> It's easier just to stop subscribing to cable. That eliminates all > the channels except the ones you can pick up on broadcast and saves > you boatloads of money which you can spend on season DVDs of the few > shows only on cable which were worth watching...
Substitute Netflix for buying the DVDs and that's pretty much what I do.
On Nov 2, 8:43 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> I've started a few threads on the books I've read, but they don't get > much discussion, either. People here seem more likely to discuss > issues and categories than specific works, with the occasional > exception. [And those exceptions, too often, are books I haven't read.]
I think part of the problem may be that folks read books at different times. If you read a book before I do and start a discussion, I don't have anything to say because I haven't read it yet. After I've read it, I think, "No one will want to discuss that because they all read it a year ago." And so I do not start a new discussion...
trag wrote: > On Nov 2, 8:43 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> > I've started a few threads on the books I've read, but they don't get > > much discussion, either. People here seem more likely to discuss > > issues and categories than specific works, with the occasional > > exception. [And those exceptions, too often, are books I haven't read.]
> I think part of the problem may be that folks read books at different > times. If you read a book before I do and start a discussion, I don't > have anything to say because I haven't read it yet. After I've read > it, I think, "No one will want to discuss that because they all read > it a year ago." And so I do not start a new discussion...
However, the discussions with the most participations tend to be those of books published decades ago (Heinlein, Tolkien, etc.).
- W. Citoan -- Even the gods do not fight against necessity. -- Pittacus
> trag wrote: >> On Nov 2, 8:43 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>> I've started a few threads on the books I've read, but they don't get >>> much discussion, either. People here seem more likely to discuss >>> issues and categories than specific works, with the occasional >>> exception. [And those exceptions, too often, are books I haven't read.]
>> I think part of the problem may be that folks read books at different >> times. If you read a book before I do and start a discussion, I don't >> have anything to say because I haven't read it yet. After I've read >> it, I think, "No one will want to discuss that because they all read >> it a year ago." And so I do not start a new discussion...
> However, the discussions with the most participations tend to be those > of books published decades ago (Heinlein, Tolkien, etc.).
Which are the ones that most people have actually read.
So it might be that the ones Trag reads later than most would be ideal for discussion.
Kurt Busiek wrote: > On 2009-11-03 11:30:56 -0800, "W. Citoan" <wcit...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> said:
> > trag wrote: > >> On Nov 2, 8:43 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> >>> I've started a few threads on the books I've read, but they don't get > >>> much discussion, either. People here seem more likely to discuss > >>> issues and categories than specific works, with the occasional > >>> exception. [And those exceptions, too often, are books I haven't read.]
> >> I think part of the problem may be that folks read books at different > >> times. If you read a book before I do and start a discussion, I don't > >> have anything to say because I haven't read it yet. After I've read > >> it, I think, "No one will want to discuss that because they all read > >> it a year ago." And so I do not start a new discussion...
> > However, the discussions with the most participations tend to be those > > of books published decades ago (Heinlein, Tolkien, etc.).
> Which are the ones that most people have actually read.
> So it might be that the ones Trag reads later than most would be ideal > for discussion.
Yep. That was what I was trying to convey (though rather obliquely, I'll admit).
- W. Citoan -- Even the gods do not fight against necessity. -- Pittacus
In article <fcd5a0c6-cb07-4317-89c7-0a40c8575...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
trag <t...@io.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 2:54 pm, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Classic failure of quantitative reasoning. Nobody is worrying about > > the planet being 'warmer' or 'cooler'. The problem is that rapid > > changes in energy balance lead to local disruptions in human > > populations. Your views about economics are similarly distorted by an > > inability to think in terms of systems and numbers.
> Several months ago we established that he does not understand the > notion of control systems nor how positive feedback in such is a *bad > thing*.
How could positive feedback be a bad thing? "Positive" always means good, doesn't it?
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Kurt Busiek wrote: > I've started a few threads on the books I've read, but they don't get > much discussion, either. People here seem more likely to discuss > issues and categories than specific works, with the occasional > exception. [And those exceptions, too often, are books I haven't > read.]
It's a problem. I've had the same sort of reaction (or non-reaction). I don't even know if it's best to do a thorough review with extensive spoliery recap, or just a few lines and hope it sparks discussion.
Brian
-- Day 274 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:51:48 -0500, Mike Ash wrote:
[----]
> How could positive feedback be a bad thing? "Positive" always means > good, doesn't it?
Sure! As in "HIV positive"... -- Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
>> It's easier just to stop subscribing to cable. That eliminates all >> the channels except the ones you can pick up on broadcast and saves >> you boatloads of money which you can spend on season DVDs of the few >> shows only on cable which were worth watching...
> Substitute Netflix for buying the DVDs and that's pretty much what I do.
One of my coworkers has done this (mainly to have better control over what his kids watch), and I did it when I was in temp housing. I sometimes think of doing it again, but then I get sucked into the latest season of something on TV....
>Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote: >> Well, it also assumes LONG TERM rational actors, which isn't the >> same as all participants pursing their own self-interest. The problem >> there isn't just that people aren't generally likely to look forward 20 >> years to see if their current self interest might work against them when >> carried through; it's also that to apply your long-term enlightened self >> interest properly, you need nigh-omniscience so that you can tell how >> your (say) building a factory along the river today will affect the >> economic impact of a flood in that area 20 years from now.
>No, that's not as big of a problem for capitalism.
>Because any society is always a work in progress.
>If something we do today has unintended consequences 50 years from now, >then our descendants will have to handle those consequences.
Which reminds me suspiciously of the conversation between Hober Mallow and Ankor Jael at the end of "The Merchant Princes" (v/t "The Big and the Little"):
"So then," said Jael, "you're establishing a plutocracy. You're making us a land of traders and merchant princes. What then of the future?"
Mallow lifted his gloomy face, and exclaimed fiercely, "What business of mine is the future? No doubt Seldon has forseen it and prepared against it. There will be other crises in the time to come when money power has become as dead a force as religion is now. Let my successors solve those new problems, as I have solved the one of today."
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > Mark Reichert wrote: > > P.S. EVERY frickin' discussion?
> Possibly not, but it seems every time I see you post, somehow politics > gets dragged in.
> > Perhaps I do over discuss this with > > YOU, because you are so proud of ignoring anything to with the actual > > physical realtime current reality you depend on to live
> On the contrary, I pay a great deal of attention to that. PHYSICAL > realities.
> Politics, no. I have no effect on them, and whatever effect they have > on me is utterly incidental.
> I pay a great deal of attention to things like getting my job done, > taking care of my family, and so on and so forth, which is the IMPORTANT > part of my life.
> Worrying about things I have no influence over? I've got plenty of REAL > stuff to worry about -- my wife bleeding out right after giving birth, > needing a D&C and a blood transfusion, everyone in the house immediately > coming down with H1N1 right afterwards, deadlines at work -- without > worrying about things that, while potentially important in a huge global > sense are, in the personal sense, utterly irrelevant.
My dad said something similar. He was ranting about blacks and I pointed out that it was rich white men that caused all the things he was ranting about (and its not like he actually has been hurt by any black person personally), and he said "that's not the real world".
The actions of billionaires since 1980 have affected the air you (and he) breathe, the water you drink, the food you eat, the drugs you take, the medical care you recieve, the educational opportunities of your children, the state of the adults your children will have to work with when they are adults, etc., but "that's not the real world".
Bujold was right in comparing Miles awareness of security to a fish acknowledging water. You don't have any concept of what life was like when the GI generation was in charge and a single family didn't have the wealth of 100 million Americans, so you have no idea what we and consequently even you have lost.
Here, I'll pull of to the side and put in terms I did before: the Iraq debacle cost us any manned missions to Mars. Not caring who is in charge of any of our institutions has cost us any forward progress for anybody not worth seven figures, because the latter will always be able to game the system to cut you out. You'd think that would bother SF fans.
> I have finite > worry and attention resources, and they're completely spoken for.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, It's what you think you know for sure that just ain't so” Mark Twain.
It's impossible to know everything, but it would be nice if more people cared whether what they know is actually true.
My rants are due to knowing that a hell of lot of people posting in this newsgroup can't possibly have a grasp on what's going IF you go by their posts. Want me to stop bringing in the real world, convince me that outside of these posts you aren't getting your news from corporate media or propaganda web sites.
Sunlight (knowledge) is the best disinfectant but enough people have to actually want it.
On 2009-11-05 18:45:28 -0800, Mark Reichert <Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com> said:
> My rants are due to knowing that a hell of lot of people posting in > this newsgroup can't possibly have a grasp on what's going IF you go > by their posts. Want me to stop bringing in the real world, convince > me that outside of these posts you aren't getting your news from > corporate media or propaganda web sites.
What are you, his mom?
You're going to keep lecturing him on stuff he's said he's not intereted in talking with you about because you've decided you know better what's good for him and how he should spend his leisure time?
> On 2009-11-02 18:34:57 -0800, Mark Reichert <Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com> said:
> > On Nov 1, 6:47 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" > > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > >> Mark Reichert wrote: > >>> On Oct 30, 7:36 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" > >>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > >>>> We are giants BUILDING on the work of other giants.
> >>> Are we? We wouldn't have allowed the right wing and their wealthy > >>> patrons to sabotage this country if we were giants. If you don't know > >>> what I'm talking about, you aren't a giant, but just another self- > >>> blinkering U.S. citizen of the last three generations. > >> I'm not even talking about these things and I really wish you'd stop > >> bringing current politics into every frickin' discussion.
> > P.S. EVERY frickin' discussion? Perhaps I do over discuss this with > > YOU, because you are so proud of ignoring anything to with the actual > > physical realtime current reality you depend on to live....or at least > > every part of it past the end of your nose.
> That would seem either counterproductive -- why not discuss such things > with people who want to discuss them? -- or like hectoring, as if > you're determined to get Wasp to spend his Usenet time talking about > what you think he should care about rather than what he wants to spend > his time on.
> The former seems pointless, the latter a bit, um...churlish isn't the > right word. Pedantic? Pushy?
I'm only picking on him because he volunteered to police my posts.
As for the newsgroup....well, SF is broader by definition than say talk.origins and alt.atheism and they've got an army of people coming there to disrupt threads not just to thread start troll post like Sound of Trumpet. Ditto any political newsgroup. Ditto some of the non-USENET forums, and on others it would be posting to people who already know what I know.
I just can't understand why I'm the only one here acknowledging how absolutely warped our corporate media has gotten and how that affects our future (you know the one SF is always pretending to reflect). The WH states the obvious and the corporate media comes to Murdoch's defense because it wants follow the same model. Newstainment is so much easier and cheaper when it doesn't matter whether any of it is true.
Of course, there used to be a time when cautionary tales about unchecked corporate control of everything were considered entertainment. Maybe my posts would have been more on-topic then.
> Here, I'll pull of to the side and put in terms I did before: the Iraq > debacle cost us any manned missions to Mars.
So? I don't have any effect on those decisions.
> Not caring who is in > charge of any of our institutions has cost us any forward progress for > anybody not worth seven figures, because the latter will always be > able to game the system to cut you out. You'd think that would bother > SF fans.
Bother in an abstract sense. Not in a real sense, because if I allow it to do so, it's gut-wrenching frustration with NO chance of actually doing anything. Thus, I focus on things that are (A) my responsibility, and (B) reasonably within my ability to affect.
> “It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, It's what you > think you know for sure that just ain't so” Mark Twain.
> It's impossible to know everything, but it would be nice if more > people cared whether what they know is actually true.
> My rants are due to knowing that a hell of lot of people posting in > this newsgroup can't possibly have a grasp on what's going IF you go > by their posts. Want me to stop bringing in the real world, convince > me that outside of these posts you aren't getting your news from > corporate media or propaganda web sites.
You make the assumption of "getting your news", as though it's something I do. I don't. There are events I notice because people make a big deal about them EVERYWHERE, but I'm not interested in hearing how crappy the world is. I know there's a lot of crappiness, I know how I might like to try to address it, I also KNOW that there's no chance I *can* address it, and thus no point in letting myself worry about it. I have plenty of real things to worry about: the health of my family, my writing career, and my regular job. This is enough for me.
Mark Reichert wrote: > I just can't understand why I'm the only one here acknowledging how > absolutely warped our corporate media has gotten and how that affects > our future (you know the one SF is always pretending to reflect).
The reason you can't understand it is that it's not true. There's plenty of people here, and on my LJ friendslist, and on Facebook, and ALL the other electronic sites I frequent, that acknowledge exactly that. And trumpet it. Over and over and over.
You're not a lone voice, you're one in a crowd. You're probably in the majority.
I don't even argue the point. I just don't CARE about news that isn't something I can take action on. No, voting isn't "taking action". I vote, that takes me twenty minutes and means virtually nothing, but I do it because it's part of the process.
Or, rather, I do CARE about it, but I have no power to DO anything on those scales, and worrying about it would worsen my health, my attitude, and my mental capabilities for *NO* gain.
Gimme a few billion dollars, or the ability to influence world leaders with a few chosen words (and the ability to GET those words to them reliably), that's different. Absent that, I'm living a life I intend to try to enjoy here; this is the POINT of living, to enjoy it. And thus I concentrate on those things which will maximize the potential that I'll actually enjoy living. Worrying about things is not enjoyable.
Mark Reichert <Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >I just can't understand why I'm the only one here acknowledging how >absolutely warped our corporate media has gotten and how that affects >our future
... cuz it's not rec.sci.comm.newsmedia?
>(you know the one SF is always pretending to reflect).
Trying to attach something to this newsgroup by saying 'it affects the FUTURE! Also, the CHILDREN! Why aren't any of you LISTENING?' doesn't work. EVERYTHING affects the future. Our future, even. Thus, ranting about present media deficiencies isn't what we're here for.
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
On 2009-11-05 19:04:13 -0800, Mark Reichert <Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com> said:
> I just can't understand why I'm the only one here acknowledging how > absolutely warped our corporate media has gotten and how that affects > our future (you know the one SF is always pretending to reflect).
If you keep bringing it up and you don't get takers, maybe it's not an indication that no one here has opinions on the subject, but simply a sign that people aren't interested in discussing it with you.
That doesn't mean the solution is to keep prodding them until they do what you want -- after all, even if RARITY FROM THE HOLLOW were a good book, few people here would be willing to read it thanks to the constant badgering -- it may just be that they come here for other reasons than to discuss what you want to discuss.
I participate on a couple of political blogs, where I talk politics far more than I do here. I participate on various comic book blogs and message boards, here I talk comics more than here. Strangely, I talk SF here much more than I do those other places.
That's not to say that no one here should talk politics (various people do, and it's usually repetitive enough for me to stop paying attention), but I'm baffled that you'd declare you're going to keep at Wasp until he proves to your satisfaction that he gets his news from sources you approve of, of whatever that was. I think that's the sort of situation that "Fuck you" was created for, as an obvious response.
This newsgroup isn't the whole world. If people don't want to angage you in discussion of how insightful your political views are, it may not be because they have no interest in politics, but because that's not what they come here to talk about.
Or maybe it's your breath or your manner. Assuming that if they won't talk poltics with you on an SF newsgroup, they must bewrongheaded about the subject and need more badgering, seems like you're missing the rest of the range of possibilities.
> Of course, there used to be a time when cautionary tales about > unchecked corporate control of everything were considered > entertainment. Maybe my posts would have been more on-topic then.
Those tales would be, at least. And they still are; maybe you coulfd post about them.
But if there used to be a time when people rode around fighting dragons, some guy showing up on a newsgroup devoted to fiction, insisting on talking about the appropriate way to handle the real-world dragon problem, might not get much good response, because the people around him wanted to talk about fiction -- even fiction about dragons -- rather than debate real-world dracopolitics.
Maybe they'd be up for it, maybe they wouldn't. But I think what you're finding is that people here aren't responding the way you want to your political content -- and Wasp has specifically said he's not interested -- and your solution is to push harder.
I don't think that's going to get you what you want.
In article <a990b9ae-214f-47c4-bf9b-92f233739...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Mark Reichert <Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here, I'll pull of to the side and put in terms I did before: the Iraq > debacle cost us any manned missions to Mars. Not caring who is in > charge of any of our institutions has cost us any forward progress for > anybody not worth seven figures, because the latter will always be > able to game the system to cut you out. You'd think that would bother > SF fans.
How would me caring, or indeed doing *anything*, at any point in time between my birth in 1980 and the beginning of the invasion, have been able to prevent the Iraq war? Please be specific in your response.
Oh, and for the record, despite being an SF fan, I am opposed to an Apollo-style manned mission to Mars.
-- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
> In article > <a990b9ae-214f-47c4-bf9b-92f233739...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > Mark Reichert <Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here, I'll pull of to the side and put in terms I did before: the Iraq >> debacle cost us any manned missions to Mars. Not caring who is in >> charge of any of our institutions has cost us any forward progress for >> anybody not worth seven figures, because the latter will always be >> able to game the system to cut you out. You'd think that would bother >> SF fans.
> How would me caring, or indeed doing *anything*, at any point in time > between my birth in 1980 and the beginning of the invasion, have been > able to prevent the Iraq war? Please be specific in your response.
> Oh, and for the record, despite being an SF fan, I am opposed to an > Apollo-style manned mission to Mars.
Plus, an actual mission the Mars wouldn't be SF, it'd be current events.
Related to the interests of SF fans, to be sure, but at one stage of conceptual removal, at least.
So Mark is lecturing that people aren't willing to talk about something that to his mind strongly affected a thing that's related to the topic here, but at a remove. And the field of things that might affect things that are related to but not congruent wit the topic here is a pretty wide field. Must everyone discuss them all, or get a permission slip from Mark on the ground of demonstrating to his satisfaction that they get their news from a source he approves of?
How far does the chain go? Would a subject that affects a subject that might affect a subject that's related to but not congruent with the newsgroup topic still be required conversation, or is that too many degrees of separation?
I mean, I didn't get any takers for discussion of THE PHYSICK BOOK OF DELIVERANCE DANE, and that's absolutely and clearly on-topic. If things that might affect things that are related to but not congruent with the topic are requied conversation, then surely I should be able to demand that people talk about a book that's actually on-topic, and not several conceptual links away. Or maybe I can only demand that they prove to my saisfaction that they get their news from an acceptable source.
[Please, folks, I don't care where you get your news from. Well, no, I do care, in that I hope you get your news from a good and reputable source, but I don't want you to tell me, thanks.]
Kurt Busiek wrote: > That doesn't mean the solution is to keep prodding them until they do > what you want -- after all, even if RARITY FROM THE HOLLOW
In article <hd16og$nq...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>Kurt Busiek wrote: >> That doesn't mean the solution is to keep prodding them until they do >> what you want -- after all, even if RARITY FROM THE HOLLOW
> AAAAAAUUUUGH! SPEAK NOT THE NAME!
They are the eggmen!
Ooh coo kachoo!
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > Or, rather, I do CARE about it, but I have no power to DO anything on > those scales, and worrying about it would worsen my health, my attitude, > and my mental capabilities for *NO* gain.
In other words, we're not rich enough to get our legislators' attention. What do you expect us to do except worry to no effect?
In article <slrnhf78pe.epl....@gatekeeper.vic.com>, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) said:
> Trying to attach something to this newsgroup by saying 'it affects > the FUTURE! Also, the CHILDREN! Why aren't any of you LISTENING?' > doesn't work. EVERYTHING affects the future. Our future, even.
"We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future."
> Thus, ranting about present media deficiencies isn't what we're > here for.
> On Oct 30, 7:51 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
> > Howard Brazee wrote: > > > Studies have confirmed that we don't want too many choices. > > So we irrationally [1] eliminate a boatload of them to make the choice > > easier. At least, that's what I do when confronted with hundreds of TV > > channels, some of which are probably showing something more entertaining > > than the Scrubs rerun I eventaully choose.
> It's easier just to stop subscribing to cable. That eliminates all > the channels except the ones you can pick up on broadcast and saves > you boatloads of money which you can spend on season DVDs of the few > shows only on cable which were worth watching...
|
