Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Humanities 7 Reasons the 21st Century is Making You Miserable, Credits to Cracked.com, by David Wong.

views
     
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 15 2009, 08:20 AM, updated 16y ago

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


All credits to Cracked.com. by David Wong.

Original source here.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

dreamer101
post Nov 15 2009, 09:46 AM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
15,855 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Nov 15 2009, 08:20 AM)
All credits to Cracked.com. by David Wong.

Original source here.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
Deadlocks,

You DO KNOW that it is against forum rule to just cut and paste something from somewhere without commenting on IT.

So, what is YOUR OPINION on what you cut and paste??

Dreamer

SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 15 2009, 10:17 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


None, except that I simply think that it is a very acceptable piece of read.

If that's not acceptable, give me the cue, and I'll close the thread.
dreamer101
post Nov 15 2009, 10:21 AM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
15,855 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Nov 15 2009, 10:17 AM)
None, except that I simply think that it is a very acceptable piece of read.

If that's not acceptable, give me the cue, and I'll close the thread.
*
Deadlocks,

<<one, except that I simply think that it is a very acceptable piece of read.>>

Why do you think that it is a very acceptable piece of read??

Obviously, you have SOME OPINION and THINKING while reading. What are them??

Or, you are LIKE what is described in the article?? You BELIEVE that YOUR OPINION and THINKING is WORTHLESS??

Dreamer
Awakened_Angel
post Nov 15 2009, 10:33 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Nov 15 2009, 11:17 AM)
None, except that I simply think that it is a very acceptable piece of read.

If that's not acceptable, give me the cue, and I'll close the thread.
*
I think what dead lock is trying to express is that.... after read it.. so? what then?

what is your conslusion?

we see already the effect, any recommendations? discussions? etc... instead of copy and paste... everyone can do that... take any article from any web or blog and create a thread for it smile.gif
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 15 2009, 10:39 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(dreamer101 @ Nov 15 2009, 10:21 AM)
Deadlocks,

<<one, except that I simply think that it is a very acceptable piece of read.>>

Why do you think that it is a very acceptable piece of read??

Obviously, you have SOME OPINION and THINKING while reading.  What are them??

Or, you are LIKE what is described in the article??  You BELIEVE that YOUR OPINION and THINKING is WORTHLESS??

Dreamer
*
My opinion? I agree to everything that is written in that article.

Other than saying: "As centuries after centuries passes one after another, we humans have always found a way to filter direct communication with each other", it's pretty much the same thing that's in that article.

So unless it is an order to close this thread, I will not take any course of action in regards to this thread any further.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 15 2009, 10:39 AM
dreamer101
post Nov 15 2009, 10:56 AM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
15,855 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Nov 15 2009, 10:39 AM)
My opinion? I agree to everything that is written in that article.

Other than saying: "As centuries after centuries passes one after another, we humans have always found a way to filter direct communication with each other", it's pretty much the same thing that's in that article.

So unless it is an order to close this thread, I will not take any course of action in regards to this thread any further.
*
Deadlocks,

<< Other than saying: "As centuries after centuries passes one after another, we humans have always found a way to filter direct communication with each other", it's pretty much the same thing that's in that article.>>

So, why do you THINK that is so??? Is this BASIC HUMAN NATURE??

<<So unless it is an order to close this thread, I will not take any course of action in regards to this thread any further.>>

No, this is NOT an order to close the thread. I just want to KNOW why do you THINK this article is WORTHWHILE to read??

And, why do you THINK this matters??

I am ENTP. And, I have AUTISM in my gene. So, I am NOT NORMAL in any sense. It is NOT in my nature to socialize with anyone. I prefer MINIMAL to NO COMMUNICATION with most people.

Now, are you saying that I am NORMAL and OTHERS tendency to SOCIALIZE is abnormal??

In my observations, the YOUNGER GENERATION tend to socialize TOO MUCH.

Dreamer

P.S.: I found that MANY YOUNGER GENERATION are WIMPS. They DARE NOT speak up on what they believe. And, when CHALLENGE, they DARE NOT defend their STAND. To the EXTREME, they COULD NOT even DARE to speak about THEIR OPINION on ANYTHING. Isn't this what is DESCRIBED in the article??



This post has been edited by dreamer101: Nov 15 2009, 11:03 AM
Awakened_Angel
post Nov 15 2009, 12:22 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(dreamer101 @ Nov 15 2009, 11:56 AM)

P.S.:  I found that MANY YOUNGER GENERATION are WIMPS.  They DARE NOT speak up on what they believe.  And, when CHALLENGE, they DARE NOT defend their STAND.  To the EXTREME, they COULD NOT even DARE to speak about THEIR OPINION on ANYTHING.  Isn't this what is DESCRIBED in the article??
*
You know what, this the effect of the article I suppose...

youngsters always release their hatred etc virtually, on FB, forum... when in real life, they cant as they cant react spontaneously... wink.gif
Eventless
post Nov 16 2009, 09:17 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
You know what's funny about this thread? No one bothered to look up the source site of the article-Cracked.com. An article from a humor site used as a discussion topic.
dreamer101
post Nov 16 2009, 09:23 AM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
15,855 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 16 2009, 09:17 AM)
You know what's funny about this thread? No one bothered to look up the source site of the article-Cracked.com. An article from a humor site used as a discussion topic.
*
Eventless,

Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes (American Poet, Lecturer and Essayist, 1803-1882).

Ditto for humor...

Who cares where it came from unless a person has NO CAPABILITY of CRITICAL THINKING and they have to rely on someone's else opinion to make decision??

So, is the article correct or not?? Or, you have NO OPINION either.

Dreamer
annariana
post Nov 16 2009, 09:24 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
197 posts

Joined: Apr 2009
From: Berkeley, JB, Akita, Dublin, home~



QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 16 2009, 09:17 AM)
You know what's funny about this thread? No one bothered to look up the source site of the article-Cracked.com. An article from a humor site used as a discussion topic.
*
LOL!

Nice one!
Awakened_Angel
post Nov 16 2009, 02:16 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(annariana @ Nov 16 2009, 10:24 AM)
LOL!

Nice one!
*
it doesn`t matter where it came from but I tend to stronly agree with what is stated in the web... technology had make us miserable; make us hollow inside; and take away our capability... our ability to climb up the stair even its 1 floor, the ability to stand the heat... even if its just little warm...

don`t you agree? smile.gif
Eventless
post Nov 16 2009, 05:42 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Technology doesn't make people miserable. People make other people miserable. Technology is just a tool. In this case, a means to reach out to other people whose main purpose in life is to inflate themselves by making other look bad. Those people are already out there before the internet even existed. Like in real life, you can avoid them if you choose to.

Whether you choose to wither away at the keyboard or do some healthy exercise has nothing to with technology. It is a decision that you make. Technology is just an additional option in your life. Like every choice you make, you will need to face the consequence of that decision.

See the problem with discussing an article which is based on opinion. Everyone has an opinion which may or may not coincide with yours. How does one tell which opinion is more "correct" than another? You don't.
annariana
post Nov 16 2009, 05:46 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
197 posts

Joined: Apr 2009
From: Berkeley, JB, Akita, Dublin, home~



QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 16 2009, 05:42 PM)
Technology doesn't make people miserable. People make other people miserable. Technology is just a tool. In this case, a means to reach out to other people whose main purpose in life is to inflate themselves by making other look bad. Those people are already out there before the internet even existed. Like in real life, you can avoid them if you choose to.

Whether you choose to wither away at the keyboard or do some healthy exercise has nothing to with technology. It is a decision that you make. Technology is just an additional option in your life. Like every choice you make, you will need to face the consequence of that decision.

See the problem with discussing an article which is based on opinion. Everyone has an opinion which may or may not coincide with yours. How does one tell which opinion is more "correct" than another? You don't.
*
High five.

Actually, the key on discussing opinion-based articles, is by having your sentences started with "In my opinion..." and ended with "...I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is how I think." So TS or others won't perasan so much LOL.

Diplomacy, honeys. thumbup.gif
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 17 2009, 05:48 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 16 2009, 05:42 PM)
Technology doesn't make people miserable. People make other people miserable. Technology is just a tool. In this case, a means to reach out to other people whose main purpose in life is to inflate themselves by making other look bad. Those people are already out there before the internet even existed. Like in real life, you can avoid them if you choose to.

Whether you choose to wither away at the keyboard or do some healthy exercise has nothing to with technology. It is a decision that you make. Technology is just an additional option in your life. Like every choice you make, you will need to face the consequence of that decision.

See the problem with discussing an article which is based on opinion. Everyone has an opinion which may or may not coincide with yours. How does one tell which opinion is more "correct" than another? You don't.
*
So you do not believe that the anonymity that technology gave us also degrades our confrontational interaction endeavors?
Eventless
post Nov 17 2009, 02:01 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Nov 17 2009, 05:48 AM)
So you do not believe that the anonymity that technology gave us also degrades our confrontational interaction endeavors?
*
Mind explaining "confrontational interaction endeavors"? I never come encountered this particular phrase before.
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 18 2009, 09:46 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 17 2009, 02:01 PM)
Mind explaining "confrontational interaction endeavors"? I never come encountered this particular phrase before.
*
If you seek the definitions for each word, you should be able to find out what they mean.
Eventless
post Nov 18 2009, 12:25 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Nov 18 2009, 09:46 AM)
If you seek the definitions for each word, you should be able to find out what they mean.
*
It's your words and you can't explain what it means?

"confrontational interaction" definitely means arguing, the endeavor part is what I don't understand. The endeavor part make it sounds like your are actively pursuing arguments with others.
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 18 2009, 02:21 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 18 2009, 12:25 PM)
It's your words and you can't explain what it means?

"confrontational interaction" definitely means arguing, the endeavor part is what I don't understand. The endeavor part make it sounds like your are actively pursuing arguments with others.
*
http://www.answers.com/topic/confrontation

http://www.answers.com/topic/interact

http://www.answers.com/topic/endeavor

And no, confrontational interaction does not mean arguing.

Do you now realize, how easy it is to look for the definitions?

And don't let me start with google.com as well.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 18 2009, 02:27 PM
Eventless
post Nov 18 2009, 02:55 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
And yet you have not explained the phrase that you have given. Words have many meanings. The meaning changes depending on the other words that it is put together with.

I have yet to encounter anyone using confrontation to represent a peaceful encounter. A confrontation is a type of interaction so interaction in this phrase is redundant. Using the definition for endeavor that you have provided, the only interpretation that I can come up with is actively looking for a fight. Is this what you are trying to say? If not, can you come up with a simple explanation on what it means?
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 18 2009, 04:11 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 18 2009, 02:55 PM)
And yet you have not explained the phrase that you have given. Words have many meanings. The meaning changes depending on the other words that it is put together with.

I have yet to encounter anyone using confrontation to represent a peaceful encounter. A confrontation is a type of interaction so interaction in this phrase is redundant. Using the definition for endeavor that you have provided, the only interpretation that I can come up with is actively looking for a fight. Is this what you are trying to say? If not, can you come up with a simple explanation on what it means?
*
LOL! If all interactions are only meant to be confrontational, how do you explain text based chatting?

Okay, I'll spoonfeed you.

Confrontational interaction endeavours.

Confrontational = The state of confrontation, i.e. to confront.

Interaction = To act together or towards others or with others, commonly via communication, when it involves individuals more than one.

Endeavour = To make an attempt.

Now, put them all together:

"To confront", "to communicate", "to attempt".

Simply speaking:

Attempts of confrontational communication.

Get it?

Sigh.





Eventless
post Nov 18 2009, 04:35 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Deadlocks @ Nov 18 2009, 04:11 PM)
LOL! If all interactions are only meant to be confrontational, how do you explain text based chatting?

Okay, I'll spoonfeed you.

Confrontational interaction endeavours.

Confrontational = The state of confrontation, i.e. to confront.

Interaction = To act together or towards others or with others, commonly via communication, when it involves individuals more than one.

Endeavour = To make an attempt.

Now, put them all together:

"To confront", "to communicate", "to attempt".

Simply speaking:

Attempts of confrontational communication.

Get it?

Sigh.
*
Confrontation is a type of interaction. I didn't say all interactions are confrontational, it is a type of interaction. Appeasement is a type of interaction. It's like saying an apple is the same as an orange because they're both fruits.

Attempts of confrontational communication still sounds like deliberate attempts of pissing people off. Confrontations tends to have a negative connotation.

Maybe the term you were looking for is socializing?

This post has been edited by Eventless: Nov 18 2009, 04:36 PM
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 18 2009, 11:18 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 18 2009, 04:35 PM)
Confrontation is a type of interaction. I didn't say all interactions are confrontational, it is a type of interaction. Appeasement is a type of interaction. It's like saying an apple is the same as an orange because they're both fruits.

Attempts of confrontational communication still sounds like deliberate attempts of pissing people off. Confrontations tends to have a negative connotation.

Maybe the term you were looking for is socializing?
*
Not socializing exactly, since people can also socialize in the Internet.

But what I don't get it is your stubbornness to refuse to define confrontation as merely confronting person, i.e. meeting up face-to-face, and confrontational communication means a communication that is done face-to-face.

Did I break it down clearly this time?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 18 2009, 11:19 PM
Eventless
post Nov 19 2009, 10:17 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
So are you trying to ask whether technology is the cause of real life conversations becoming less common or that real life conversations skills are being stunted because of technology?
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 19 2009, 10:21 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 19 2009, 10:17 AM)
So are you trying to ask whether technology is the cause of real life conversations becoming less common or that real life conversations skills are being stunted because of technology?
*
Yes, do you not believe that it may be so?
Eventless
post Nov 19 2009, 10:57 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
There's 2 questions in there, which question are you referring to?
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 19 2009, 01:55 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 19 2009, 10:57 AM)
There's 2 questions in there, which question are you referring to?
*
I said yes to the first question.
Eventless
post Nov 19 2009, 04:18 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Real life communications are becoming less common because it is not really that convenient. Both parties has to be available at the same time. If you exclude telephones usage, both parties would need to be in the same location as well requiring time to be wasted on traveling. With technologies like telephone, you don't have to be in the same located. With email and instant messaging, both parties don't even have to online at the same time. They may not talk directly but the message is still getting across.

The question is why is having face to face conversation so important?
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 19 2009, 06:34 PM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 19 2009, 04:18 PM)
Real life communications are becoming less common because it is not really that convenient. Both parties has to be available at the same time. If you exclude telephones usage, both parties would need to be in the same location as well requiring time to be wasted on traveling. With technologies like telephone, you don't have to be in the same located. With email and instant messaging, both parties don't even have to online at the same time. They may not talk directly but the message is still getting across.

The question is why is having face to face conversation so important?
*
Because it is closer?
where
post Nov 21 2009, 04:02 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
45 posts

Joined: Oct 2009
From: there
So can we say the solution is to go out more, be friendly/genuine, try new things, be outgoing and adventurous, meet more people?

Instead of still over relying on the internet/sms/msn/forums and getting emo because its messing up your head?
Haihzz
post Nov 21 2009, 04:11 PM

On my way
****
Senior Member
511 posts

Joined: Feb 2006
From: Pearl Island not Black Pearl


sounded so true.. what happening to me..
SUSb3ta
post Nov 21 2009, 07:49 PM

responsible poster stormtrooper
****
Senior Member
685 posts

Joined: Apr 2007
From: malaysia


is this the epitome of the saying 'ignorance is bliss'?
Awakened_Angel
post Nov 22 2009, 08:58 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 19 2009, 05:18 PM)
Real life communications are becoming less common because it is not really that convenient. Both parties has to be available at the same time. If you exclude telephones usage, both parties would need to be in the same location as well requiring time to be wasted on traveling. With technologies like telephone, you don't have to be in the same located. With email and instant messaging, both parties don't even have to online at the same time. They may not talk directly but the message is still getting across.

The question is why is having face to face conversation so important?
*
then stay in Europe while your spouse in malaysia and just deliver your sperm to her via DHL and she`ll get pregnant eventually and see your baby from webcam in skype

technology are meant to EASE us... NOT to SUBSTITUTE us...

technology are created to ease communication and transportation of hard to reach places... eg... from PJ to CHERAS.. you cant walk right? but that does not mean you walk from your house to food court for 5 minutes is wrong and useless....

did you watch the animation WALL E?

see t he humans in the moviethat result from over dependent on technology......


http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif

This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Nov 22 2009, 09:16 AM
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 23 2009, 10:37 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(where @ Nov 21 2009, 04:02 PM)
So can we say the solution is to go out more, be friendly/genuine, try new things, be outgoing and adventurous, meet more people?

Instead of still over relying on the internet/sms/msn/forums and getting emo because its messing up your head?
*
Yeap.
Eventless
post Nov 23 2009, 11:53 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Awakened_Angel @ Nov 22 2009, 08:58 AM)
then stay in Europe while your spouse in malaysia and just deliver your sperm to her via DHL and she`ll get pregnant eventually and see your baby from webcam in skype

technology are meant to EASE us... NOT to SUBSTITUTE us...

technology are created to ease communication and transportation of hard to reach places... eg... from PJ to CHERAS.. you cant walk right? but that does not mean you walk from your house to food court for 5 minutes is wrong and useless....

did you watch the animation WALL E?

see t he humans in the moviethat result from over dependent on technology......
http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif
*
I'm not saying that technology should be used in all cases but asking what makes one form of communication is more superior than others as implied by Deadlocks' questions. The act of communicating through a phone does not make a person less real. There's still a person at the other end.

In your first example, technology is still not substituting a person. Substituting means that there's no real person on the other end of the conversation. You would be communicating to a machine instead of a person. Dating sims would be an example of such interaction if the player is treating the characters in the game as a real person. In such a case, is it the fault of the game or the fault of the player that such a situation exists?
SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 24 2009, 10:46 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 23 2009, 11:53 AM)
I'm not saying that technology should be used in all cases but asking what makes one form of communication is more superior than others as implied by Deadlocks' questions.  The act of communicating through a phone does not make a person less real. There's still a person at the other end.

In your first example, technology is still not substituting a person. Substituting means that there's no real person on the other end of the conversation. You would be communicating to a machine instead of a person. Dating sims would be an example of such interaction if the player is treating the characters in the game as a real person. In such a case, is it the fault of the game or the fault of the player that such a situation exists?
*
True, but with the lack confrontational conversations, people are more inclined to ASSUME that such conversations are NOT AS REAL as the one in REAL LIFE. Although they have themselves to be blamed for conceiving such a perception, it should be noted that most people are less socially welcoming today compared to the past, due to the inferior amount of confrontational interactions they have managed to achieved in the modern world today.
anti-informatic
post Nov 24 2009, 12:00 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
902 posts

Joined: Dec 2006
LOL at many replies here starting from before several last thread
and now finally see the thread going according to the title.

But i couldn't agree on "Technology make human miserable",
afterall, human decide things on themselve, how to say that this technology decide the bad path for human being?
Even with those supporting phase like lack of communication in real life, independant on the ease of completing task too much,
this only shows the advantage of technology
However, doesn't really show the miserable of human having this type of technology
I would prefer this phase to be an adjective

So, i would insist human to be praise or blame for they own doing
Lack of face-to-face communication, texting, lesser real life confident, being slave for machine,
this only can be blame for depending on the technology too much, its up to individual to get out of those life and stick to the real life,
or continue staying in the world of technology they wan which is most easy and fast
After all, human the one to decide to use the technology or not
If they wan, they can keep going;if they dont wan, they can just dump aside
of course, best if individual know technology is mean to be use not to be totally rely on
And able to stick with improving real life socializing skill
And also able to survive when there's no electricity
Awakened_Angel
post Nov 24 2009, 01:14 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,703 posts

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 23 2009, 12:53 PM)
In your first example, technology is still not substituting a person. Substituting means that there's no real person on the other end of the conversation. You would be communicating to a machine instead of a person.
*
ok... but this is technology... it solves one problem while create another....

car solves our transportation but it too kills the determination that we once had on walking to get to our destination, and it create aonther solution, entertainment in car so that we wouldn`t get bored while travelling

QUOTE
Dating sims would be an example of such interaction if the player is treating the characters in the game as a real person. In such a case, is it the fault of the game or the fault of the player that such a situation exists?


I could foresee Japan will be the pioneeer of this... creating virtual sexy AV star that would greet you when you come home, talk to you, comfort you.. and maybe, have virtual sex with you....

fulfilling your wildest fantasy..... again, it solved another problem... sexual craving and create another... make human as lustful as never before....

user posted image

This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Nov 24 2009, 01:15 PM
Eventless
post Nov 25 2009, 09:09 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE
Dating sims would be an example of such interaction if the player is treating the characters in the game as a real person. In such a case, is it the fault of the game or the fault of the player that such a situation exists?


Somehow you are misinterpreting the question that was asked. I'm not asking who would come up with. I'm asking why would such a product exist in the first place. Technology doesn't just pop into existence by itself, the need for it have to be present before someone would start working on it. So who's fault is it that such things exists in the first place?

It has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, the one that chooses to use a particular technology is the user. There is nothing to prevent you from not using technology. It is your choice and you'll have to live with the consequences of making that choice. Want to use electricity, you are gonna need to create some pollution as a result. Want to use clean energy, you will have to pay more for it.

The example of the movie Wall-E is more about what happens when big business make the decisions in your life. Specifically making you buy and use technology that is not needed. Thinking for yourself is no longer "cool" so we follow what we are told without question due to fear of becoming the odd one out.

SUSDeadlocks
post Nov 26 2009, 09:23 AM

n00b
*****
Senior Member
943 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Nov 25 2009, 09:09 AM)
Somehow you are misinterpreting the question that was asked. I'm not asking who would come up with. I'm asking why would such a product exist in the first place. Technology doesn't just pop into existence by itself, the need for it have to be present before someone would start working on it. So who's fault is it that such things exists in the first place?

It has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, the one that chooses to use a particular technology is the user. There is nothing to prevent you from not using technology. It is your choice and you'll have to live with the consequences of making that choice. Want to use electricity, you are gonna need to create some pollution as a result. Want to use clean energy, you will have to pay more for it.

The example of the movie Wall-E is more about what happens when big business make the decisions in your life. Specifically making you buy and use technology that is not needed. Thinking for yourself is no longer "cool" so we follow what we are told without question due to fear of becoming the odd one out.
*
You may wanna quote my comment too.

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0215sec    0.47    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 25th November 2025 - 06:27 AM