The existence of karma can be deduced logically. Not in the reincarnation-as-a-cockroach sense, but in that the world will consistently give you back what you put out. Even if most of reality is chaos and mathematics, that which isn't is cause and effect. Acting ethically and considering others benefits you because it benefits the world and you've got to live there.
I think Ayn Rand was a very smart woman but I also think she may have been a sociopath.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Orwell Rolls in his Grave
A friend recommended this film to during a conversation about the media's responsibility to act as a check to government. It looks at the power of the corporate media and it's influence, reaching the ultimate conclusion that the media holds a more important power over the people of this country than any branch of government, as they have the ability to rewrite history and direct public opinion.
And as the keepers of information, who is the media accountable to?
Some people accuse the news media of having a liberal bias. I've always said that reality has a liberal bias, but I digress. What the makers of this film are saying is that the major players in news and entertainment are the lapdogs of government and big business, and that their modus operandi consists of keeping the public ignorant so that corrupt people can continue to enjoy their money and power.
A prominent example was made out of recent legislation passed during the Bush administration regarding the estate tax. Most of the general public had no idea that they wouldn't be affected by the estate tax, but the media worked in conjunction with the conservative party to depict the whole thing as something terrible, even relabeling it as the "death tax."
While the media could do a much better job at informing our populace, it's main function ends up being to entertain. Bread and circuses. The public is kept complacent and distracted, while those who control the news are in bed with those who control the government to make sure that things stay the way they are.
The increasingly important role of technology is a welcome de-stabilizer, in my opinion. With the internet providing more equal access to information publication, perhaps all of the uncertainty about the future will translate to some real positive change.
The film is available in parts on youtube. Here is the first:
What we want in a media system is ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
.
--Joseph Goebbels
And as the keepers of information, who is the media accountable to?
Some people accuse the news media of having a liberal bias. I've always said that reality has a liberal bias, but I digress. What the makers of this film are saying is that the major players in news and entertainment are the lapdogs of government and big business, and that their modus operandi consists of keeping the public ignorant so that corrupt people can continue to enjoy their money and power.
A prominent example was made out of recent legislation passed during the Bush administration regarding the estate tax. Most of the general public had no idea that they wouldn't be affected by the estate tax, but the media worked in conjunction with the conservative party to depict the whole thing as something terrible, even relabeling it as the "death tax."
While the media could do a much better job at informing our populace, it's main function ends up being to entertain. Bread and circuses. The public is kept complacent and distracted, while those who control the news are in bed with those who control the government to make sure that things stay the way they are.
The increasingly important role of technology is a welcome de-stabilizer, in my opinion. With the internet providing more equal access to information publication, perhaps all of the uncertainty about the future will translate to some real positive change.
The film is available in parts on youtube. Here is the first:
What we want in a media system is ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
.
--Joseph Goebbels
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
According to information gathered by the folks at alexa.com, as of may 2011, the top 10 most visited sites on the web are:
1. google.com,
2. facebook.com,
3. youtube.com
4. yahoo.com
5. blogger.com
6. baidu.com
7. Wikipedia.com
8. live.com
9. twitter.com
10. qq.com
These are the heavy hitters on the Internet.. They receive ~90% of the web's pageviews. What does this tell us?
Half of them--Google, Yahoo, Baidu, Live and QQ, are all portals to the rest of the web. They employ search algorithms to help you sift through the vast sea of information on the rest of the internet.
Facebook, youtube, blogger, wikipedia and twitter, however, all work by giving you access to content created by third parties and stored on their servers. The're the best of the web 2.0. They've managed to take your stories/information/ideas along with those of your peers and turned them into a commodity that allows them to sell ad space. For all the democratization and non-hierarchical organizing that the internet has made possible, it has also concentrated power in some quirky ways.
As far as sites that (mostly) create content on their own, we've got:
1. news.yahoo.com
2. bbc.co.uk
3. bbc.co.uk/news/
4. nytimes.com
5. cnn.com
6. huffingtonpost.com
7. weather.com
8. reddit.com
9. my.yahoo.com
10. msnbc.msn.com
These are the top news sites on the internet. None of these sites is in the general top 10+, and most of them occupy their position at the top of this list because of previously established notoriety. These news sources have history and have remained at the top of their game because people trust their reporting and because people are used to getting their news from one source.
Reddit and The Huffington Post are interesting exceptions to this rule. They operate on a model closer to that of the first group of sites, fueled by user-generated content. They're also both relative newcomers, holding their own against giants like CNN. While on one hand this indicates a decreased concentration of power whereby the information sharing process is more democratic and anyone can do journalism, the tendency among sites of this sort is to rely on people to create content for free. As a result, you've got a ton of people, each doing a little bit of work, and a handful of folks getting paid handsomely for the labor of others. Yeah. I'm looking at you, Arianna Huffington.
1. google.com,
2. facebook.com,
3. youtube.com
4. yahoo.com
5. blogger.com
6. baidu.com
7. Wikipedia.com
8. live.com
9. twitter.com
10. qq.com
These are the heavy hitters on the Internet.. They receive ~90% of the web's pageviews. What does this tell us?
Half of them--Google, Yahoo, Baidu, Live and QQ, are all portals to the rest of the web. They employ search algorithms to help you sift through the vast sea of information on the rest of the internet.
Facebook, youtube, blogger, wikipedia and twitter, however, all work by giving you access to content created by third parties and stored on their servers. The're the best of the web 2.0. They've managed to take your stories/information/ideas along with those of your peers and turned them into a commodity that allows them to sell ad space. For all the democratization and non-hierarchical organizing that the internet has made possible, it has also concentrated power in some quirky ways.
As far as sites that (mostly) create content on their own, we've got:
1. news.yahoo.com
2. bbc.co.uk
3. bbc.co.uk/news/
4. nytimes.com
5. cnn.com
6. huffingtonpost.com
7. weather.com
8. reddit.com
9. my.yahoo.com
10. msnbc.msn.com
These are the top news sites on the internet. None of these sites is in the general top 10+, and most of them occupy their position at the top of this list because of previously established notoriety. These news sources have history and have remained at the top of their game because people trust their reporting and because people are used to getting their news from one source.
Reddit and The Huffington Post are interesting exceptions to this rule. They operate on a model closer to that of the first group of sites, fueled by user-generated content. They're also both relative newcomers, holding their own against giants like CNN. While on one hand this indicates a decreased concentration of power whereby the information sharing process is more democratic and anyone can do journalism, the tendency among sites of this sort is to rely on people to create content for free. As a result, you've got a ton of people, each doing a little bit of work, and a handful of folks getting paid handsomely for the labor of others. Yeah. I'm looking at you, Arianna Huffington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)