Coffee post for the day!
So, reading my Sunday copy of NYT, I was informed as a 'discerning reader' that my rate for home delivery is going up. Fine. Damn. So, how do I really feel? I'm much better thanks. You can expect a few more blog posts as I return from being sick with the flu. Not *that* flu, mind you. By the way, that coffee was taken to go, and back on the 18th. I have some catching up to do! Do you like my orange thongs?
The flu. Mexico City must be commended for alleviating what could have been a much worse and far wider flu epidemic. I'm sure people are tired of hearing news about it, and some actually think the whole issue was overblown. It makes me upset that people think the news was overblown, that it was too much. It really got the attention it should have gotten, that's the underlying truth on the matter, regardless what less scientifically inclined people think.
You know what I think? The increased access to sources of information has created an atmosphere of information overload more now than ever before. People used to wonder about the Internet causing information overload, and that was long before now. The people that were noisy about it in the past, have since been silenced because of search engines. Search engines were to find the needles in haystacks of information glut, and served to shut them up.
Now the noise has has reached a fairly serious fever-pitch level today. I'm not on an anti-freedom rant here, but I think it's too much nonsense. Don't mistake what I'm saying. Information overload is a well-known way to obfuscate actionable information. I continue to subscribe to my physical copy of The New York Times because the information in it does not need to reach me at the speed of light.
The journalism in physical papers tends to be superior than anything the Internet can produce, unless a valid journalist produces it. If I go looking for some special piece of information, the Internet usually is a great source for that, for it is incredibly vast. The news? Other than for stupid pet tricks. I don't need the Internet for news other than anything big and quick breaking and serious all at once, like some new freaky storm about to blow my house down. Global warming will kill us all in the end.
The Internet is great for fast breaking news. It's the news in the middle where the Internet leaves me wanting. The middle is where I can read about who President Obama nominates for the next supreme court justice. I'm not in politics (yet), so I don't really need to know the very second he makes a choice like that. I want to read about what people think after Obama makes his choices.
People write utter nonsense and speculation on the Web (like what produced my recent Reputation Management crisis), it pollutes the world with misinformation and utter nonsense. Some people spam dating sites with posts and one liners in order to find a wife. I see that junk all the time. I'm amazed how gullible and naive people are. Has everyone given up? I think all this has corroded the Web and blithe bloggers with little to no HTML skill are largely to blame for wrecking it. Thanks.
I'm not going to trust any blogger on the Internet to tell me what to personally think (I'm amazed how many do). I'm going to make sure I get my view from the thoughts of people that I trust to give me a perspective that I can believe in. As for Obama's supreme court justice choice? I'm going to see it, hear it and read about it in my sources of information (radio, print, TV *and* Web).
It's the thought provoking analysis that beats the immediacy of the Web in my opinion. The Web is great for stupid pet tricks and entertainment news. It sometimes breaks newsworthy events that are then properly supplemented by traditional media perspective shortly afterwards. I view it all. That's me, in a nutshell. I'm a savvy information consumer with today's news sources (worried about the future of newspapers).
Stay tuned.
So, reading my Sunday copy of NYT, I was informed as a 'discerning reader' that my rate for home delivery is going up. Fine. Damn. So, how do I really feel? I'm much better thanks. You can expect a few more blog posts as I return from being sick with the flu. Not *that* flu, mind you. By the way, that coffee was taken to go, and back on the 18th. I have some catching up to do! Do you like my orange thongs?
The flu. Mexico City must be commended for alleviating what could have been a much worse and far wider flu epidemic. I'm sure people are tired of hearing news about it, and some actually think the whole issue was overblown. It makes me upset that people think the news was overblown, that it was too much. It really got the attention it should have gotten, that's the underlying truth on the matter, regardless what less scientifically inclined people think.
You know what I think? The increased access to sources of information has created an atmosphere of information overload more now than ever before. People used to wonder about the Internet causing information overload, and that was long before now. The people that were noisy about it in the past, have since been silenced because of search engines. Search engines were to find the needles in haystacks of information glut, and served to shut them up.
Now the noise has has reached a fairly serious fever-pitch level today. I'm not on an anti-freedom rant here, but I think it's too much nonsense. Don't mistake what I'm saying. Information overload is a well-known way to obfuscate actionable information. I continue to subscribe to my physical copy of The New York Times because the information in it does not need to reach me at the speed of light.
The journalism in physical papers tends to be superior than anything the Internet can produce, unless a valid journalist produces it. If I go looking for some special piece of information, the Internet usually is a great source for that, for it is incredibly vast. The news? Other than for stupid pet tricks. I don't need the Internet for news other than anything big and quick breaking and serious all at once, like some new freaky storm about to blow my house down. Global warming will kill us all in the end.
The Internet is great for fast breaking news. It's the news in the middle where the Internet leaves me wanting. The middle is where I can read about who President Obama nominates for the next supreme court justice. I'm not in politics (yet), so I don't really need to know the very second he makes a choice like that. I want to read about what people think after Obama makes his choices.
People write utter nonsense and speculation on the Web (like what produced my recent Reputation Management crisis), it pollutes the world with misinformation and utter nonsense. Some people spam dating sites with posts and one liners in order to find a wife. I see that junk all the time. I'm amazed how gullible and naive people are. Has everyone given up? I think all this has corroded the Web and blithe bloggers with little to no HTML skill are largely to blame for wrecking it. Thanks.
I'm not going to trust any blogger on the Internet to tell me what to personally think (I'm amazed how many do). I'm going to make sure I get my view from the thoughts of people that I trust to give me a perspective that I can believe in. As for Obama's supreme court justice choice? I'm going to see it, hear it and read about it in my sources of information (radio, print, TV *and* Web).
It's the thought provoking analysis that beats the immediacy of the Web in my opinion. The Web is great for stupid pet tricks and entertainment news. It sometimes breaks newsworthy events that are then properly supplemented by traditional media perspective shortly afterwards. I view it all. That's me, in a nutshell. I'm a savvy information consumer with today's news sources (worried about the future of newspapers).
Stay tuned.
Leave a comment