Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Rabbit Season! Duck Season! [Chat] Season!

12425272930100

Posts

  • GooeyGooey Registered User regular
    captain carrot: loves reading about v's getting smashed
    919UOwT.png
  • SarksusSarksus TEN FUCKING DOLLARS Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »

    Netflix is doing a lot for this

    I hope it's not to cover up that it's bad.

    I don't think that's how marketing works

    Marketing has frequently made me think something will be good, and then it turns out to be bad.

    is it the marketing that is making you think new AD will be good/bad? to me it's all a bonus

    I of course also don't want it to be bad I was just confused at the connection you made

    No, the marketing is making me excited. The marketing style is also quirky and isn't pandering but feels like it almost is. I am suspicious of this kind of marketing. Like they're trying really hard to hook me, but I'm already hooked by another season in the first place, so it feels like they could be covering something up. Like when a kid is being sweet after they fucked up.

    I plan on liking it unless evidence shows me otherwise. I'm not going to plan on it being bad because why? what's the point?

    I'm not planning on it being bad.
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    The Internet is terrible.

    Now The Rabble can just look shit up any time of the night or day without the benefit of having their Betters (like me) filter it for them into an easily digestible gruel of monosyllabic words.
    network_sig2.png
  • MimMim Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Mim wrote: »
    I feel like doing a re-watch of Buffy...

    No Mim! Self-harm is never the answer!

    Okay, the L Word I understand but what the balls do you have against Buffy?!
    Mim on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    I think trying to determine whether the Internet is overall a net positive is like asking whether radio or television were a net positive. I would say their positive outweigh their negatives, strictly in terms of utility derived.

    As to whether they make us "better people"... that's a really loaded question.

    Though the topic reminds me very strongly of back when people were asking whether the Arab Spring was "good for America." It just strikes me as such a silly question. It's like asking whether the tides are "good" -- you don't really judge their "goodness" so much as just deal with the consequences.

    I think the internet is more analogous to telegraph, actual written language and telephone as far as comparisons. It's the approachability and innovation through evolution, and the rapid evolution if a great many memes that've allowed a lot of our sociological changes in the US for the better, in recent memory.

    I'd say the average US citizen knows more about China and Africa now, and more about the wars were in, than during the 80s and earl 90s.

    This is the first time in human history when (almost) any individual can swiftly communicate to an arbitrarily large audience, and that large audience can swiftly respond back.

    I kind of see that as a big deal.

    It is a big deal. It is not inherently "Good."

    I think that knowledge and communication, over the long term, shake out to a net good.

    Yes, communication technology facilitates the spread of falsehoods and ignorance just as it facilitates the spread of knowledge, but it seems pretty clear to me that truth eventually wins that fight.

    No, I don't think that is actually ever clear, all things being equal.

    The truth is not always going to win.

    I don't hate the internet, I just take issue with Winky's original assertion that it is making us better people. It is also making us worse people in a lot of ways.

    It is just making us people.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • VariableVariable Stroke Me Lady Fame Registered User regular
    oh no, they're marketing in the exact style I like and remember from the old show

    that probably means the new show is nothing like that!

    I think fear has taken hold
    "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man" - Dr. Johnson
    Sig%20-%20Reggie%20Watts.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    The Internet is terrible.

    Now The Rabble can just look shit up any time of the night or day without the benefit of having their Betters (like me) filter it for them into an easily digestible gruel of monosyllabic words.

    Well, at least most of the time they still have to pay $35 for a two-page scientific journal article

    So you still have that at least
    I am comforted by Richard Dawkins’ theory of memes. Those are mental units: thoughts, ideas, gestures, notions, songs, beliefs, rhymes, ideals, teachings, sayings, phrases, clichés that move from mind to mind as genes move from body to body. After a lifetime of writing, teaching, broadcasting and telling too many jokes, I will leave behind more memes than many. They will all also eventually die, but so it goes. - Roger Ebert, I Do Not Fear Death
  • ronyaronya hmmm over there!Registered User regular
    dis regression

    is not converging

    whyyyyy
  • GooeyGooey Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    fuck resumes forever

    *hulk smash*

    i hate this crap

    Just find a place you want to work, walking on a monday morning, sit at a desk, and start doing a job. If anyone questions you tell them to take it up with Bill in accounting.

    day bow bow

    beautifulllll

    day bow bow

    chick chick-a chick-ahhhhhhhh
    919UOwT.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Also all those electronic journals? Yeah, they'd be made of paper twenty years ago.

    So that's not really a new thing. It's not like pre 1992 academics were just consulting the encyclopedia britannica and calling it a day.

    The internet is a tool, not a driver.

    Yes, like the Gutenberg press was a tool... Do you understand economies of scale? Detriments to artificial scarcity would've been something I thought was on a great many PAers political agendas.

    Um, why? In a lot of ways, "artificial scarcity" is a scare term.

    Please elaborate because I can assure you we're all given a very finite amount of time on this earth, and I think the internet has drastically increased the voice of every (wo)man, and is directly correlated with great sociological changes, and it is just the beginning.

    Because there's more to systems than their ultimate output. We're starting to see the beginnings of a tragedy of the commons in a lot of creative industries, and it's due to the breakdown of the underlying ecosystem.
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Nox+Aeternum.gif
    Damn straight and I'm not giving up any of my crazy ground to some no talent hack.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Sip. Sip sip sippy. Dumb whores. Best friends.Registered User regular
    Sarksus wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »

    Netflix is doing a lot for this

    I hope it's not to cover up that it's bad.

    I don't think that's how marketing works

    Marketing has frequently made me think something will be good, and then it turns out to be bad.

    is it the marketing that is making you think new AD will be good/bad? to me it's all a bonus

    I of course also don't want it to be bad I was just confused at the connection you made

    No, the marketing is making me excited. The marketing style is also quirky and isn't pandering but feels like it almost is. I am suspicious of this kind of marketing. Like they're trying really hard to hook me, but I'm already hooked by another season in the first place, so it feels like they could be covering something up. Like when a kid is being sweet after they fucked up.

    I plan on liking it unless evidence shows me otherwise. I'm not going to plan on it being bad because why? what's the point?

    I'm not planning on it being bad.

    well that's what it sounds like!
    NO.
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Registered User regular
    I own 117 romance novels, and 41 books on political history. Of those, 14 and 8 respectively remain unread.

    To properly make fun of you, we're gonna need a break down of the romance novels.

    How many are:
    Bodice Rippers?
    Regencies?
    Harlequin Serials?
    Nora Roberts writing under her "More Pen Names then Diddy has nicknames" program?
    How many involve ranches?
    There's no living with a killing. There's no goin' back from one. Right or wrong, it's a brand... a brand sticks. There's no goin' back. Now you run on home to your mother and tell her... tell her everything's alright. And there aren't any more guns in the valley.
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    I think trying to determine whether the Internet is overall a net positive is like asking whether radio or television were a net positive. I would say their positive outweigh their negatives, strictly in terms of utility derived.

    As to whether they make us "better people"... that's a really loaded question.

    Though the topic reminds me very strongly of back when people were asking whether the Arab Spring was "good for America." It just strikes me as such a silly question. It's like asking whether the tides are "good" -- you don't really judge their "goodness" so much as just deal with the consequences.

    I think the internet is more analogous to telegraph, actual written language and telephone as far as comparisons. It's the approachability and innovation through evolution, and the rapid evolution if a great many memes that've allowed a lot of our sociological changes in the US for the better, in recent memory.

    I'd say the average US citizen knows more about China and Africa now, and more about the wars were in, than during the 80s and earl 90s.

    This is the first time in human history when (almost) any individual can swiftly communicate to an arbitrarily large audience, and that large audience can swiftly respond back.

    I kind of see that as a big deal.

    It is a big deal. It is not inherently "Good."

    I think that knowledge and communication, over the long term, shake out to a net good.

    Yes, communication technology facilitates the spread of falsehoods and ignorance just as it facilitates the spread of knowledge, but it seems pretty clear to me that truth eventually wins that fight.

    No, I don't think that is actually ever clear, all things being equal.

    The truth is not always going to win.

    I don't hate the internet, I just take issue with Winky's original assertion that it is making us better people. It is also making us worse people in a lot of ways.

    It is just making us people.

    This is an interesting position you've found yourself in.

    Would you have rathered the Gutenberg press had never existed?
    network_sig2.png
  • SarksusSarksus TEN FUCKING DOLLARS Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    oh no, they're marketing in the exact style I like and remember from the old show

    that probably means the new show is nothing like that!

    I think fear has taken hold

    It's easy to parody the show with flimsy pieces of marketing. And I never commented on the likelihood of anything. What I actually said was I hope that, despite the possibility, it does not happen this way.
  • WinkyWinky Registered User regular
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    I think trying to determine whether the Internet is overall a net positive is like asking whether radio or television were a net positive. I would say their positive outweigh their negatives, strictly in terms of utility derived.

    As to whether they make us "better people"... that's a really loaded question.

    Though the topic reminds me very strongly of back when people were asking whether the Arab Spring was "good for America." It just strikes me as such a silly question. It's like asking whether the tides are "good" -- you don't really judge their "goodness" so much as just deal with the consequences.

    I think the internet is more analogous to telegraph, actual written language and telephone as far as comparisons. It's the approachability and innovation through evolution, and the rapid evolution if a great many memes that've allowed a lot of our sociological changes in the US for the better, in recent memory.

    I'd say the average US citizen knows more about China and Africa now, and more about the wars were in, than during the 80s and earl 90s.

    ...you did see that recent poll about where Bengazi is, right?

    I have a better question for you angel: what would that poll have looked like in the 1980s?
    vspgsp.jpg
  • VariableVariable Stroke Me Lady Fame Registered User regular
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    oh no, they're marketing in the exact style I like and remember from the old show

    that probably means the new show is nothing like that!

    I think fear has taken hold

    It's easy to parody the show with flimsy pieces of marketing. And I never commented on the likelihood of anything. What I actually said was I hope that, despite the possibility, it does not happen this way.

    look if I don't make your position into something more extreme than it is it's really hard to criticize you for it
    "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man" - Dr. Johnson
    Sig%20-%20Reggie%20Watts.png
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Sip. Sip sip sippy. Dumb whores. Best friends.Registered User regular
    that sounds good spool
    NO.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    We're turning into an information economy, and the Internet is an equalizer of information. Therefore, in my opinion it's a net gain.

    An equalizer how? In a lot of ways, it's "equal" in the way Anatole France used the term.
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Nox+Aeternum.gif
    Damn straight and I'm not giving up any of my crazy ground to some no talent hack.
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    The Internet is terrible.

    Now The Rabble can just look shit up any time of the night or day without the benefit of having their Betters (like me) filter it for them into an easily digestible gruel of monosyllabic words.

    Well, at least most of the time they still have to pay $35 for a two-page scientific journal article

    So you still have that at least

    No, because I'll probably have to brute force it through an academic paywall at some point.

    Which is bullshit -- I'm an Elite! This is not supposed to happen to me!
    network_sig2.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    dis regression

    is not converging

    whyyyyy

    dis router

    is not load balancing

    whyyyyyy
    I am comforted by Richard Dawkins’ theory of memes. Those are mental units: thoughts, ideas, gestures, notions, songs, beliefs, rhymes, ideals, teachings, sayings, phrases, clichés that move from mind to mind as genes move from body to body. After a lifetime of writing, teaching, broadcasting and telling too many jokes, I will leave behind more memes than many. They will all also eventually die, but so it goes. - Roger Ebert, I Do Not Fear Death
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    I think trying to determine whether the Internet is overall a net positive is like asking whether radio or television were a net positive. I would say their positive outweigh their negatives, strictly in terms of utility derived.

    As to whether they make us "better people"... that's a really loaded question.

    Though the topic reminds me very strongly of back when people were asking whether the Arab Spring was "good for America." It just strikes me as such a silly question. It's like asking whether the tides are "good" -- you don't really judge their "goodness" so much as just deal with the consequences.

    I think the internet is more analogous to telegraph, actual written language and telephone as far as comparisons. It's the approachability and innovation through evolution, and the rapid evolution if a great many memes that've allowed a lot of our sociological changes in the US for the better, in recent memory.

    I'd say the average US citizen knows more about China and Africa now, and more about the wars were in, than during the 80s and earl 90s.

    This is the first time in human history when (almost) any individual can swiftly communicate to an arbitrarily large audience, and that large audience can swiftly respond back.

    I kind of see that as a big deal.

    It is a big deal. It is not inherently "Good."

    I think that knowledge and communication, over the long term, shake out to a net good.

    Yes, communication technology facilitates the spread of falsehoods and ignorance just as it facilitates the spread of knowledge, but it seems pretty clear to me that truth eventually wins that fight.

    No, I don't think that is actually ever clear, all things being equal.

    The truth is not always going to win.

    I don't hate the internet, I just take issue with Winky's original assertion that it is making us better people. It is also making us worse people in a lot of ways.

    It is just making us people.

    This is an interesting position you've found yourself in.

    Would you have rathered the Gutenberg press had never existed?

    Yes, in fact I wish we were all still monkeys in a tree. I hate knowledge and learning and progress and freedom. You caught me.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • ronyaronya hmmm over there!Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    @spool32

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100741122

    don't read this
    you have a tendency to reproduce what $right_wing_pundit said earlier in the day, and the talking point has shifted to "obama has thrown him under the bus". I'm now actually curious as to how you're going to respond next, provided that you didn't actually open this spoiler...
    ronya on
  • EchoEcho Per Aspera Ad Inferi Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited May 2013
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    The Internet is terrible.

    Now The Rabble can just look shit up any time of the night or day without the benefit of having their Betters (like me) filter it for them into an easily digestible gruel of monosyllabic words.

    That's kind of how the original concept of copyright was created. For political control.

    Before the printing press, books were the domain of the church. They held it under lock and key; they were the ones that made copies by hand and pretty much just the priests were highly literate.

    Enter printing press. Suddenly books can be easily and (fairly) cheaply mass-produced! The masses learn to read!

    The church saw power over the masses slipping out of their hands - they could get information from other sources. So the churc talked to Queen Mary, aka Bloody Mary.

    Eh, I'll just quote.
    She shared the concern of the Catholic Church over the printing press. The public’s ability to quickly distribute information en masse was dangerous to her ambitions to restore Catholicism, in particular their ability to distribute heretic material. (Political material, in this day and age, was not distinguishable from religious material.) Seeing how France had failed miserably in banning the printing press, even under threat of hanging, she realized another solution was needed. One that involved the printing industry in a way that would benefit them as well.
    She devised a monopoly where the London printing guild would get a complete monopoly on all printing in England, in exchange for her censors determining what was fit to print beforehand. It was a very lucrative monopoly for the guild, who would be working hard to maintain the monopoly and the favor of the Queen’s censors. This merger of corporate and governmental powers turned out to be effective in suppressing free speech and political-religious dissent.

    The monopoly was awarded to the London Company of Stationers on May 4, 1557. It was called copyright.

    It was widely successful as a censorship instrument. Working with the industry to suppress free speech worked, in contrast to the French attempt in the earlier 1500s to ban all printing by decree. The Stationers worked as a private censorship bureau, burning unlicensed books, impounding or destroying monopoly-infringing printing presses, and denying politically unsuitable material the light of day. Only in doubtful cases did they care to consult the Queen’s censors for advice on what was allowed and what was not. Mostly, it was quite apparent after a few initial consultations.
    Echo on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Registered User regular
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    I own 117 romance novels, and 41 books on political history. Of those, 14 and 8 respectively remain unread.

    To properly make fun of you, we're gonna need a break down of the romance novels.

    How many are:
    Bodice Rippers?
    Regencies?
    Harlequin Serials?
    Nora Roberts writing under her "More Pen Names then Diddy has nicknames" program?
    How many involve ranches?

    Zero, zero, probably around half, beats the hell out of me, and maybe a dozen.
  • WinkyWinky Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    I think trying to determine whether the Internet is overall a net positive is like asking whether radio or television were a net positive. I would say their positive outweigh their negatives, strictly in terms of utility derived.

    As to whether they make us "better people"... that's a really loaded question.

    Though the topic reminds me very strongly of back when people were asking whether the Arab Spring was "good for America." It just strikes me as such a silly question. It's like asking whether the tides are "good" -- you don't really judge their "goodness" so much as just deal with the consequences.

    I think the internet is more analogous to telegraph, actual written language and telephone as far as comparisons. It's the approachability and innovation through evolution, and the rapid evolution if a great many memes that've allowed a lot of our sociological changes in the US for the better, in recent memory.

    I'd say the average US citizen knows more about China and Africa now, and more about the wars were in, than during the 80s and earl 90s.

    This is the first time in human history when (almost) any individual can swiftly communicate to an arbitrarily large audience, and that large audience can swiftly respond back.

    I kind of see that as a big deal.

    It is a big deal. It is not inherently "Good."

    I think that knowledge and communication, over the long term, shake out to a net good.

    Yes, communication technology facilitates the spread of falsehoods and ignorance just as it facilitates the spread of knowledge, but it seems pretty clear to me that truth eventually wins that fight.

    No, I don't think that is actually ever clear, all things being equal.

    The truth is not always going to win.

    I don't hate the internet, I just take issue with Winky's original assertion that it is making us better people. It is also making us worse people in a lot of ways.

    It is just making us people.

    You have to understand: my statement was a purposeful oversimplification. The internet is facilitating us becoming better people, in a way that I think would not have been possible on a fraction of the scale that it is happening now. I agree that what we're seeing is just part of a continuing trajectory based on us striving to become better people. I think, though, that the internet allows this striving to succeed on a scale never before possible.
    vspgsp.jpg
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    The main thing that worries me about AD season 4 is the trailer wasn't very funny/good.

    But then the ads on Fox back in the day weren't funny/good either.
    wandering on
    jBEKRTH.png
  • SarksusSarksus TEN FUCKING DOLLARS Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »

    Netflix is doing a lot for this

    I hope it's not to cover up that it's bad.

    I don't think that's how marketing works

    Marketing has frequently made me think something will be good, and then it turns out to be bad.

    is it the marketing that is making you think new AD will be good/bad? to me it's all a bonus

    I of course also don't want it to be bad I was just confused at the connection you made

    No, the marketing is making me excited. The marketing style is also quirky and isn't pandering but feels like it almost is. I am suspicious of this kind of marketing. Like they're trying really hard to hook me, but I'm already hooked by another season in the first place, so it feels like they could be covering something up. Like when a kid is being sweet after they fucked up.

    I plan on liking it unless evidence shows me otherwise. I'm not going to plan on it being bad because why? what's the point?

    I'm not planning on it being bad.

    well that's what it sounds like!

    No it doesn't. I made one throwaway comment on a small fear that is at the back of my mind. I'm looking forward to the show, but I don't want to be drawn into the marketing too much because it's designed to be maximally alluring.
  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary Your Dark Descent FriendRegistered User regular
    Ludious wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    lots of ants in my room. cunts.

    do you leave foodstuffs in your room

    don't lie to me

    leave no but I do eat in here, or at least I did often til the last week or so.

    such a hard habit to break

    Get these:
    F-300-large.jpg

    Watch over the next 1-2 days as the ants find it, and swarm it. You will need to resist freaking out and cleansing them with fire. Watch their conveyer belt.

    It's a conveyer belt of death.

    A few days later, in the middle of the night, you will be awakened by a scream that you didn't hear, as somewhere, a civilization dies.

    I know this is a bit late to ask but does this ant repellent do anything to cats? Or can I leave it out with the cat running around?

    I intend to kill all the ants with this tomorrow but am unsure if it's safe around my cat.
    2ItqRJ7.jpgSteam/Origin/PSN: Corehealer / Core's Streamtastical Livestream (Streaming Wildstar Beta later this year).
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    I think trying to determine whether the Internet is overall a net positive is like asking whether radio or television were a net positive. I would say their positive outweigh their negatives, strictly in terms of utility derived.

    As to whether they make us "better people"... that's a really loaded question.

    Though the topic reminds me very strongly of back when people were asking whether the Arab Spring was "good for America." It just strikes me as such a silly question. It's like asking whether the tides are "good" -- you don't really judge their "goodness" so much as just deal with the consequences.

    I think the internet is more analogous to telegraph, actual written language and telephone as far as comparisons. It's the approachability and innovation through evolution, and the rapid evolution if a great many memes that've allowed a lot of our sociological changes in the US for the better, in recent memory.

    I'd say the average US citizen knows more about China and Africa now, and more about the wars were in, than during the 80s and earl 90s.

    This is the first time in human history when (almost) any individual can swiftly communicate to an arbitrarily large audience, and that large audience can swiftly respond back.

    I kind of see that as a big deal.

    It is a big deal. It is not inherently "Good."

    I think that knowledge and communication, over the long term, shake out to a net good.

    Yes, communication technology facilitates the spread of falsehoods and ignorance just as it facilitates the spread of knowledge, but it seems pretty clear to me that truth eventually wins that fight.

    No, I don't think that is actually ever clear, all things being equal.

    The truth is not always going to win.

    I don't hate the internet, I just take issue with Winky's original assertion that it is making us better people. It is also making us worse people in a lot of ways.

    It is just making us people.

    This is an interesting position you've found yourself in.

    Would you have rathered the Gutenberg press had never existed?

    Yes, in fact I wish we were all still monkeys in a tree. I hate knowledge and learning and progress and freedom. You caught me.

    Well that was quick.
    network_sig2.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    I think trying to determine whether the Internet is overall a net positive is like asking whether radio or television were a net positive. I would say their positive outweigh their negatives, strictly in terms of utility derived.

    As to whether they make us "better people"... that's a really loaded question.

    Though the topic reminds me very strongly of back when people were asking whether the Arab Spring was "good for America." It just strikes me as such a silly question. It's like asking whether the tides are "good" -- you don't really judge their "goodness" so much as just deal with the consequences.

    I think the internet is more analogous to telegraph, actual written language and telephone as far as comparisons. It's the approachability and innovation through evolution, and the rapid evolution if a great many memes that've allowed a lot of our sociological changes in the US for the better, in recent memory.

    I'd say the average US citizen knows more about China and Africa now, and more about the wars were in, than during the 80s and earl 90s.

    This is the first time in human history when (almost) any individual can swiftly communicate to an arbitrarily large audience, and that large audience can swiftly respond back.

    I kind of see that as a big deal.

    It is a big deal. It is not inherently "Good."

    I think that knowledge and communication, over the long term, shake out to a net good.

    Yes, communication technology facilitates the spread of falsehoods and ignorance just as it facilitates the spread of knowledge, but it seems pretty clear to me that truth eventually wins that fight.

    No, I don't think that is actually ever clear, all things being equal.

    The truth is not always going to win.

    I don't hate the internet, I just take issue with Winky's original assertion that it is making us better people. It is also making us worse people in a lot of ways.

    It is just making us people.

    You have to understand: my statement was a purposeful oversimplification. The internet is facilitating us becoming better people, in a way that I think would not have been possible on a fraction of the scale that it is happening now. I agree that what we're seeing is just part of a continuing trajectory based on us striving to become better people. I think, though, that the internet allows this striving to succeed on a scale never before possible.

    I see, then we mostly agree.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Sip. Sip sip sippy. Dumb whores. Best friends.Registered User regular
    Sarksus wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »

    Netflix is doing a lot for this

    I hope it's not to cover up that it's bad.

    I don't think that's how marketing works

    Marketing has frequently made me think something will be good, and then it turns out to be bad.

    is it the marketing that is making you think new AD will be good/bad? to me it's all a bonus

    I of course also don't want it to be bad I was just confused at the connection you made

    No, the marketing is making me excited. The marketing style is also quirky and isn't pandering but feels like it almost is. I am suspicious of this kind of marketing. Like they're trying really hard to hook me, but I'm already hooked by another season in the first place, so it feels like they could be covering something up. Like when a kid is being sweet after they fucked up.

    I plan on liking it unless evidence shows me otherwise. I'm not going to plan on it being bad because why? what's the point?

    I'm not planning on it being bad.

    well that's what it sounds like!

    No it doesn't. I made one throwaway comment on a small fear that is at the back of my mind. I'm looking forward to the show, but I don't want to be drawn into the marketing too much because it's designed to be maximally alluring.

    idgi

    but okay!
    NO.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Winky wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    I think trying to determine whether the Internet is overall a net positive is like asking whether radio or television were a net positive. I would say their positive outweigh their negatives, strictly in terms of utility derived.

    As to whether they make us "better people"... that's a really loaded question.

    Though the topic reminds me very strongly of back when people were asking whether the Arab Spring was "good for America." It just strikes me as such a silly question. It's like asking whether the tides are "good" -- you don't really judge their "goodness" so much as just deal with the consequences.

    I think the internet is more analogous to telegraph, actual written language and telephone as far as comparisons. It's the approachability and innovation through evolution, and the rapid evolution if a great many memes that've allowed a lot of our sociological changes in the US for the better, in recent memory.

    I'd say the average US citizen knows more about China and Africa now, and more about the wars were in, than during the 80s and earl 90s.

    ...you did see that recent poll about where Bengazi is, right?

    I have a better question for you angel: what would that poll have looked like in the 1980s?

    About the same, perhaps a bit worse. You can lead someone to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Nox+Aeternum.gif
    Damn straight and I'm not giving up any of my crazy ground to some no talent hack.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    God, I'm tired of the media jumping on-board the GOP's stupid manufactured scandals
    I am comforted by Richard Dawkins’ theory of memes. Those are mental units: thoughts, ideas, gestures, notions, songs, beliefs, rhymes, ideals, teachings, sayings, phrases, clichés that move from mind to mind as genes move from body to body. After a lifetime of writing, teaching, broadcasting and telling too many jokes, I will leave behind more memes than many. They will all also eventually die, but so it goes. - Roger Ebert, I Do Not Fear Death
  • SarksusSarksus TEN FUCKING DOLLARS Registered User regular
    wandering wrote: »
    The main thing that worries me about AD season 4 is the trailer wasn't very funny.

    But then the ads on Fox back in the day weren't funny either.

    Yeah I don't think the show is well suited for trailers. The scenes, as shown in the trailers, were pretty wooden compared to the organic nature of the actual show.
  • GooeyGooey Registered User regular
    hey sig

    how are you
    919UOwT.png
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Ludious wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    lots of ants in my room. cunts.

    do you leave foodstuffs in your room

    don't lie to me

    leave no but I do eat in here, or at least I did often til the last week or so.

    such a hard habit to break

    Get these:
    F-300-large.jpg

    Watch over the next 1-2 days as the ants find it, and swarm it. You will need to resist freaking out and cleansing them with fire. Watch their conveyer belt.

    It's a conveyer belt of death.

    A few days later, in the middle of the night, you will be awakened by a scream that you didn't hear, as somewhere, a civilization dies.

    I know this is a bit late to ask but does this ant repellent do anything to cats? Or can I leave it out with the cat running around?

    I intend to kill all the ants with this tomorrow but am unsure if it's safe around my cat.

    NaturalSelection-1.png
    network_sig2.png
  • SarksusSarksus TEN FUCKING DOLLARS Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »

    Netflix is doing a lot for this

    I hope it's not to cover up that it's bad.

    I don't think that's how marketing works

    Marketing has frequently made me think something will be good, and then it turns out to be bad.

    is it the marketing that is making you think new AD will be good/bad? to me it's all a bonus

    I of course also don't want it to be bad I was just confused at the connection you made

    No, the marketing is making me excited. The marketing style is also quirky and isn't pandering but feels like it almost is. I am suspicious of this kind of marketing. Like they're trying really hard to hook me, but I'm already hooked by another season in the first place, so it feels like they could be covering something up. Like when a kid is being sweet after they fucked up.

    I plan on liking it unless evidence shows me otherwise. I'm not going to plan on it being bad because why? what's the point?

    I'm not planning on it being bad.

    well that's what it sounds like!

    No it doesn't. I made one throwaway comment on a small fear that is at the back of my mind. I'm looking forward to the show, but I don't want to be drawn into the marketing too much because it's designed to be maximally alluring.

    idgi

    but okay!

    Because in the past I have seen marketing and trailers and they made their product appear exactly as I wanted and then the actual product was not like that, so as a rule I try to keep myself grounded and not buying into marketing too much.
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Riksadvokate Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    Winky wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    The MMR vaccine scare got its start in 1998, before social media became a thing. The traditional media caused the scare.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
    Observers have criticized the involvement of mass media in the controversy, what is known as 'science by press conference',[41] alleging that the media provided Wakefield's study with more credibility than it deserved. A March 2007 paper in BMC Public Health by Shona Hilton, Mark Petticrew, and Kate Hunt postulated that media reports on Wakefield's study had "created the misleading impression that the evidence for the link with autism was as substantial as the evidence against".[98] Earlier papers in Communication in Medicine and British Medical Journal concluded that media reports provided a misleading picture of the level of support for Wakefield's theory.[99][100][101]

    If anything the internet has fixed it.

    People constantly argue that if there's so much information out there, then clearly that will just mean that all the truth will be drowned out by the misinformation.

    This has never been shown to actually happen, though. Look at wikipedia! It's more stringent and reliable than ever. The truth has a huge benefit on its side: it's true. We're leaving the days of getting all of our information from a single source. We're increasing the sample size enormously, and we're relying on billions of other people who fundamentally just want to know the truth as much as you do. This is a basic signal processing problem: do you want to be receiving from one strong source that is all biased in the same direction, or do you want to be receiving from dozens of weaker sources that have different noise patterns? With the former, you have no sense of which direction the bias lies, with the latter you can compare and contrast to cancel out the noise.

    "Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"

    This post went from an agree to an awesome because it really is all about getting the perspective.

    Yes. The Internet can be used as an echo chamber, but the people that choose to use it that way weren't exactly the brightest prospects of pragmatism to begin with. A big part of being a grown up is to be able to appreciate nuance, and being able to express his side even though you vehemently oppose it. The truth will stand on it's own.

    It's this kinda logic that makes me also believes that markets are the most accurate predicators of value, but that's a discussion for another time.
    MadCaddy on
    League of Legends: SorryNotRly Steam: MMForYourHealth Hero Academy: MadCaddy
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    @Ronya quoting will expose the spoiler, so.

    I asked for heads to roll, and Holder is calling it "outrageous" opening a criminal probe, and Obama is firing a dude, so I'm pleased. I never blamed the prez for this and I'm glad to see he's taking it more seriously than the apologists around here.

    Because it's p fucking serious!
    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Sip. Sip sip sippy. Dumb whores. Best friends.Registered User regular
    Gooey wrote: »
    hey sig

    how are you

    hungryish!
    NO.
This discussion has been closed.