be quite disruptive.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled | The Australian: "For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.
"International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years 'at least' to break the long-term warming trend."
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Really? Your source of info is different than mine.
On the post: Native Advertising Is Advertising People Want
Re: Re: Well said
Now with endless amounts of content online, and the info delivery systems available to everyone, companies have far more choices available to reach consumers, provide INFO to them, and to sell to them.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe it can, too. But I have wondered whether those big companies which have grown big using the Internet will readily step aside to accommodate this. As I look at the world's increasing concentration of wealth and power, I don't see a push from those currently in power to hand it over. There are all sorts of justifications about why they have become rich and powerful and perhaps deserve it, but I wonder what they might do if their hold on the current world economic system is challenged.
One reason I am concerned about this is that based on what I have read coming from those living/working in Silicon Valley, there is a disconnect between their lives/their worldview and what happens elsewhere. So my impressions are being formed by what they say about themselves and how they think the world operates or should operate.
There are disruptive forces in the world, but to be disruptive for the next generation, I don't think you can be part of the system that funds and reinforces the way things work in Silicon Valley and the larger financial/economic systems. When the system depends on rich people funding companies to make the same group of people even more rich, it's not all that disruptive.
If your goal in being disruptive is to create a company that makes you and your investors wealthy, will you take the necessary steps to be disruptive when it disrupts what you have built or trying to build?
On the post: Native Advertising Is Advertising People Want
Re: Well said
Now with endless amounts of content online, and the info delivery systems available to everyone, companies have far more choices available to reach consumers, provide to them, and to sell to them.
The advertisers have the control now. There are a few places that still command top prices (like the Super Bowl), but for the most part advertisers can shop around and drive down prices.
That's why I mentioned that I am always expecting any website depending on advertising money for income to fail. There is too much content and not enough ad money to go around to support it.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sometimes it's the citizens insisting government be more pro-active
And what I have wanted to point out is that there is no "government as a whole." My local city government is a different beast than the US Congress.
It is possible to break down government into small units which reflect the wishes of the people within those small units and to operate based on a consensus within the group.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So I tend to jump ahead to what develops in the post-IP world and particularly how that might foster a more sustainable approach to the planet.
If the primary result of dropping copyright is to make life easier for Google, then I don't think we've accomplished much. I'd rather focus on how we change ownership and business so that there isn't really any need for companies as big as Google. Right now our financial system tends to reward big and growing companies. But I'd like to look at alternatives.
Next >>