If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia
"Neodome Admin" wrote
| Just now I drove home behind numerous people | diddling their phones. It's become a maddening, | dangerous problem. One man was driving several car | lengths behind everyone else, with his brakes on. | I finally passed him and beeped. He didn't even | look up from his phone. And it wasn't a college kid. | It was a man probably close to 70. Salt and pepper, | neatly trimmed beard. Perhaps a professor. | | TBH it's not the technology fault. There used to be people who were driving | and reading newspaper at the same time. | It certainly isn't the technology's fault. But you're looking at it backward. "So what, other people did it too!" is not a justification for the behavior. People would like to think they're excused or can't be expected to help themselves. Somehow they think the cellphone is a special case. I've never seen anyone reading a newspaper in their car, but if they did they'd at least try to manage it, or pull over. What I saw in this case, and see repeatedly, is an attitude that people think they shouldn't have to relate to the outside world. The phone is separating them, socially and perceptually. This man was in rush hour traffic, holding up the works, with no sense of social responsibility. In other words, it's not just that he's addicted to his phone. That addiction has made the world around him seem unreal. When I pass and beep my horn he doesn't realize that the beep might be a message to him. He's lost the sense of relationship with the world around him. It's a kind of functional psychosis. That disconnection seems to be part of the phone diddler pathology. People develop a connection with the activities on the phone that seems more real to them than the real world. They're habitually not where they are. The person in the next car, or in front of them on the subway, is a generic stranger, while the chatterers online are providing constant, personal feedback. But while a grown man is responsible for paying attention, it's also true that the phones are very addictive. And they're designed to be addictive. And there are thousands of talented halfwits engineering that addiction whose vision extends no further than trying to cheat people out of their money by any means necessary. They think that's clever. And they think it's hip merely because it uses the latest technology. They are responsible for their actions, just as the scam artist is not absolved by the innocence of the victim. But the issue has raised some interesting points. Some people have been moved to recognize that they were never thinking for themselves in the first place. I guess that's progress of a kind. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia
"Ant" wrote
| What about people on computers all day and daily like me instead of | smartphones? | Hopefully you're not doing it in the fast lane of the interstate. But doesn't it really depend on what you're doing? A receptionist might be on the phone all day but is working and paying attention. Likewise, an investor or architect might be on a computer all day, but they're merely using it as a tool. The article linked was really talking about peoples' experience and views being shaped by online services designed to be addictive, and how those sevices begin to become people's lives and meaning. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Mayayana wrote:
"Ant" wrote | What about people on computers all day and daily like me instead of | smartphones? | Hopefully you're not doing it in the fast lane of the interstate. Um, reread what I said. I don't use smartphones online. :P But doesn't it really depend on what you're doing? A receptionist might be on the phone all day but is working and paying attention. Likewise, an investor or architect might be on a computer all day, but they're merely using it as a tool. The article linked was really talking about peoples' experience and views being shaped by online services designed to be addictive, and how those sevices begin to become people's lives and meaning. Well, I use the Internet daily and almost all day like right now. :P -- Quote of the Week: "The ant's a centaur in his dragon world. Pull down thy vanity, it is not man... Made courage, or made order, or made grace,... Pull down thy vanity, I say pull down. Learn of the green world what can be thy place... In scaled invention or true artistry,... Pull down thy vanity,... Paquin pull down! The green casque has outdone your elegance." --Ezra Pound's poem Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly. /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit- ( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear asmartphone dystopia
On 10/11/2017 12:54 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 07:40:09 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote: On 10/10/2017 8:54 AM, David_B wrote: Google, Twitter and Facebook workers who helped make technology so addictive are disconnecting themselves from the internet. Paul Lewis reports on the Silicon Valley refuseniks alarmed by a race for human attention by Paul Lewis in San Francisco https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...alley-dystopia “A handful of people, working at a handful of technology companies, through their choices will steer what a billion people are thinking today”. (Tristan Harris, a 33-year-old former Google employee) So don't have a smartphone, I haven't. Great decision. Most people nowadays don't want to rely on a home line anymore for contacts and feel that they need to be accessible wherever they are "in case of emergency." However, they don't see how much of a prison they've created for themselves by doing just that. Back in the day, if you were out of the house then you were free of all concern. Now, with the smartphone, you're still within reach for all of your responsibilities. I can't imagine how that is better for anyone without considering what addictions such a device also ends up creating. I have a mobile, but not a smartphone. -- Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear asmartphone dystopia
On 11-Oct-17 5:57 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
It's sort of like people who have a DVR and those who don't. People without a DVR, and I know a few, are always arranging their schedule so that they can be home when their favorite programs air. The rest of us, with our fancy DVRs, take a completely different approach. We're not chained to the TV schedule. Our programs will be recorded when they air and will be available at our convenience, not at someone else's convenience. Again, it's extremely liberating. We hardly ever use our DVR nowadays. Don't you have the equivalent of BBC's iPlayer? -- David B. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:40:41 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote: On 10/11/2017 12:54 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 07:40:09 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote: On 10/10/2017 8:54 AM, David_B wrote: Google, Twitter and Facebook workers who helped make technology so addictive are disconnecting themselves from the internet. Paul Lewis reports on the Silicon Valley refuseniks alarmed by a race for human attention by Paul Lewis in San Francisco https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...alley-dystopia “A handful of people, working at a handful of technology companies, through their choices will steer what a billion people are thinking today”. (Tristan Harris, a 33-year-old former Google employee) So don't have a smartphone, I haven't. Great decision. Most people nowadays don't want to rely on a home line anymore for contacts and feel that they need to be accessible wherever they are "in case of emergency." However, they don't see how much of a prison they've created for themselves by doing just that. Back in the day, if you were out of the house then you were free of all concern. Now, with the smartphone, you're still within reach for all of your responsibilities. I can't imagine how that is better for anyone without considering what addictions such a device also ends up creating. I have a mobile, but not a smartphone. I would have gone in that direction myself (now that Apple and Google have both exposed themselves as anti-conservative) but won't since I'll be getting a Linux-based Librem smartphone once it is released. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia
"Char Jackson" wrote
| It's amazing to me that we've acclimated to such | madness. But that's really another topic. There's | cellphone addiction -- always fearing one will miss | something, as Char put it, and thus living in a kind of | mental hamster wheel of faux urgency -- | | Actually, what I said was that having mobile phone/data is extremely | liberating, which I believe is exactly the opposite of all of that noise | above. It's amazing to me that someone could skim what I wrote and come | away so confused. | "There's a very good reason why people glue their smart phone to their face - it's an endless source of information and communication. Once you have something like that, you ask yourself what took so long." So your interpretation of gluing your phone to your face is that it's "extremely liberating"? You don't know how you lived without it before. That sounds to me like you're afraid you'll miss something if you leave home without it or don't answer every beep. I'd call that an addiction. Being a source of info and communication is not the problem. The problem is that one can't do anything else properly with a phone glued to their face... and many people don't realize it. I find it hard to believe that knowing your friend just entered Starbucks and plans to have a lemon coffeecake is so important that you should risk being run over while crossing the street, in order to get that information *this second*. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE4so_oYK0I These discussions too often turn into an issue of "if you're not a technophiliac then you're a luddite". There's a lot of area between those two extremes. Like using a cellphone to make and receive phone calls, without gluing it to your face; without trying to update your Facebook while you walk down the street; without trying to text-chat with a friend while you drive. Without spending hours glued to the tempo of Twitter prattle. That's just common sense. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia
"Neodome Admin" wrote
| No, they didn't. They were doing the same thing people are doing with | cellphones now. | Another interesting look, if you're curious: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/..._the_next.html Werner Herzog made a video about the rising road deaths from texting. But that's only part of the story. The video was funded by AT&T. They're pushing the anti-texting-while-driving angle while pretending that talking on the phone is fine. Texting is positioned as scapegoat. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear asmartphone dystopia
On 12-Oct-17 8:01 AM, David_B wrote:
On 11-Oct-17 5:57 PM, Char Jackson wrote: It's sort of like people who have a DVR and those who don't. People without a DVR, and I know a few, are always arranging their schedule so that they can be home when their favorite programs air. The rest of us, with our fancy DVRs, take a completely different approach. We're not chained to the TV schedule. Our programs will be recorded when they air and will be available at our convenience, not at someone else's convenience. Again, it's extremely liberating. We hardly ever useÂ* our DVR nowadays. Don't you have the equivalent of BBC's iPlayer? Well? Cat got your tongue?!! D. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia
Boris wrote in
5.223: snip Corrections (should have proofed): snip Well, the car didn't stop and crashed into my rear end, and my trunk ended up in my rear seat. We smashed into the car in front of us, and did a 18 did a *180* and kept yelling 'open the door, open the door') *I* kept yelling snip |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 18:14:49 +0100, David_B
wrote: A dreadful tale. :-( So pleased to learn that you and your wife weren't killed or seriously injured, Boris. A warning to newcomers: https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php DON'T click on any links he posts. They are usually malware. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear asmartphone dystopia
On 14-Oct-17 7:03 PM, Shadow *LIED* .... AGAIN.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 18:14:49 +0100, David_B wrote: A dreadful tale. :-( So pleased to learn that you and your wife weren't killed or seriously injured, Boris. DON'T click on any links he posts. They are usually malware. I've never posted malare, as well you know. You are a fraud, Shadow. So sad. :-( |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear asmartphone dystopia
On 15-Oct-17 12:48 AM, Diesel wrote:
David_B [....] I've never posted malare, as well you know. Actually, you have posted links to urls that contained various scripts that would qualify in one way shape or form as malware. The fact YOU were unaware it was present doesn't negate your responsibility. If this is true, it is YOUR responsibility to advise me WHEN this happened. You claimed that I had NOT sent you any malware samples! You are a fraud, Shadow. So sad. :-( It's you who's the fraud, David. It's always been you. Not so. I'm the most honest person posting here! :-) -- David B. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia
David_B
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 11:41:54 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 15-Oct-17 12:48 AM, Diesel wrote: David_B [....] I've never posted malare, as well you know. Actually, you have posted links to urls that contained various scripts that would qualify in one way shape or form as malware. The fact YOU were unaware it was present doesn't negate your responsibility. If this is true, it is YOUR responsibility to advise me WHEN this happened. It's true. It's not my responsibility to baby sit you. I've tried previously to provide you sound advice and I wasted my time. I see no reason to continue doing so and expecting a different outcome. You claimed that I had NOT sent you any malware samples! That's true. You never sent me anything that was malware, despite my asking you to do so, several times. Instead, you wanted me to crack into the server hosting the website(s) themselves and have a closer look around. When I told you I'd be more than happy to examine any specific urls you thought might point to malware, but, I wasn't going to crack into the servers and go on a wild goose chase, You offered to pay me to do it. When I politely declined your job offer, you decided you'd try to blackmail me into doing it by posting a gsv of what you thought was my house, several times, in several different newsgroups. Most of which, btw, I was not subscribed to. When Aardvark asked you in person why you did that, you gave him quite the song and dance and admitted that I might consider you doing something like that a security risk to myself and others due to my past that you were well aware of prior to doing it. In other words, you blew smoke up his ass. What you did was intentional on your part and you did it because I politely declined your repeated requests, including offer of payment to commit illegal computer trespass for your own personal benefit. Not one single time did you provide even a suspicious url for me to examine. Not once. You didn't contact me out of the blue, either. You were trying to build a 'friendship' with me so that you could talk me into doing some shady things for you later on down the road. You selected me because of what you'd already read about me. You thought, incorrectly that if you portrayed yourself as a user of my freeware program that was having difficulty you could get to know more about me and later, abuse the 'friendship' you incorrectly thought you had acquired from me. You had alterior motives from the first email you sent me and thought you could outsmart me. I'm not sure why you thought you could, but, obviously your efforts to do so not only failed, but caused your own doxing on a much wider scale to occur. A doxing, that, you've tried for years now to punish me for all to no avail. It seems to me that you think it's okay to do rotten things to others, but, it's not okay for anyone else to treat you like the pile of **** you actually are. Where you get such a silly idea, I do not know. It's you who's the fraud, David. It's always been you. Not so. I'm the most honest person posting here! :-) No, you aren't. That's akin to pcbutts claiming that remove-it was his original work and not the copy/paste job it actually was. In other words, it was a program he took a copy of from someone else and placed his own name on it. And, it was proven he did this, multiple times, too. -- Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors: Life's Law: NOTHING ever happens until it does. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear asmartphone dystopia
On 10-Oct-17 10:37 PM, Paul wrote:
David_B wrote: WHY are you a chronic nym-shifting psychopath troll, John Doe? David, I like to think of you as a chronically off-topic troll, who likes to crosspost. Does that description fit you better ? Â*Â* Paul No. What did you think of the article, Paul? https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...alley-dystopia -- David B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|