Pixels and their consequences

lemonjelly

I think the addiction analogy is a good and interesting one, however it has negative connotations, & therefore can end up being misinterpreted.

To me, there is a significant difference between pixels & RL (as you put it ws). The main difference is tactile-ness. I believe that ultimately people are social & tactile creatures, though can see how in many cases tactile-ness is reducing.

In example, in the good old days, you may take a vinyl record out of its sleeve, perhaps give it a quick wipe before you put it on the record deck. There are all sorts of memories & sensations associated with this, the anticipation. You don't get that from a download, or even a cd. If we are ever fortunate to encounter an artifact to which we personally prescribe importance, the urge to touch it - even momentarily - is overwhelming.

With RL friends, you have all sorts of additional contact - body language, tone, visual or aural triggers, knowing looks, dialects, catchphrases, poses etc etc. You don't have these in pixels, & frequently can misinterpret stuff. I know I have. I also know people have misinterpreted me.

I do find it bizarre that many young people now carry out there socializing in isolation. Does anyone else not find this to be a contradiction? All these social networks, yet (at the time of their launch, less so now) to interact with them you had to sit at a bloomin pc typing away, rather than engaging the person in a conversation.

Anyway, to return to the addiction analogy, my feeling is, is that the important thing is for you to use the web, rather than allowing the web to use you. I have the same feeling with drugs - after all, it isn't the heroin which is bad in itself - nurses inject many patients with diamorphine daily. Therefore it is the use/context of the use which is negative. If you allow the web to dictate the focus of your daily life, then there is a concern.

I would definitely say there are people on here (I only post on 1 other board) who I would hope that I am on friendly terms with, and if I am honest there are people here I would like to class as friends. However, we then get into the debate about what is a REAL friend, and the distinction between a friend and an aquaintance. In reality, many of us experience many temporary frineds in their lives, with the number of genuine long standing friends usually adding up to no more than how many fingers you have.

There are posters I would like to meet. However I am also aware that because of online safety etc, I am unlikely to ever do so. Am I alone in thinking that is a shame (whilst sensible)? The whole "dont talk to strangers" thing is prevalent in our lives now. In days gone by, at bus stops with long queues, everyone would be chatting, even if we didn't know the people we were talking with. Nowadays, everyone is in silence, listening to their mp3 or ipod (or worse, to their phone through an awful tinny speaker!:mad:). Everyone is looking away from everyone else, avoiding eye contact. I do think that is a shame - & perhaps the reason why some of us feel the need to socialize online - after all, we're missing out on the socializing we used to do. Simply take a look at Pobby's "my pubs closing/not happy thread".

I do, however, seriously hate the facefook thing. To me, it is a massive concern regarding the number of friends (I also refer to the comment above). It worries me that we are trying to commodify friendship, & I have seen colleagues actively fighting over people they want to get to sign up to facefook so they can add them to their friends list. There seems to be a "I've got more friends than you/My dads bigger than your dad" thing going on. My friends aren't a method for me to measure my worth, value or status. My friends are to be valued individually, for the richness, benefit, & kindness they bring to my life, for brightening sadder days, for giving me experiences I never could imagine, for challenging my viewpoint, for teaching me something new, and just to simply spend some time with.

In summary, yes, you can have online relationships, but be careful, & always remember what a real/true friend is, rather than commodify them.

Degenerate

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Maybe tomorrow, maybe in 100 years but it will happen unless scientists find a way to protect satellites. Which they really haven't got the foggiest idea at the moment.

Good job we don't need satellites for the internet then. In fact, satellite comms are useless for some internet applications because the distance required for geostationary orbit is so great that it introduces significant latency. This is a fundamental limitation of the physics involved that cannot be overcome.

The vast bulk of the internet backbone consists of optical fibre links which are impervious to this sort of interference. It's only the "last mile" which tends to be made of copper and is therefore vulnerable. So yes, there could be some disruption to end-user services, but not the internet as a whole. The modern day internet grew out of what was originally a military funded project to create resilient communications. Severe electromagnetic interference (whether caused by a solar flare or a nuclear blast) was always one of the considerations.

Oh, and we can protect satellites, it's an economic decision not to. The amount of lead shielding required would double the weight and hence the launch costs, all to protect something with a 10 year lifetime from a once a century event.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NASA says its due again 2012.........[/FONT]

No they don't.

NASA say the next peak of the Sun's 11 year cycle is due in 2012.

But they do not say that a flare of the magnitude of Carrington's observation is due then.

You scare mongerer you.....;)

1984ReturnsForReal_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No they don't.

NASA say the next peak of the Sun's 11 year cycle is due in 2012.

But they do not say that a flare of the magnitude of Carrington's observation is due then.

You scare mongerer you.....;)

Yep. Your right...

It depends in which direction the Sun wants to chuck a solar flare out at...

& sooner or later it will be in our direction.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Degenerate wrote: »

Good job we don't need satellites for the internet then. In fact, satellite comms are useless for some internet applications because the distance required for geostationary orbit is so great that it introduces significant latency. This is a fundamental limitation of the physics involved that cannot be overcome.

The vast bulk of the internet backbone consists of optical fibre links which are impervious to this sort of interference. It's only the "last mile" which tends to be made of copper and is therefore vulnerable. So yes, there could be some disruption to end-user services, but not the internet as a whole. The modern day internet grew out of what was originally a military funded project to create resilient communications. Severe electromagnetic interference (whether caused by a solar flare or a nuclear blast) was always one of the considerations.

Oh, and we can protect satellites, it's an economic decision not to. The amount of lead shielding required would double the weight and hence the launch costs, all to protect something with a 10 year lifetime from a once a century event.

Whilst you have a point between the relationship between the internet & satellites I believe you have forgotten that the communications network is powered.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Yep. Your right...

I usually am....

& sooner or later it will be in our direction.

Eventually, Yes.

But the severity of the results depend on a number of factors....

The time of year and thus the earth's magnetic field's alignment to the sun. The time of day, and thus the alignment of continents to the sun. The level of technological advance of the continent primarily in the line of fire. The loading (weather and time dependant) and voltage (system design dependant) of power grids in the worst affected areas.

It could be carnage. USA becomes a third world country overnight.

Or it could be a spectacular night sky for some low tech tribesmen in Africa.

Or anything in between.

fc123

Just to add WS, I am unlikely, in my RL, to be party to a conversation like the one going on above me. Maybe it's odd to find it interesting...but I can't help it

1984ReturnsForReal_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Eventually, Yes.

Could be anytime & overnight civilization would cease to exist as we know it.

Many factors exist but there is no getting around it, it is nature & uncontrollable.

Having no internet would be the least of our worries.



& btw the way Hamish you are often wrong...

How is the recovery going?

Mr.Smith_6

wageslave wrote: »

My very first attempt at a thread on here so be gentle with me

What constitutes a relationship nowadays? Can a pixel really be a friend?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r3qhg/The_Virtual_Revolution_Homo_Interneticus/

How has the web affected you?

Congratulations on your 1st thread It has been a long time coming, If only I could say the same about myself.

Mr.Brown_4

wageslave wrote: »

How has the web affected you?

I spend more time webbing than watching TV. It's a damn site more interactive than the remote control red button. So I would say it's good.