Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Spaz · 05-02-2007, 10:29 PM

weee5067 Wrote:(of course, as technology progresses, energy consumption of more advanced gagets seems to be going down...but I don't have any facts to back any of this up).

That's not true, at least for computers. As I've learned this semester, rising power consumption is a major concern of computer architecture today.

Shattered Rift · (This post was last modified: 05-02-2007 11:20 PM by Shattered Rift.)

Metalwarrior Wrote:The internet can be pretty manipulable, so it is easy to control the people, since books are not so visited, it is easier to find things that the t.v. and radio have censored.

I generally agree (excluding AM radio, since it tends not to be so censored), but I'm going to ask a question anyway: what makes books more credible than the media? I know there's no restrictions to what's posted on the net (or at least, no requirement for accuracy), but I'm not familiar with the requirements for a book to be published. (Maybe you aren't either, in which case someone else may need to address this.) There are certainly books that agree and support the media's perspective.

weee5067 Wrote:the problem is that some people are so opposed to certain advancements due to sheer ignorance.

Do you think there's any credibility to their perspective? Not just, "they're allowed to have their own opinion," but actual credibility. (That might be too general a question to ask without a specific debate.)

One last thought that occurred to me, for another branch of discussion: with the increasing reliance and necessity of technology, how screwed are we if it falls through? (ie, a Y2K-like event actually taking place rather than flopping, or something else earth-shattering.) I know I'd be screwed, Toungue

.

weee5067 · 05-03-2007, 06:04 AM

Shattered Rift Wrote:
Metalwarrior Wrote:The internet can be pretty manipulable, so it is easy to control the people, since books are not so visited, it is easier to find things that the t.v. and radio have censored.
I generally agree (excluding AM radio, since it tends not to be so censored), but I'm going to ask a question anyway: what makes books more credible than the media? I know there's no restrictions to what's posted on the net (or at least, no requirement for accuracy), but I'm not familiar with the requirements for a book to be published. (Maybe you aren't either, in which case someone else may need to address this.) There are certainly books that agree and support the media's perspective.

I'm fairly sure that you can publish anything you want, provided you can find a publisher. Of course, that'd be a filter right there, to some extent. That, and you can't self-declare a book you've written to be as reliable as, say, a college textbook (yes, textbooks aren't flawless). Part of what makes books theoretically more reliable probably has to do with the fact that once a book is written and printed, it can't change. Once a book has been considered correct, our views of what "correct" is have to change to reverse the verdict. Unlike a website, which can be updated with possibly-incorrect information even after being examined and declared accurate.

As for books being more reliable than the media...well, a sudden newsflash is more likely to be misreported than the same event after extensive research years later. The media has to cater to its main audience, whereas books aren't so limited in who they can target. This isn't to say that every book is more reliable, or even different, but there are books out there that are.

Shattered Rift Wrote:
weee5067 Wrote:the problem is that some people are so opposed to certain advancements due to sheer ignorance.
Do you think there's any credibility to their perspective? Not just, "they're allowed to have their own opinion," but actual credibility. (That might be too general a question to ask without a specific debate.)

If they've done their research and actually understand what it is they're opposing, sure, what they say might have credibility. (I say "might" because I know that just because someone has knowledge doesn't mean they won't ignore it all for the sake of advancing their own personal opinions.) But if they haven't even bothered to look at what's actually going on, instead of just what they think might be happening, they have no right nor reason to complain. Granted, this argument goes both ways - if you haven't taken the time to research and understand what any potential dangers might be, you shouldn't be touting some new development as completely safe, reliable, and effective.

Benladesh · 05-05-2007, 06:02 PM

I think that its a good thing to have information via internet. i never read books for information anymore. Its a waste of time. With the speed of technology and evolution. Books just can't be made quickly enough for the information to be released on time. Internet is quick. Spend a day typing an article and it can be released the next day.

I like to read stories in books though. Harry potter, anne rice...i couldn't read that on a screen. I like to be tucked in bed, cuddled with a book and a little light and reading. It leaves more space for imagination. On the computer I always have something opened that would disturb me. AN IM program or something. I am also not as comfortable reading a story on a screen sitting..