Yes, that looks very much to me like he's lamenting the hierarchical nature of media at the time, in which the people at the top dictated to those below them what could be seen and what would be desired. That's not how things are working now. There may be superficial similarities to modern times in things such as attention span, but the causes and situations are very much different.
>I bring something to this discussion which is informed by the knowledge (pro and con) drawn from those authors
Actually, you're not. You've said the article is wrong, and provided a reading list from which to get the knowledge of those authors. You haven't contributed anything of your own beyond a basic refutation.
There's nothing wrong with providing references, but they need to support your argument, not be your entire argument.
>If the latter is the case, that, no, in fact you haven't read more than a single page of The Society of the Spectacle, then what, except your sheer conjecture, are your comments based on?
Wikipedia.
So no, I didn't read all or it, but I did research the points made and views expressed within it and, more generally, by him, and they don't sound like they'd apply to the modern Internet.
Do you have any points to be made beyond "read this and you'll definitely agree with what I say and summaries don't count"? Maybe a point of your own, such as explaining why arguments against the media of his time would be applicable to more modern communication methods?
When that book was written, media was strictly hierarchical, and there was a legitimate argument that such things as television and radio were replacing human interaction despite its inferiority. That's not what's happening now. Internet-based interactions are human interaction in a different medium, and those involved aren't content with merely having their lives fed to them by a monolithic corporation. What Debord was advocating decades ago amounted to cooperative and remix culture; I think he'd approve of what the Internet has become since he died.
Interesting. I'd thought that only human hearts worked, and that was why we need donors so badly. It'd still have that annoying beating, though, and eating my old heart while using a manmade one has a nice mad science aspect to it; I can wait for a better model.
That fourth one is actually something I've wanted to do for a while. When artificial hearts hit the market, I have every intention of literally eating my heart out.
I like the contrast between the first and second articles. Brightest minds in North Korea build rocket, explodes a minute into flight. Undergraduates in America building rocket, expected to reach space.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Books don't cost all that much to print.
Circumventing DRM isn't theft because you need to have the DRM'd thing in order to circumvent the DRM. You're not gaining anything that you didn't pay for because you've already paid for the thing. You're just putting it somewhere else.
You will also hit the cap if you shower at other times and other times, and the cap will force you to reduce your usage without any benefit at all. That's the point. Caps operate independently of the actual problem, and can only incidentally help alleviate it.
What I don't get is why a higher sales volume and correspondingly higher profits would require a publisher to lower their operating costs, as the article suggests they should. If more money can be expected, why would the operating costs need to decrease? It seems like there are two conflicting messages here.
Yeah, Techdirt's been very inconsiderate about that recently. I keep coming here for kiddie porn, and instead find articles about governmental overreach and new business models. What's the deal?
Suing a company for offering a service to a company that offers a service to people that use it to infringe is tertiary liability. I was pointing out how the concept the DoJ is proposing could be exploited. I'm not sure how you interpreted my post.
And what you are suggesting is that the internet should be governed by whatever country has the strictest laws on the issue. If you have a single country that does not support fair use in any form, should that be the home for all of the copyright litigation type companies, who could then say "it's illegal here..." - despite it being legal in all of these different countries?
Should we do the same for all the other laws? Should we follow the taliban when it comes to dealing with women (stay covered, don't get an education, stay home and be a baby machine)? Should we follow China when it comes to privacy laws, and so on?
What you are suggesting on the surface sounds nice, but taken to it's logical end, it's not a good thing.
If lots of people speeding damaged roads, would it make more sense to implement a speed limit or a distance limit? That's the issue here. The phone companies are spending a lot to upgrade the speed they can offer, giving everyone the same high speed, and then attempting to compensate by limiting how far people can go at those speeds, when it would make more sense just to charge people based on the speed they want.
A part of me is hoping that they can get the tertiary liability charge to stick, because then getting rid of the major problem companies would only be a matter of finding the degrees of separation between them and a filesharing site.
On the post: Sherry Turkle Says Technology Is Making Us Lonelier Because We Spend Less Time Alone, Or Something
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sherry Turkle Says Technology Is Making Us Lonelier Because We Spend Less Time Alone, Or Something
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, you're not. You've said the article is wrong, and provided a reading list from which to get the knowledge of those authors. You haven't contributed anything of your own beyond a basic refutation.
There's nothing wrong with providing references, but they need to support your argument, not be your entire argument.
On the post: Sherry Turkle Says Technology Is Making Us Lonelier Because We Spend Less Time Alone, Or Something
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia.
So no, I didn't read all or it, but I did research the points made and views expressed within it and, more generally, by him, and they don't sound like they'd apply to the modern Internet.
Do you have any points to be made beyond "read this and you'll definitely agree with what I say and summaries don't count"? Maybe a point of your own, such as explaining why arguments against the media of his time would be applicable to more modern communication methods?
On the post: Sherry Turkle Says Technology Is Making Us Lonelier Because We Spend Less Time Alone, Or Something
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you kidding me?
I just don't see what eating a particular food has to do with loneliness.
On the post: Sherry Turkle Says Technology Is Making Us Lonelier Because We Spend Less Time Alone, Or Something
Re: Re:
On the post: Sherry Turkle Says Technology Is Making Us Lonelier Because We Spend Less Time Alone, Or Something
Re: Re: Are you kidding me?
On the post: US 'Blackmails' EU Into Agreeing To Hand Over Passenger Data
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US 'Blackmails' EU Into Agreeing To Hand Over Passenger Data
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US 'Blackmails' EU Into Agreeing To Hand Over Passenger Data
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Actually, It *Is* Soylent Green...
Re: Re:
And really, until brain death? That's far too soon.
On the post: DailyDirt: Actually, It *Is* Soylent Green...
On the post: DailyDirt: Rockets, Man
On the post: If Publishers Can't Cover Their Costs With $10 Ebooks, Then They Deserve To Go Out Of Business
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Books don't cost all that much to print.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Publishers Can't Cover Their Costs With $10 Ebooks, Then They Deserve To Go Out Of Business
Re: Re: Re: Help me out here...
What I don't get is why a higher sales volume and correspondingly higher profits would require a publisher to lower their operating costs, as the article suggests they should. If more money can be expected, why would the operating costs need to decrease? It seems like there are two conflicting messages here.
On the post: CISPA Sponsor Mike Rogers Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence' On Landing
Re:
On the post: Judge Preserves Megaupload Evidence For Now, While Gov't Tries To Pin Blame On Hosting Company
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Preserves Megaupload Evidence For Now, While Gov't Tries To Pin Blame On Hosting Company
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should we do the same for all the other laws? Should we follow the taliban when it comes to dealing with women (stay covered, don't get an education, stay home and be a baby machine)? Should we follow China when it comes to privacy laws, and so on?
What you are suggesting on the surface sounds nice, but taken to it's logical end, it's not a good thing.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
On the post: Judge Preserves Megaupload Evidence For Now, While Gov't Tries To Pin Blame On Hosting Company
Next >>