Letters to the Editor
mattwa33186
Published Letters: 395 Editor's Choice: 41
-
Einstein didn't know his own phone number
[Read the article: What's the matter with kids today?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He didn't have to, because he had a phone book. Love him or hate him, you have to admit he was a pretty smart guy and he quickly realized the value of institutional memory and put it to good use. That "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote means a lot more than most people think it does.
So the fact that kids don't know facts is just a sign of the times, which are a changin'. Just like most people in their 30's aren't very good at doing math in their heads because of calculators - why bother?
But if you aren't using that suddenly excess brain power for something useful, like Albert did, now that's a problem. If kids (and by kids I mean 20 somethings, teenagers are always going to be teenagers) aren't utilizing the vast institutional memory we have available to us now to figure out the whys of what happened before so we can be better in the future, then we are fucked.
But if 25% of them are actually taking advantage of our new capabilities, we'll be fine. I'd guess that 25% would be a lot more well informed, thoughtful, concerned citizens than we've ever had in our history.
The Gutenberg Project and Google Books are great examples of forward thinking folks working to ensure that the ideas we had before are incorporated into our new memory and not lost forever.
The real problems with the internet are obvious to the older generations, maybe not so obvious to most kids. As has been stated, it doesn't tell you what to look for. Old knowledge gathering was interruption based - you were told what to look for, and skipping past it was not an option. New knowledge gathering is permission based - you pick what you want to know and can easily delete or ignore anything that doesn't interest you - outside of schools, which need to focus on finding subjects that provide real value to the students at the end if they want to keep their attention.
The other problem is that low barriers to entry (anyone can publish anything) mean we have almost no institutional bullshit filters in place anymore. Thus the return to prominence of experts as opposed to users.
The internet, like humanity, is a self organizing system. And both are going through some growing pains at the moment, like any self organizing system will in the earliest stages. The exciting thing is that humanity is, by and large, sentient :). So the self organizing system that is humanity possesses it's own latent sentience, which means that at some point it (as a whole) is going to become aware. That's when the real fun will begin, and the internet is going to be a big part of that happening.
Change is always scary and viewed as bad by some. I prefer to take the view that if we haven't done something before we need to wait and see before we decide if the change is for the better or for the worse.
-
I don't like Bush and Co.
[Read the article: A sickening truth at Guantánamo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I have no problem believing that this adminstration is capable of absolutely anything. But is any of this actually true?
How does a largely unsubstantiated article like this make it to the front page of Salon? Standards, people, standards.
-
Better this story than another well-documented expose on the Luv Guv.
[Read the article: A sickening truth at Guantánamo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So very true :)
And while you are right about the secrecy and lies that surround just about everything this administration has done, I find the fact that we are reduced to this kind of journalism just as depressing and disgusting as the acts themselves (if they are real).
Just more damage by the Retard in Charge, I guess.
-
It is only those who have something to hide who fear unbiased and impartial inquiry.
[Read the article: A sickening truth at Guantánamo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And it's only those who are contemplating acts of terrorism who need to fear the shredding of the Constitution.
I'd rephrase that to read "It is only governments who have something to hide who fear unbiased and impartial inquiry."
-
Affirmative action is *not* discriminatory?
[Read the article: Geraldine Ferraro still needs to apologize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow. And here I thought making business decisons and assigning contracts based on race was wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
@Elephantman
[Read the article: A sickening truth at Guantánamo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So if this guy actually was a terrorist, or a drug dealer, or anything bad at all, don't you think 5 years should be sufficient time to prove it? Or at least be able to walk into court with a case that would warrant a trial?
Is there any limit to what you can excuse on behalf of this administration?
-
And why do you think they can prove anything?
[Read the article: A sickening truth at Guantánamo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many of these people have ever been tried and convicted? Where is the track record that supports the contention that there are valid, legal cases against these people? How many have ever even had charges brought against them?
Taking people from their homes and locking them up for extended periods without evidence or due process makes us no better than Cuba or Venezuela. Maybe worse, at least those countries have sham trials and try to give the appearance of adhering to the rule of law. We can't even be bothered with that much.
-
Why they link to her songs
[Read the article: For Ashley Alexandra Dupre, selling music beats selling sex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because people are going to want to hear them (obviously, since she has apparently sold a bunch of them in the last couple of days), which makes them interesting content, which is beneficial to Salon. Time on site is something large web sites sell to advertisers, and keeping people here instead of sending them off to find things elsewhere helps raise the rates.
This is, after all, a commercial enterprise.
-
He's right, Farhad
[Read the article: For Ashley Alexandra Dupre, selling music beats selling sex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When no less an authority than Perez Hilton contradicts your story, you are well and truly fucked my friend. Better pull it down before the new Walter Cronkite starts beating you over the head with it.
Maybe you can solve your other "problem" by having an online debate with the other Salon writers.
"She's a whore."
"She's an empowered woman."
"She's a whore."
"She used her sexuality to reshape the tragic world that men created for her."
"She's a whore."
Etc.., etc...,