DISQUS

Interesting.

I sortof find the fact that they "sync" bookmark locations creepy though. Not only do they know what you buy, but they know how much and how fast you read it too.

The revolution will be televised :)

Nice overview article. Well thought out. You've seemed to focus on mostly negative issues though.

When you go to the mall now and and see everyone walking around talking to people on their cellphones, that are likely in a different mall, it's not hard to imagine a world where you jump from "place to place" from your mobile looking at what your friends are casting.

That's probably the key though, most people are probably going to point the camera away form them at what they are looking at and not at theirselves, so yeah, you'll be on someone elses lifecast, but they won't know who you are, you won't get tagged, and everyone will be so self involved they won't have much time to watch your life, because frankly "your life" (in the general sense) isn't that interesting.

Most people don't read other people's blogs, and they're not likely to watch too many other peoples lifecasts either, becasue they won't have the time, they'll be way too much video of "interesting" people to keep up with to bother stalking the local food court.

Anonymity for the most part will be in the sheer overwhelming volume of data out there. Sure if something remarkable happens it'll be online quickly, but that's already the case for the most part, and things are fine. It's all going to be ok I think. We're just going from 500 channels to 5 billion channels is all.

The revolution will be televised :)

Nice overview article. Well thought out. You've seemed to focus on mostly negative issues though.

When you go to the mall now and and see everyone walking around talking to people on their cellphones, that are likely in a different mall, it's not hard to imagine a world where you jump from "place to place" from your mobile looking at what your friends are casting.

That's probably the key though, most people are probably going to point the camera away form them at what they are looking at and not at theirselves, so yeah, you'll be on someone elses lifecast, but they won't know who you are, you won't get tagged, and everyone will be so self involved they won't have much time to watch your life, because frankly "your life" (in the general sense) isn't that interesting.

Most people don't read other people's blogs, and they're not likely to watch too many other peoples lifecasts either, becasue they won't have the time, they'll be way too much video of "interesting" people to keep up with to bother stalking the local food court.

Anonymity for the most part will be in the sheer overwhelming volume of data out there. Sure if something remarkable happens it'll be online quickly, but that's already the case for the most part, and things are fine. It's all going to be ok I think. We're just going from 500 channels to 5 billion channels is all.

@Maxo My observations above, are not my beliefs on how the world should work, but just because, like you, I do not believe that wealth should be the litmus test, doesn't mean it isn't for the majority of people.

I personally don't worry too much about the immigration issue really, I don't think outside people coming to America will undo it. Americans have that capability all by themselves and looking to Imigrants is just scapegoating.

I also think that Government shouldn't target the immigrants, it should target the business's hiring them. There are no special IDs needed, it doesn't take long to prove to a person that you are most likely a natural born citizen. People know when they are hiring non-American's. And the government is quite capable of figuring out when a business's books don't add up. Put stiff penalties on the people hiring and you'll remove the illegal immigration incentive quick enough.

Don't deport the people. Just shut down the business's hiring low wage illegal immigrant labor. Level the playing field by making all businesses play by the same hiring rules. The problem isn't illegal immigrants, it's American business using illegal hiring practices.

@Maxo My observations above, are not my beliefs on how the world should work, but just because, like you, I do not believe that wealth should be the litmus test, doesn't mean it isn't for the majority of people.

I personally don't worry too much about the immigration issue really, I don't think outside people coming to America will undo it. Americans have that capability all by themselves and looking to Imigrants is just scapegoating.

I also think that Government shouldn't target the immigrants, it should target the business's hiring them. There are no special IDs needed, it doesn't take long to prove to a person that you are most likely a natural born citizen. People know when they are hiring non-American's. And the government is quite capable of figuring out when a business's books don't add up. Put stiff penalties on the people hiring and you'll remove the illegal immigration incentive quick enough.

Don't deport the people. Just shut down the business's hiring low wage illegal immigrant labor. Level the playing field by making all businesses play by the same hiring rules. The problem isn't illegal immigrants, it's American business using illegal hiring practices.

See, Maxo makes my point. "Hard Work, friendship, and having a good time." Those are great ideals, and largely those are "American Ideals" but those aren't the things that make-up the American Identity.

If everyone helps everyone else for free, you aren't going to be able to have a vibrant government or private business sector. To have that, you need people with narrow specializations, who aren't willing to help others unless they get paid.

If people give away services for free (helping your neighbor) then how is the landscaping company going to charge for those services? If we have big family meals every night, who is going to support the resturaunt industry? If people are helping people for free at things they do not do professionsally, then largely those things are also going to be done at a mediocre level.

Indifference to your neighbor, a strong belief in the world of commerce, and a just and level playing field. It doesn't sound warm and fuzzy like "Hard Work, friendship, and having a good time." but it does provide alot of goods, services and wealth.

(Side note: A strong belief in friends and family can also lead to cronies and corruption as you tend to favor people you are related to, instead of favoring people indifferently based on their merits.)

See, Maxo makes my point. "Hard Work, friendship, and having a good time." Those are great ideals, and largely those are "American Ideals" but those aren't the things that make-up the American Identity.

If everyone helps everyone else for free, you aren't going to be able to have a vibrant government or private business sector. To have that, you need people with narrow specializations, who aren't willing to help others unless they get paid.

If people give away services for free (helping your neighbor) then how is the landscaping company going to charge for those services? If we have big family meals every night, who is going to support the resturaunt industry? If people are helping people for free at things they do not do professionsally, then largely those things are also going to be done at a mediocre level.

Indifference to your neighbor, a strong belief in the world of commerce, and a just and level playing field. It doesn't sound warm and fuzzy like "Hard Work, friendship, and having a good time." but it does provide alot of goods, services and wealth.

(Side note: A strong belief in friends and family can also lead to cronies and corruption as you tend to favor people you are related to, instead of favoring people indifferently based on their merits.)

Much better put than Lou Dobbs manages nightly.

The lack of Americanization, is the issue. And to ncloud's point above. there is an American Identity, we just don't like to talk about it much because when you do it sounds shallow... but it works.

The true American Identity is not the Identiy that American's advertise in our media, commercials, and conversation. Those are American Ideals.

To Americanize is to adopt the American Identity and then talk about but not fully adopt, the American Ideals.

Much better put than Lou Dobbs manages nightly.

The lack of Americanization, is the issue. And to ncloud's point above. there is an American Identity, we just don't like to talk about it much because when you do it sounds shallow... but it works.

The true American Identity is not the Identiy that American's advertise in our media, commercials, and conversation. Those are American Ideals.

To Americanize is to adopt the American Identity and then talk about but not fully adopt, the American Ideals.

Maybe the answer is universal health care and cheap small automobiles?

Then you remove the incentive of for profit auto insurance caring, as they wouldn't have to pay for medical claims or expensive car replacements, at which point the issue probably just goes away.

Maybe the answer is universal health care and cheap small automobiles?

Then you remove the incentive of for profit auto insurance caring, as they wouldn't have to pay for medical claims or expensive car replacements, at which point the issue probably just goes away.

Polls are worthless anyway. The "average" person doesn't participate in polls.

Polls are worthless anyway. The "average" person doesn't participate in polls.

I've been doing this for awhile (although I simplify with folders named 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then the categories.)

There are only a few feeds that I break off into more than one category though. I used to have more in multiple slots but the "item counts" can be a bit overwhelming when you do that (ie: 25 items from one source gets listed in more than one folder and it appears that you have a mountain of feeds to catch up on.)

I tend to star alot of things and then come back to them later. I'm hoping that Google refines the starred item search/sort just a little more and then Reader will be perfect.

I've been doing this for awhile (although I simplify with folders named 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then the categories.)

There are only a few feeds that I break off into more than one category though. I used to have more in multiple slots but the "item counts" can be a bit overwhelming when you do that (ie: 25 items from one source gets listed in more than one folder and it appears that you have a mountain of feeds to catch up on.)

I tend to star alot of things and then come back to them later. I'm hoping that Google refines the starred item search/sort just a little more and then Reader will be perfect.

I live in Michigan where our Democratic Primary won't count this year and the Republican Primary is only going to count half.

So it really doesn't matter any more for those of us living in the US's mitten anyway.

I live in Michigan where our Democratic Primary won't count this year and the Republican Primary is only going to count half.

So it really doesn't matter any more for those of us living in the US's mitten anyway.

@Daniel

I'm not sure if I'm using the same definition of selfish.

I'm using:

selfish - concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others.

So here is a hypothetical. Let's say there is a couple where the woman enjoys the process of becoming a mother, a biological ability that she can perform. She also enjoys taking care of children and wants to have a second child. Let's say she's married to a man who is happy with the one child they already have but they are doing well financially and although otherwise personally indifferent, he chooses to participate in having another child to make his wife happier.

Perhaps it gives this couple joy to see another individual that represents a mix of both of them: her smile, his eyes, a laugh that reminds them of a grandparent.

Are they selfish in this situation? Must they solve all the unfortunate circumstances in the world before taking actions toward their own benefit or desire or to benefit those closest to them?

The man harms no one in the above senerio. Neither does the woman. Neither of these people created the orphan, so I do not see the individual responsibility you seem to suggest they have to the nameless orphan.

That does not mean that there isn't a collective responsibility to the orphan, but then you have to decide what is the collective? The collective can not be Billions of people, we're not biologically formed to operate on that scale, nor would we really want to.

On a global scale it's not practical, adj. used to describe properties which have to work in real life when used , for the individual to live like that.

And maybe that's where it rests, Idealism vs. Practicality?

@Daniel

I'm not sure if I'm using the same definition of selfish.

I'm using:

selfish - concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others.

So here is a hypothetical. Let's say there is a couple where the woman enjoys the process of becoming a mother, a biological ability that she can perform. She also enjoys taking care of children and wants to have a second child. Let's say she's married to a man who is happy with the one child they already have but they are doing well financially and although otherwise personally indifferent, he chooses to participate in having another child to make his wife happier.

Perhaps it gives this couple joy to see another individual that represents a mix of both of them: her smile, his eyes, a laugh that reminds them of a grandparent.

Are they selfish in this situation? Must they solve all the unfortunate circumstances in the world before taking actions toward their own benefit or desire or to benefit those closest to them?

The man harms no one in the above senerio. Neither does the woman. Neither of these people created the orphan, so I do not see the individual responsibility you seem to suggest they have to the nameless orphan.

That does not mean that there isn't a collective responsibility to the orphan, but then you have to decide what is the collective? The collective can not be Billions of people, we're not biologically formed to operate on that scale, nor would we really want to.

On a global scale it's not practical, adj. used to describe properties which have to work in real life when used , for the individual to live like that.

And maybe that's where it rests, Idealism vs. Practicality?

@Daniel

I do not believe that having children is a selfish endeavor. I would have to know the mind of another individual to say if something is motivated by selfishness.

As to society, that means different things to different people. Some people believe they are part of a world community. Some people have no interest in anyone outside theirselves or their immediate famillies.

For me truth lies in between the two but others milage may vary.

@Deidre

I empathise with both of your paragraphs, but they are somewhat contradictory. In the first you seem to critize people who don't critique people. In the second, you critize people who critique you. While both are valid staements, there is some irony in their proximity.

On the topic of people critizing others choices I have this similiar tale to relate: I have good friends that are vegetarians. Where as I am vegetable adverse and prefer steak. I enjoy having dinner with my friends, but hate making two different meals. I feel they should eat meat, they feel I should eat vegetables. Honestly though, I don't really care what they eat, but it would be easier to be socialable if we were on the same page with that activity. Kids are often the same type of thing with friends I think. If one set of people has kids and the others do not, it makes it harder for two to relate on what becomes a large portion of ones life. Some pressure is bound to grow out of that tension.

As with anything, hopefully the good of a thing out ways the bad of a thing.

This is a very interesting thread.

@Daniel

I do not believe that having children is a selfish endeavor. I would have to know the mind of another individual to say if something is motivated by selfishness.

As to society, that means different things to different people. Some people believe they are part of a world community. Some people have no interest in anyone outside theirselves or their immediate famillies.

For me truth lies in between the two but others milage may vary.

@Deidre

I empathise with both of your paragraphs, but they are somewhat contradictory. In the first you seem to critize people who don't critique people. In the second, you critize people who critique you. While both are valid staements, there is some irony in their proximity.

On the topic of people critizing others choices I have this similiar tale to relate: I have good friends that are vegetarians. Where as I am vegetable adverse and prefer steak. I enjoy having dinner with my friends, but hate making two different meals. I feel they should eat meat, they feel I should eat vegetables. Honestly though, I don't really care what they eat, but it would be easier to be socialable if we were on the same page with that activity. Kids are often the same type of thing with friends I think. If one set of people has kids and the others do not, it makes it harder for two to relate on what becomes a large portion of ones life. Some pressure is bound to grow out of that tension.

As with anything, hopefully the good of a thing out ways the bad of a thing.

This is a very interesting thread.

@Daniel

I'm not sure the word selfish has any intrinsic meaning?

As to experiencing great pain or contributing to the pain of others. Pain and conflict are part of life. If there was no potential for pain or no conflict, then we are back to my not even getting out of bed point. To be alive but to avoid all pain and conflict is a challenging way to live.

As to the shagging and punching. While some may have "altrusistic" motives for not doing those activities, more than not probably just implicitly understand the negative outcomes of engaging in those activites within the social structures of Western society.

Punching an asshole isn't a problem. Deciding that someone is an asshole and that the appropriate action is to punch that asshole is just not a decision that as a society we have chosen to let all individuals make.

Instead we dress some people in blue and give them a little metal shield and let them drive around with flashing lights on their car. We call them police and empower them in certain situations to freely punch assholes.

And in general I'm ok with that.

um... What was the question again ;)

@Daniel

I'm not sure the word selfish has any intrinsic meaning?

As to experiencing great pain or contributing to the pain of others. Pain and conflict are part of life. If there was no potential for pain or no conflict, then we are back to my not even getting out of bed point. To be alive but to avoid all pain and conflict is a challenging way to live.

As to the shagging and punching. While some may have "altrusistic" motives for not doing those activities, more than not probably just implicitly understand the negative outcomes of engaging in those activites within the social structures of Western society.

Punching an asshole isn't a problem. Deciding that someone is an asshole and that the appropriate action is to punch that asshole is just not a decision that as a society we have chosen to let all individuals make.

Instead we dress some people in blue and give them a little metal shield and let them drive around with flashing lights on their car. We call them police and empower them in certain situations to freely punch assholes.

And in general I'm ok with that.

um... What was the question again ;)

Hmm... there's more reasons than those three I think.

Writ small however, it's just a choice like anything else. If decisions are broken down to ever baser levels, then logic will expose that there is no reason for anything.

Unless one is to lay in bed all day, you've got to get up and do something with your time.

As to why everyone doesn't just adopt someone eles child? Why shouldn't we also just listen to the songs other people have sung, and read the books others have wrote?

Why even blog when most of these thoughts and questions have been written down thousands of years ago in other texts?

Hmm... there's more reasons than those three I think.

Writ small however, it's just a choice like anything else. If decisions are broken down to ever baser levels, then logic will expose that there is no reason for anything.

Unless one is to lay in bed all day, you've got to get up and do something with your time.

As to why everyone doesn't just adopt someone eles child? Why shouldn't we also just listen to the songs other people have sung, and read the books others have wrote?

Why even blog when most of these thoughts and questions have been written down thousands of years ago in other texts?