Re: State of the internet

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

J. Landman Gay
On 10/2/12 10:34 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:

> Jacque-
>
> Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 8:00:38 PM, you wrote:
>
>> I suppose in ten years we'll look at our desktop machines with the same
>> nostalgia as we do now with typewriters. At least, those of us who
>> remember typewriters, which of course I've only read about...
>
> ...I've heard about reading. What was that like?
>

Much, much faster than stone etchings.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

mwieder
Jacque-

Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 8:00:38 PM, you wrote:

> Interesting set of graphs. Looks like RR was wise to focus on mobile:

> <http://www.businessinsider.com/state-of-internet-slides-2012-10?op=1>

Very interesting. Thanks. But...

Smartphone sales soon to dwarf personal computer sales? First off,
they're different markets - ever hear of a smartphone farm? Secondly,
smartphones are more of a commodity item, partly because of the price
differential and partly because there's more of a planned obsolescence
approach to marketing the latest model and dumping last years'.

(someone clue me in on what a "feature phone" is)

"Angry Birds has over 1 billion downloads"
"2+ billion people online"
"2/3 of the world left to go"
"1/7 of the world's population use Facebook"

OK... so 1 out of every 2 people online has downloaded Angry Birds and
roughly that same number is on Facebook.

...and folks who haven't yet bought into all the hype are the
"under-penetrated segments in U.S."?

Interesting last slide showing a decline in developer interest in ALL
mobile platforms over the last two years.

Interesting also in that there's no mention of the influence of
litigation on growth and stagnation.

--
-Mark Wieder
 [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftware@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

Richard Gaskin
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
J. Landman Gay wrote:

 > Interesting set of graphs. Looks like RR was wise to focus on mobile:
 >
 > <http://www.businessinsider.com/state-of-internet-slides-2012-10?op=1>

Laptops overtook desktop sales nearly a decade ago.  This mobile trend
has been progressing steadily since, enjoying ever-steeper adoption
rates as the technology gets smaller, lighter, and consumes less power.

This chart from your link is especially encouraging for us LiveCode
developers:
<http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/50649f2769bedd1562000006-900/.jpg>

While most of the newer generation of developers are focusing
exclusively on the biggest percentage in that chart (smartphones), those
of us using an omni-platform tool like LiveCode can also fully
capitalize on the the second-biggest segment as well, labeled there as
"Personal Computers".

A majority of the apps in both the iOS and Android app stores are
earning between minimum wage and zero, while desktop software continues
to be the solid business opportunity we've always enjoyed, only bigger:  
that chart shows the PC sales increasing year over year at roughly the
same rate of growth from 2000 through 2015.

Most of our competition has never designed for the desktop; they know
only mobile, and earn only mobile revenues.

But us LiveCoders can extend our existing desktop model into the mobile
arena in ways that compliment both.  We're not affected by the downward
pressure on prices that inhibit mobile-only devs; for many of us here,
mobile software is effectively just a feature we add to our desktop
offerings.

RunRev is in a very good spot indeed, far beyond the limited role of
desktop-only or even mobile-only tools in our increasingly diverse world.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

J. Landman Gay
In reply to this post by mwieder
On 10/2/12 11:10 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:

> (someone clue me in on what a "feature phone" is)

They're a business magazine, they don't know the jargon, and
"not-dumb-phone" is longer to spell.

> ...and folks who haven't yet bought into all the hype are the
> "under-penetrated segments in U.S."?

Actually, I got the impression they're looking at marketing
opportunities because TV and newspapers are tanking. Mobile is the new
money space. Google is winning.

>
> Interesting last slide showing a decline in developer interest in ALL
> mobile platforms over the last two years.

More for me! Er, us.

>
> Interesting also in that there's no mention of the influence of
> litigation on growth and stagnation.
>

Litigation doesn't provide ad space. This article is about selling to
the masses. Although I did just read recently that Facebook users don't
click on ads much, so that's one-seventh of the online population down
the tubes.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

Robert Presender
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
on Oct 2, 2012 Jacque wrote

< I suppose in ten years we'll look at our desktop machines with the same
nostalgia as we do now with typewriters. At least, those of us who
remember typewriters, which of course I've only read about…

Hi Jacque
 
When I was 12, my mother bought me a Royal portable typewriter which is still in the family.

Let's see … that was 80 years ago!

Bob
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

mwieder
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
Jacque-

Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 10:13:48 PM, you wrote:

> Litigation doesn't provide ad space. This article is about selling to
> the masses. Although I did just read recently that Facebook users don't
> click on ads much, so that's one-seventh of the online population down
> the tubes.

No, that's one-seventh of the *world's* population, or roughly one out
of every two internet users.

--
-Mark Wieder
 [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftware@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

slylabs13
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
I respectfully disagree. They would have to make a mobile device as connectable as a laptop, which in my mind would probably end up looking a lot like a laptop, at which point people would be clamoring for more screen real estate. The screen real estate is something you just cannot get around. You can micro miniaturize the device, but the screen can only get so small and then people will not use it for serious computing tasks.

What has really happened in the marketplace is that someone finally came out with a mobile device that most consumers found adequate for what they do with such a device. In the past, all users had at their disposal was a laptop that was far more powerful than they needed, but it was all that was available. Now users can get something more to fit their needs and budget.

Bob


On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:00 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

> Interesting set of graphs. Looks like RR was wise to focus on mobile:
>
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/state-of-internet-slides-2012-10?op=1>
>
> I suppose in ten years we'll look at our desktop machines with the same nostalgia as we do now with typewriters. At least, those of us who remember typewriters, which of course I've only read about...


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

slylabs13
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
I think you are trying to communicate, but all I see are groups of strange shapes with random spaces between them. Wait, how are you going to read this??

Can you imagine a worldwide confusion of type Babylon-esque?

Bob


On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:34 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:

> Jacque-
>
> Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 8:00:38 PM, you wrote:
>
>> I suppose in ten years we'll look at our desktop machines with the same
>> nostalgia as we do now with typewriters. At least, those of us who
>> remember typewriters, which of course I've only read about...
>
> ...I've heard about reading. What was that like?
>


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

slylabs13
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
We gave up stone etchings because you could read into them whatever you wanted to. I might want you to stop, but you interpret me to mean, "Go right on through!" A lot of ox cart accidents happened that way.

Bob


On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:52 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

>>> I suppose in ten years we'll look at our desktop machines with the same
>>> nostalgia as we do now with typewriters. At least, those of us who
>>> remember typewriters, which of course I've only read about...
>>
>> ...I've heard about reading. What was that like?
>>
>
> Much, much faster than stone etchings.


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

slylabs13
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
People don't read junk mail much either, or click on web ads, but the few that do and end up buying something must net huge profits, because companies continue to send a ton of junk mail and pay for banner ads on websites! The entire web seems to be powered by this.

Bob


On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:13 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

> Litigation doesn't provide ad space. This article is about selling to the masses. Although I did just read recently that Facebook users don't click on ads much, so that's one-seventh of the online population down the tubes.
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

slylabs13
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
I'd like to point out something I noticed when I was young. People tend to put a lot of stock in what has happened in the past, and then apply it to predict what will happen in the future. From stock prices to global warming, everyone seems to think that trends will continue in a linear fashion because we have seen a tiny segment of something as it progresses over time, and then we make the mistake of presuming it will continue to do so in the same manner.

This is quite odd, because what we really see in life is cyclical behavior. Things go up and down. Almost nothing about real life follows a linear trend. I would venture to say absolutely nothing, but someone would doubtless point out some exception that was so obvious it made me look stupid for saying it.

Charts and graphs are great for showing us what has happened. They are almost worthless for predicting the future. If things did proceed along linear paths, Apple would be a bankrupt company and Microsoft... nay IBM would rule the world! Also you probably would not be able to buy a house in Orange County right now for under 3 million.

Bob


On Oct 2, 2012, at 8:52 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

> On 10/2/12 10:34 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
>> Jacque-
>>
>> Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 8:00:38 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose in ten years we'll look at our desktop machines with the same
>>> nostalgia as we do now with typewriters. At least, those of us who
>>> remember typewriters, which of course I've only read about...
>>
>> ...I've heard about reading. What was that like?
>>
>
> Much, much faster than stone etchings.
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[OT] State of the internet

Timothy Miller-2
On Oct 3, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:

> I'd like to point out something I noticed when I was young. People tend to put a lot of stock in what has happened in the past, and then apply it to predict what will happen in the future. From stock prices to global warming, everyone seems to think that trends will continue in a linear fashion because we have seen a tiny segment of something as it progresses over time, and then we make the mistake of presuming it will continue to do so in the same manner.
>
> This is quite odd...

Well, here we go, off topic. Possibly of interest to Bob. He started it. Perhaps of interest to no one else. My bad.

Maybe the presumption that regression lines go on to infinity represents a universal human cognitive bias. Humans are not rational creatures, though we like to think we are. We are barely capable of rationality. Lots of good research and popular-press books on that topic these days. My favorite is You Are Not So Smart. The author is a journalist, not a scientist, but I think he got his facts right. It's an easy and informative read.

I read an amusing article in Behavior and Brain Sciences. The gist: People are so bad at reasoning that many scientists wonder why they evolved to do it at all. If reasoning is usually wrong, then it would not likely have any reproductive value. One theory is that people don't reason to be right. They reason to win arguments for the sake of increasing their social status. That would explain 99% of political and religious conversations, wouldn't it?

Don't know if the full text is available on line. The abstract is here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698090

But you say, "We must be able to reason or we couldn't write LC scripts."

That's true. Under certain narrow circumstances people do reason correctly. If you must solve the same type of puzzle repeatedly and you get rapid feedback about whether you got it right or not, then you can learn to reason correctly about that particular kind of puzzle. If the LC script does what you intended, you know you got it right. You find out pretty quick.

This is why emergency room nurses usually get the diagnosis right.

Conversely this is why talking heads on TV and experts commenting on the future state of the internet get it right about as often as a monkey with a dart board.

Cheers,

Tim
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

Richard Gaskin
In reply to this post by slylabs13
Bob Sneidar wrote:

 > I'd like to point out something I noticed when I was young. People
 > tend to put a lot of stock in what has happened in the past, and
 > then apply it to predict what will happen in the future.

That's a very important point.

All of the predictions about the future market growth of today's
form-factor-du-jour, the tablet, overlook the very high likelihood that
another form factor will come along within the next two to five years
that'll be even more interesting.

Google Glass may or may not be The Next Big Thing, but it serves as a
healthy reminder that this industry is always evolving, with new form
factors every few years, and each one both complicates our lives as
x-plat devs and also opens up many new opportunities we couldn't have
conceived of before.


With regard to tablets, personally I'll be quite surprised if their peak
lifecycle winds up being any longer than that of the netbook, which
would place tablets in roughly the middle of their growth trajectory.

This is one of the few times I think a Microsoft VP got it right when he
said, "The tablet of the future of your phone".

A phone is the one computer you can carry with you without a carrying
case, backpack, or purse.

And while the touch factor is indeed profoundly satisfying to our lower
brains, you still have to hold the darn thing for the two hours of your
movie, or use a pillow or a special add-on case, while your faithful
laptop holds its own screen up all by itself, and even protects that
screen when it's closed.

And where exactly are we when tablets have docking keyboards and laptops
weight almost the same and have detachable touch screens?

Diversity of form and overlap of functionality will continue to
increasingly characterize much of what we'll see as today's devices move
forward, at least until The Next Big Thing arrives, likely within 24 to
36 months.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] State of the internet

slylabs13
In reply to this post by Timothy Miller-2
I think reasoning is what people are forced to do because they rarely have all the necessary facts, or are able to analyze the facts of a situation due to the sheer number of them, and the complexity of their application, and the lack of total understanding of mere men to truly comprehend a complex problem. Without reason, it would be impossible to function at the level we do. But function we must. If rain is falling on our heads, but we discover that hiding behind the tree diminishes this effect, reason tells us we need to find a way to put the tree over our heads and away we go. An ox would just stand there until the storm passes. He's equipped for it. We are not.

We make decisions "with the best knowledge we currently possess". These decisions may often be wrong. But I don't consider reason to be faulty, just a necessary evil. You can easily make the argument that perhaps we make too many decisions and act too often when we ought to do nothing and wait. In ancient times, I believe they called that, "wisdom". But of course, sometimes we MUST act. We are given no other choice. In that case, reason serves us well. Well, as best she can.

Nothing is more frustrating to me than someone who stops in the middle of a 3 lane road, because they are about to miss their turn, and they cannot get their minds out of brain freeze mode to consider that their position is completely untenable. The traffic backing up behind them is not likely to improve and the goal of making the turn has gotten much more complex. Reason would dictate that they think of another way to accomplish their goal. How about I just drive up to the next block and try to go around?

Better yet, after having made this mistake innumerable times (as I have to conclude they have) reason would dictate that they learn to think ahead and know what lane they have to be in before they get there. Sometimes it's the lack of (or unwillingness to apply) reason that causes our bad decisions.

One more point and I am done (to the great relief of most people reading this far I am sure). Reason cannot find out fact. Reason can prove nothing. It can only operate on facts. The great example for this is when we learned that heavier objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum as lighter ones. Almost no one by pure reason would have concluded that! The force we feel on our hands is so much greater, the heavier a thing is, vacuum or no. Surely reason tells us the result will be that heavier things fall faster! It turns out to not to be the case at all.

Why? Because we don't have all the applicable facts of physics at our disposal, because we cannot gather all of the facts together in our mind at one time, and because we don't understand how all those facts about physics apply to the current problem we are trying to solve. Once we have all the facts and understand how they apply, reason will produce the correct conclusion. Or one might say, once we have all the facts and understand them, reason has no job left to do.

Bob


On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Timothy Miller wrote:

> On Oct 3, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
>
>> I'd like to point out something I noticed when I was young. People tend to put a lot of stock in what has happened in the past, and then apply it to predict what will happen in the future. From stock prices to global warming, everyone seems to think that trends will continue in a linear fashion because we have seen a tiny segment of something as it progresses over time, and then we make the mistake of presuming it will continue to do so in the same manner.
>>
>> This is quite odd...
>
> Well, here we go, off topic. Possibly of interest to Bob. He started it. Perhaps of interest to no one else. My bad.
>
> Maybe the presumption that regression lines go on to infinity represents a universal human cognitive bias. Humans are not rational creatures, though we like to think we are. We are barely capable of rationality. Lots of good research and popular-press books on that topic these days. My favorite is You Are Not So Smart. The author is a journalist, not a scientist, but I think he got his facts right. It's an easy and informative read.
>
> I read an amusing article in Behavior and Brain Sciences. The gist: People are so bad at reasoning that many scientists wonder why they evolved to do it at all. If reasoning is usually wrong, then it would not likely have any reproductive value. One theory is that people don't reason to be right. They reason to win arguments for the sake of increasing their social status. That would explain 99% of political and religious conversations, wouldn't it?
>
> Don't know if the full text is available on line. The abstract is here:
>
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698090
>
> But you say, "We must be able to reason or we couldn't write LC scripts."
>
> That's true. Under certain narrow circumstances people do reason correctly. If you must solve the same type of puzzle repeatedly and you get rapid feedback about whether you got it right or not, then you can learn to reason correctly about that particular kind of puzzle. If the LC script does what you intended, you know you got it right. You find out pretty quick.
>
> This is why emergency room nurses usually get the diagnosis right.
>
> Conversely this is why talking heads on TV and experts commenting on the future state of the internet get it right about as often as a monkey with a dart board.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

J. Landman Gay
In reply to this post by mwieder
On 10/3/12 10:43 AM, Mark Wieder wrote:

> Jacque-
>
> Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 10:13:48 PM, you wrote:
>
>> Litigation doesn't provide ad space. This article is about selling to
>> the masses. Although I did just read recently that Facebook users don't
>> click on ads much, so that's one-seventh of the online population down
>> the tubes.
>
> No, that's one-seventh of the *world's* population, or roughly one out
> of every two internet users.
>

Geez. In that case the FB situation is worse than I thought. I wonder
when they'll pass laws forcing non-participants like me to stand outside
in the rain to use the internet.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] State of the internet

J. Landman Gay
In reply to this post by Timothy Miller-2
On 10/3/12 12:04 PM, Timothy Miller wrote:

> Maybe the presumption that regression lines go on to infinity
> represents a universal human cognitive bias. Humans are not rational
> creatures, though we like to think we are.

I'm sure it's a human trait. We are very good at pattern recognition,
and a straight line is just another pattern.

Bob's comments about having the facts was partly right-on and partly
not. I was reading an article yesterday that said we only "hear" facts
that we agree with, and which reinforce our already formed views. That's
why it is ineffective to present pure facts to counter emotionally-based
opinions like religion or politics. You have to alter the bias first
before you can use facts to reinforce your argument.

>
> I read an amusing article in Behavior and Brain Sciences. The gist:
> People are so bad at reasoning that many scientists wonder why they
> evolved to do it at all. If reasoning is usually wrong, then it would
> not likely have any reproductive value. One theory is that people
> don't reason to be right. They reason to win arguments for the sake
> of increasing their social status. That would explain 99% of
> political and religious conversations, wouldn't it?

The same article I read says that humans are mentally lazy. We need to
choose what we consider because if we didn't, we'd expend all our energy
evaluating things. So instead we find what works and presume from there.
The problem with this is that sometimes what works most of the time
doesn't always work universally.

I don't have a link to the article unfortunately because it came in
through the RSS feeds I scan daily and it has now evaporated into the
ether. But it was on Ars Technica yesterday.

> Conversely this is why talking heads on TV and experts commenting on
> the future state of the internet get it right about as often as a
> monkey with a dart board.

But given enough time they can reproduce Shakespeare. :)

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the internet

slylabs13
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
They already have that law out here in California, and they tax us for it too. (just kidding. Everyone knows it never rains in California!)

Bob


On Oct 3, 2012, at 11:09 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

> On 10/3/12 10:43 AM, Mark Wieder wrote:
>> Jacque-
>>
>> Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 10:13:48 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> Litigation doesn't provide ad space. This article is about selling to
>>> the masses. Although I did just read recently that Facebook users don't
>>> click on ads much, so that's one-seventh of the online population down
>>> the tubes.
>>
>> No, that's one-seventh of the *world's* population, or roughly one out
>> of every two internet users.
>>
>
> Geez. In that case the FB situation is worse than I thought. I wonder when they'll pass laws forcing non-participants like me to stand outside in the rain to use the internet.
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay  


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] State of the internet

Peter Haworth
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
Part of the problem is finding the right facts.  If you read a "fact" that
happens to support your argument then obviously you think it's true.
 Problem is, so many "facts" spouted by experts on any number of subjects
these days are either misguided, biased, or flat out wrong.  There's a
great book by David Freedman named "Wrong" which discusses the reasons for
this, some quite frightening.

Pete
lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>



On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:50 AM, J. Landman Gay <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Bob's comments about having the facts was partly right-on and partly not.
> I was reading an article yesterday that said we only "hear" facts that we
> agree with, and which reinforce our already formed views. That's why it is
> ineffective to present pure facts to counter emotionally-based opinions
> like religion or politics. You have to alter the bias first before you can
> use facts to reinforce your argument.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] State of the internet

mwieder
Pete-

Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 12:27:13 PM, you wrote:

> Part of the problem is finding the right facts.  If you read a "fact" that
> happens to support your argument then obviously you think it's true.

I'll see that when I believe it.

--
-Mark Wieder
 [hidden email]


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftware@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OT] State of the internet

slylabs13
In reply to this post by J. Landman Gay
This all goes to another principle I have, that no two parties in a debate will get anywhere at all, unless both have the grasping of truth as their highest priority. Both parties must love truth. If either party has proving they are right as their goal, neither will get anywhere. People like that think they are secure in their beliefs, but are actually not secure at all. One only needs to introduce a few more "facts" (though they need not be true) and you can get them to do almost anything you want. Wars and revolutions begin this way.

You might say that truth is different things to different people, but that is not what I mean by truth. I mean "the way things really are" as opposed to "the way we perceive them". The first is what I mean by fact. The second is I suppose what we might mean by reason, or what reason leads us to think. But even reason must tell us that there really is an inexorable nature to all things, and if we are mistaken about that nature, it's not nature's fault but ours. It also, by the way, ought to tell us that everything we base on our misperception of a things nature is going to lead to more errors down the road.

If we are ready to shed ways of thinking when facts disagree with us, then we might get on. I would only caution that, as with my original post, we are almost never (I would venture to say absolutely never) in possession of all the information we need to make really informed decisions, and the very best kinds of deception in this world involve telling just the right truths, and skipping just the right ones.

To quote a very wise man, "Test all things. Hold fast to what is good." And for the sake of those who really don't want to know I will withhold the author. You can readily find it if you google it.

On another note, I would say that one reason we love to develop or work with computers, is that it is an environment that has at least the perception of being completely knowable and predictable. Given all the electrons are flowing from point a to point b as engineered, we can tell a computer to add one to one and we will always get two. Oh there is still a lot we don't know, but it seems clear to us that the pool of knowledge is at least in theory, not infinite or unattainable.

In real life we can do all the right things and have everything turn out oh so wrong. In our computer worlds, all works as it ought to, and if it doesn't, why we KNOW that there is a tangible reason for it. The CPU overheated. The preferences file got corrupted. The developer made a mistake and there is a bug. There is a point we know we will get to if we try hard enough where we will say, "Ah hah! Got it!"

In the real world we will probably never know why most things happen the way they do. But being somewhat older now than I used to be, it dawns on me that it doesn't matter that I know. I'd probably do all the wrong things to fix it, because having gained all knowledge, I still would lack understanding and wisdom to know what to do about it.

Bob


On Oct 3, 2012, at 11:50 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

> On 10/3/12 12:04 PM, Timothy Miller wrote:
>
>> Maybe the presumption that regression lines go on to infinity
>> represents a universal human cognitive bias. Humans are not rational
>> creatures, though we like to think we are.
>
> I'm sure it's a human trait. We are very good at pattern recognition, and a straight line is just another pattern.
>
> Bob's comments about having the facts was partly right-on and partly not. I was reading an article yesterday that said we only "hear" facts that we agree with, and which reinforce our already formed views. That's why it is ineffective to present pure facts to counter emotionally-based opinions like religion or politics. You have to alter the bias first before you can use facts to reinforce your argument.
>
>>
>> I read an amusing article in Behavior and Brain Sciences. The gist:
>> People are so bad at reasoning that many scientists wonder why they
>> evolved to do it at all. If reasoning is usually wrong, then it would
>> not likely have any reproductive value. One theory is that people
>> don't reason to be right. They reason to win arguments for the sake
>> of increasing their social status. That would explain 99% of
>> political and religious conversations, wouldn't it?
>
> The same article I read says that humans are mentally lazy. We need to choose what we consider because if we didn't, we'd expend all our energy evaluating things. So instead we find what works and presume from there. The problem with this is that sometimes what works most of the time doesn't always work universally.
>
> I don't have a link to the article unfortunately because it came in through the RSS feeds I scan daily and it has now evaporated into the ether. But it was on Ars Technica yesterday.
>
>> Conversely this is why talking heads on TV and experts commenting on
>> the future state of the internet get it right about as often as a
>> monkey with a dart board.
>
> But given enough time they can reproduce Shakespeare. :)
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
12