Obama Calls Today's Ubiquitous Gadgets and Information "a Distraction" 545
zaphod was one of several readers unhappy with the sentiment expressed in President Obama's graduation address to the students of Virginia's Hampton University, writing: "According to Obama, 'information becomes a distraction' when it comes to iPads, the Xbox, etc. (All items he admits not knowing how to use.) He's basically saying we are getting too much information too quickly, and from 'unreliable sources.' Of course, he's referring to talk radio, blogs and other mediums that tend to disagree with his political views."
CNET has a slightly different, less critical reaction, focusing on the differences among the actual devices named; they note that the Xbox is not an iPad.
pot and kettles (Score:2, Interesting)
Bill Gates talked about this a decade ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Bill Gates talked about Information Fatigue years ago when Microsoft was trying to bring together disparate information systems with their backend server tools.
Here's an article from 2006
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2006/05-17eim.mspx [microsoft.com]
The idea was that it wasn't too much information coming in that was the problem. Rather it was too much pure data and "dumb" information being presented to users. This led to users getting too wrapped up in filtering this information themselves and spending too little time with the data that they truly needed.
Pascal once wrote "The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter." Cutting through the vast amount of unnecessary data to get to important intelligence is time consuming. Obama is right, but he's also a decade late.
Re:That was then, this is now (Score:4, Interesting)
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." ... --Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Anyone else been noticing the difference between what comes out of Obama's mouth, and what his administration actually does? The term "distraction" isn't far off the mark.
Well I see his point, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with him on this one. Sort of...
We are getting distracted by disinformation from bloggers who crave web hits over actual journalism. We also don't place enough value on actual journalists (you know the trained professions) who go out in the field and research the report, and their editors who fact check the story (*cough*) before it is placed on the web or in print.
We live in an echo chamber. Where if it's linked by three bloggers then it must be true. Where if it's similar to what you wish were true then it must be true.
My only beef is that he didn't mind the unsubstantiated "information" that benefited his position and allowed him to win an election with nothing more than a "Yes We Can" slogan.
Live by the tweets and blogs, die by the tweets and blogs...
I think it would be more accurate to say that we are distracted by technology (games, tweets, etc.) instead of actually trying to learn something... Really, how many teenagers are actually using technology to learn something beneficial? Really?
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Interesting)
The ability to spread information so quickly and so ubiquitously could definitely be a useful tool for this, methinks.
Re:Transparency (Score:3, Interesting)
the gadgetry itself and the triviality it promotes is absorbing so much time and attention that we're ignoring other things that might be more important to our civic lives.
Our lives, civic or otherwise (I personally live en el campo and try to have as little to do with town as possible because I live in upper redneckistan) are made up of moments. Minutiae; minutes. What's more important than staying in touch with those we care about, or with information we care about? Not too much. You have to get work done, but being informed is a necessity if you want to work intelligently. If I spend half as much time working but get just as much done, it's hard to see it as a loss. Could I do twice as much? Maybe, but I am not work unit 23-4-12 beta. I am a human and would like to enjoy the sands through the hourglass, thanks.
It's gotten to the point where kids (in particular) aren't even coming up for air sometimes.
So kick their ass outside. [most] Children don't understand negative feedback loops at a deep level until you teach them.
That said, who knows where it will all lead, or whether it will be for better or worse or something in between. I'd like to think that we're strengthening democracy and public participation, but my fear is that control and manipulation may win the day...
As long as people are using their devices for communication there will be more benefits than drawbacks. Cooperation is what we need most right now. But as well, as long as ten media conglomerates control over 95% of the media in the USA and more than 50% of the media in the entire world, the media is more your enemy than your friend. Then again, the internet has given us unparalleled ability to access non-mainstream media; if the white house wants to improve the quality of our communications, how about reinstating laws that prevented a single entity from owning too many media outlets?
Information bubble (Score:5, Interesting)
The other problem I am becoming more concerned about is people building bubbles of information and opion which does not include outside POVs.
What I mean is that people read blogs, watch TV shows etc., which only serve to reinforce their current world view. Whether that be to the left or right in the political spectrum. Or opinions on scientific research, or religious groups.
Recently I went to a precinct meeting of my $PoliticalPartyofMyChoice. I then volunteered to serve as a delegate to the county caucus. In this situation I was forced meet with, in real life, people I did not agree with. Even in the same political party there can a wide variety of points of view, biases, misinformation, lack of good information, undiscussed issues of concern to you etc. Speaking to people face to face without the shroud of the internet forced me to think about things and review some of my biases and positions. I had argue (in the classical sense of the word, as in "to debate") some of my points and allow myself to be educated.
It was actually was a good experience due to that. I would recommend it. Put down the iPad and XBox, get out of the house, and get involved face-to-face.
As much as I like to disagree with Obama... (Score:2, Interesting)
I recently moved to a place where the quality of dialup I had in 1991 is considered broadband. Occasionally a text gets through on my iphone but I can't hold a normal call. I have a verizon 3g card but it drops connection when I get up for coffee. There is no cable TV or broadband service. I have to drive 3 miles to get out of the valley I live in to get cell phone service with AT&T which will allow me to place a call and finish it.
I've never felt more alive.
Sounds strange, but I agree on this one. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is weird coming from a gadget freak, but people really are bomarded by way too much information at once. I can think of a lot of examples:
I'm not some Luddite who thinks we need to go back in time - we just need to learn as a society when to turn down the huge amount of noise coming in. Some noise is good, but when it means you can't sit still for 20 seconds, something has gotten out of whack.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:4, Interesting)
...the original article does have a point about most people's definition of an "unreliable source" being "a source I don't agree with."
.
Bullshit.
Please define "most people", and cite your references.
It is damned easy to throw out blanket statements like this, especially when they have a kind of seductive way of prompting us to shrug and say, "Well, that makes sense." It is somewhat harder to actually think about what is being said. The strong implication is that all "sources" are reliable and we discount those we disagree with as un-reliable simply because we disagree with them. "Talk radio" is demonstrably unreliable as a source of information. And why should it be otherwise? It's an entertainment medium, designed to sell commercials, and nothing more. The fact that I disagree with him 99% of the time doesn't change the fact that Glenn Beck is fountain of nonsense 99% of the time. But I don't lose any sleep over Beck selling commercials to those willing to support his goofy show. I most certainly do lose sleep over the fact that there are a lot of people out there who think that Glenn is any kind of credible information source.
What all this has to do with iPads and whatnot, I don't really get, but I have a strong suspicion that some speech writer was trying to make the prez look a little less threatening (i.e. not "young and radical") to the demographic group that historically has trouble coping with changes... like "...all them new-fangled information gadgets".
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Interesting)
Well let's see:
First of all, "built in AD 685"? No such claim can be made - even Muslim "scholars" argue over the building timeframe.
Second of all, "AD 685" is more than 50 years after Mohammed's (ptooie) death, and the Umayyid dynasty's construction of a Mosque and structures called "the farthest", in reference to an obscure koranic line that has no basis to refer to any physical location on earth... yeah. We're talking not about a "holy site of Islam" here, but the equivalent of those "Jesusland" theme parks that occasionally pop up in the southern US by nutbag christians.
I know its history, so I call it what it is: a joke. Any Muslim who goes there to "worship" is praying to the almighty coin, nothing more.
Re:Transparency (Score:4, Interesting)
What money has he put into cleaning up the oil spill, besides the money it cost to put on pressers yelling at BP? I mean, I'm sure he's mobilized some units of the Reserves, Coast Guard, and Navy/Air Force, but what real tangible action has the US Government taken, while our coastline (I'm from the Florida Panhandle, and trust me, we're already being affected) is getting fucked over. I can understand how a big portion of the fault lies with BP and the company they've contracted to run the oil rig that started this mess, but it was the US Government that gave them the authority to drill there in the first place with large acreage of drill rights given (sold) to BP from the US.
That means, as much as Mr. Obama may not like this, his government (regardless of the fact that it was some previous administration/congress that actually sold the rights) is partially responsible, and thus is partially also responsible for the cleanup effort. Also, it would be hypocritical for him to make such a big deal about how the previous administration handled Katrina, and then essentially do little besides call an oil company names in the media. I think the more responsible action would be to assist BP in whatever way possible with whatever assets it takes to get the oil spill contained, and then determine if BP should continue to retain the rights they own due to their negligence in preventing the spill in the first place (many supposed fail safes didn't even work correctly).
Of course, people against oil drilling in the Gulf are taking this opportunity to call for a halt in all oil drilling in this area, but in fact it's more of a cluster fuck by one company at one rig that resulted in this entire mess. They certainly do need to evaluate if BP should continue to be allowed to drill in the Gulf, and the need for better oversight on the safety measures being taken at these oil rigs. Also, I personally would rather us club baby seals and drill in Alaska than fuck up the Gulf of Mexico which affects 6 states and a good portion of Mexico's coastline, but then again, I could care less about baby seals and they are likely to be eaten anyways. (and to anyone who takes the last part seriously, WOOOOOOSH)
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not saying that the Blackberry is on the same level as an XBox, but that it is as much of a distraction to the user as it is an annoyance and distraction to anyone who is forced to wait for the imaginary friend on the other side of the email, before being able to continue a real-world interaction. Which, sounds a bit like, according to him,a point where "information becomes a distraction." He is speaking of not just games, but the overload of information, both good and bad.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really care one way or the other as long as they aren't using while in office. I do wish they'd be less hypocritical about it though. A decent number of politicians are honest enough to admit they've used recreational drugs (and probably a larger number still have used them but refuse to admit it) yet they continue to support the failure known as the War on Drugs.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:4, Interesting)
WASHINGTON [wsj.com] -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.
In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.
"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country."
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Interesting)
30 years ago, most of these issues were pretty much solved. Evolution wasn't questioned, everyone was vaccinated.
Well, the internet is a relatively new phenomenon. Twitter-level information spreading (aka. Swine Flu Panic) is even newer. It'll take some time to develop filters, both technical, social, and intellectual.
However, the Slashdot model does work fairly well: it's not credible because of the article itself, but because hundreds of people are discussing it. If half the comments are questioning the validity of the facts presented, you'll know there's something fishy.
The same applies to the comments as well: by reading the discussion, you'll not only verify the information, but also learn about related things, like better alternatives, subtle pitfalls, etc. This is also why StackOverflow works out so nicely.
Ultimately, there is no Truth, just levels of certainty, and we as a society should embrace that. Boolean logic does not apply to reality.
Really? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're surprised by this now? You haven't noticed all the Ron Paulogists and linux libertarians that swarm on every political story? (and some science now too, see climate change)
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem isn't the security of the communications medium, but rather the public access laws that require all forms of electronic communications coming from elected representatives (on the federal level) to be archived and published unless it represents a national security issue covered by an official state secret.
Surprisingly, a hand-written note isn't covered by this law. Go figure.
Re:+5 Insightful (Score:3, Interesting)
+20 Insightful.
Imagine coming back from Iraq, telling the citizenry about your personal experiences, and then being told by them that you're dead wrong. That's how uninformed our citizens are. Their reality resembles the ads on the back of the cereal boxes more than it resembles anything else. The only problem is that we fail to recognize that news is now a commodity, bought, sold, and marketed by people trying to make the highest profit. Only profitable news sells, and even then it gets crowded out by more profitable opinion, hearsay, innuendo, and speculation. What is left can't barely be considered news at all.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:3, Interesting)
The Arizona law is not about border enforcement, but rather if the law enforcement agencies in Arizona have identified somebody as having violated the law, they need to act and have that law enforced even if it happens to be a federal law. Do you think that if a local police agency saw a money counterfeiting operation, that they should say "I sure hope you don't get caught by the feds", or that perhaps they ought to act and help enforce those anti-counterfeiting laws? It sort of is the job of a law enforcement agency to, I don't know, actually enforce laws they know are being violated?
It isn't like an Arizona police department can detain and imprison people for immigrations violations, but they can certainly inform the federal government that a law is being broken and hold them just like any citizen can do before the "proper authorities" arrive. The question then arises as to if it is proper to ignore that laws are being broken when a formal complaint about a law being broken is being made by a state agency to the federal government. Something really seems screwed up there if a federal immigration officer refuses to cooperate in that situation.
Some communities have gone to the complete opposite extreme on immigration laws to the point they are prohibiting their officers from even communicating any information about immigration status to the federal government at all. That to me is just as wrong and perhaps even worse.
Yeah, I know there is more to the Arizona law than simply this viewpoint, but the basic premise that a state officer asking to have federal laws actually enforced shouldn't be too over the top. As long as you accept this basic premise, the rest is debating about how active those state officers ought to be about doing that kind of enforcement. There certainly is a problem if the citizens of a state get so worked up that they get their state legislature to become more active in a law enforcement activity that ought to be a federal enforcement issue, and the blame falls on the federal government here instead of Arizona for screwing up so awfully in the lack of enforcement of existing laws.
Re:"Can Be" Not "Becomes" and a Biased Summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot has always been more conservative. Libertarian to be accurate, but they align more with conservatives principles. Of course, Republicans don't align with conservative principles anymore so everyone is a bit confused. But yeah, I think you will see more Glenn Beck fans here than you will Kieth Olbermann.
Re:it wasn't a distraction last year (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
To readers of the parent post:
The concept of "liberal" as it was historically known in the year 1800 in the West, or at other times in other countries, or in some random dictionary, or in the fantasy of some asshole on Slashdot who can't be bothered to use the Shift key is NOT THE SAME as the faction of people referred to in the USA in modern times as Liberals. The Liberal faction's belief system rarely includes "liberal" beliefs.
Don't be confused by word definitions. Watch what people do. The "liber" in "liberal" means "free". Does a government takeover of health care, student loans, auto companies, the financial industry, and the energy industry make the people in those industries "free"? Does taxing people make them "free"? Does telling landlords who they have to rent to make the landlords "free"? Does regulating political speech make that speech "free"? Does regulating the amount of wages make people "free"? Does prohibiting smoking make smokers "free"? Does an ever-expanding government with increasing power and tightening control make Americans "free"?
Also, a "living document" is just a document where someone can say it means X one day and Y the next, depending on the particular whim or belief or corrupt interest of the ones in authority that day. The US Constitution has a process to amend it as needed. When you see it referred to as a "living document", the person saying that simply wants to amend it illegitimately, without the consent of the people and contrary to thier will.