And now there is one remaining ....major bookseller off line, that is. Borders Books has filed for bankruptcy and will probably be eventually liquidated, leaving only Barnes and Noble as a stand alone big chain off line bookseller. Most book stores now are switching from hard back and paper book sales to Digital books and toys. Borders originally started as one of the Superstore book sellers that rewarded shoppers by providing many more titles available both in books and music selections, and by offering big discounts on a large number of offers each week. It was a huge success in days before internet book sellers became the rage.
That kind of set-up worked well for Borders and even more so for Barnes and Noble until Amazon.com enticed consumers to shift to on line buying. Amazon. com now sells more electronic books than physical ones. This reflects the overall big rise in electronic book sales and the decline in sales of traditional books. This means it will probably wind up being a competition between Barnes and Noble and the many on line electronic book sellers.
Perhaps if the off line book stores start to offer more electronic books, they could survive. But it is doubtful, given that it is much more convenient for an e reader to just use an on line site to purchase his or her books. Since the costs of running an off line physical bookstore are much higher than on line versions, the traditional book store can't compete with on line sellers via pricing. Maybe the book store seller should re configure to sell non related book products that would entice the consumer to visit the store site.
But what else can they sell? The cafe approach of coffee, teas pastries etc. in those super book stores has worked well, bringing in customers and making the stores more profitable overall. I don't know if that concept can be expanded. Book readings and book signings are another aspect to selling books at physical stores sites that on line sellers can't engage. They are often expensive for the stores, but do bring in more foot traffic and increase sales overall.
I think more of that tactic can be used effectively by the off line sellers. Anyway, the Barnes and Noble of the world will have to come up with new ideas that on line sites can't fit into their model if they are to remain viable. The world will be a much different place for me if I don't have a book store to walk to and to browse. I am cheering for a comeback by the off line sellers.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Food Reflects An Area's Population
There is an interesting article on the cnn web site that explains quite a bit about the passion for food in New Orleans, and why I write so much about food. here is the link. http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2011/02/16/new-orleans-the-food-that-got-them-through/?hpt=Sbin
To the side of that article are some others (I didn't read those) about the city's food passion. The subject of food in a city is a broad one, but the kids of food and the quality level of it does tell something about the city as a whole. Places with little passion for food generally are cities that have little passion overall. And the opposite holds true as well. Take Italy and Saudi Arabia as examples of each.
The fire and passion of Italians is reflected in their great food. I can't think of a better place to eat than any town in Italy. I also can't think of more energetic, fun-loving people than Italians. As to Saudi Arabian food and Saudi Arabian people, the opposite is the case. When I list these country names think about their food and the personality of the people that live there. They should match- a low level food matches to less exciting or animated population...a high level food equals a country and people with a high energy level.
Thailand- H, Canada -L, Argentina-H, Egypt-L, China-H, Australia-L and on and on... Sometimes the analogy doesn't fit, as in France. France has a high level of food but a somber population. But overall, the food of a place does tell volumes about its culture and people.
To the side of that article are some others (I didn't read those) about the city's food passion. The subject of food in a city is a broad one, but the kids of food and the quality level of it does tell something about the city as a whole. Places with little passion for food generally are cities that have little passion overall. And the opposite holds true as well. Take Italy and Saudi Arabia as examples of each.
The fire and passion of Italians is reflected in their great food. I can't think of a better place to eat than any town in Italy. I also can't think of more energetic, fun-loving people than Italians. As to Saudi Arabian food and Saudi Arabian people, the opposite is the case. When I list these country names think about their food and the personality of the people that live there. They should match- a low level food matches to less exciting or animated population...a high level food equals a country and people with a high energy level.
Thailand- H, Canada -L, Argentina-H, Egypt-L, China-H, Australia-L and on and on... Sometimes the analogy doesn't fit, as in France. France has a high level of food but a somber population. But overall, the food of a place does tell volumes about its culture and people.
Car Seats For Fido
You know what is becoming a big distraction to drivers? No, no...besides those idiots who chat and text on their phones while driving. It's people who drive in cars with pets running about freely, often sitting in their laps. An unrestrained dog whether curled up on a lap, hanging out the window or resting its paws on the steering wheel can and does lead to many accidents.
Tens of thousands of car accidents are believed caused every year by unrestrained pets, though no one has specifically gathered statistics on it. Police though, claim it is more and more a cause of an accident. In 2009, 5,474 people were killed and 448,000 injured in crashes caused by distracted drivers in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Cell phones were the top driving distraction (drunk driving was second), being the cause of 18 percent of the fatalities and 5 percent of the injury crashes. If I see a cell addict chatting and driving while Fido jumps in his or her lap....I will slow and let them get far in front of me.
Now some states here, including my own Oregon (the proposal to be voted on shortly is a $90 fine for driving with the pet unrestrained), are considering laws that require pets to be in seat restraints. Right now, Hawaii is the only state that specifically forbids drivers from operating a vehicle with a pet on their lap. It's all because of the obvious risks involved in having a pet sitting on a human's lap or running free in the car. First, a pet is a missile when the car stops suddenly or has a collision. Too it can jump in the lap or make a movement that can startle the driver and cause an accident, and if an accident happens, a pet can jump out of the car and distract and cause another accident.
Anyway critics say it is too much about nothing, that not every distraction can be dealt with by passing laws. Have you ever seen a pet related accident or even a distraction caused by a pet? What do you think about laws requiring restrained pets when driving?
Tens of thousands of car accidents are believed caused every year by unrestrained pets, though no one has specifically gathered statistics on it. Police though, claim it is more and more a cause of an accident. In 2009, 5,474 people were killed and 448,000 injured in crashes caused by distracted drivers in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Cell phones were the top driving distraction (drunk driving was second), being the cause of 18 percent of the fatalities and 5 percent of the injury crashes. If I see a cell addict chatting and driving while Fido jumps in his or her lap....I will slow and let them get far in front of me.
Now some states here, including my own Oregon (the proposal to be voted on shortly is a $90 fine for driving with the pet unrestrained), are considering laws that require pets to be in seat restraints. Right now, Hawaii is the only state that specifically forbids drivers from operating a vehicle with a pet on their lap. It's all because of the obvious risks involved in having a pet sitting on a human's lap or running free in the car. First, a pet is a missile when the car stops suddenly or has a collision. Too it can jump in the lap or make a movement that can startle the driver and cause an accident, and if an accident happens, a pet can jump out of the car and distract and cause another accident.
Anyway critics say it is too much about nothing, that not every distraction can be dealt with by passing laws. Have you ever seen a pet related accident or even a distraction caused by a pet? What do you think about laws requiring restrained pets when driving?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Teacher Blogs The Politcally Incorrect
Those Twitter and Face book student comment blogs that trash, often vulgarly, other students or some authority figure are quite the common thing these days. But hold on to your slide rule! A Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (and they call it "the City of Brotherly Love"?) English teacher took to her blog the other day to publish scathing, profanity laced rants about her “rat-like” students, co-workers, and administrators. And as result, parents and school officials got wind of it and Natalie Munroe was suspended from Central Bucks East High School.
Hmmm She wrote a private blog published outside of work time, away from work space, yet negative and critical about those at her work site. What should the electronic age groupies make of this? Can a teacher be suspended and, as may happen in this case be fired, because he or she criticizes her campus work environment, co workers and students? Are Nathalie's comments protected free speech, since there were made away from the school and done without school resources or imput. Should parents or students offended seek litigation to resolve any claim of injury, rather than a school taking away a job from a teacher simply because she criticized it while away from work?
Here are some of Natalie's blog posted comments: her students are “out of control” and “disengaged, lazy whiners”, “There’s no other way to say this: I hate your kid,” “Rude, belligerent, argumentative fuck” and said of one student, that she brought about "scornful feelings that reach a fever pitch", "she dresses like a streetwalker" and of one parent duo, "don't they know how to raise kids?"
As a former teacher of many years I have heard those and more in teacher lounges and in private conversation. It's the usual grumbling that all workers do time to time as a release from the frustrations of a job. But blogging it for anyone to see is the new age way of griping about a job. Her blog has been shut down by AOL, and the Superintendent of Schools, Robert Laws, says the blog posts should result in Munroe’s termination (even though the district only has begun to investigate the case).
What odd about Nathalie's remarks is that she finds those negative qualities in some teens to be un natural ones. Teens are immature and often exhibit both wonderful qualities and the negative behaviors she criticized. The annoying behaviors she blogged of are manifestations of growing up, as any parents or person who works with or is around teens can attest. Nathalie seems clue less and lacks humor about teen angst. Where was the humor in her comments? There is none, giving evidence that Nathalie is a frustrated teacher who released her frustration, foolishly, in an online blog. Making such a fuss about what she did might be a huge over reaction.
The parents who demand her firing and are so upset are also over the top. In none of her comments did Nathalie specifically name or in any way identify a student. I wonder if the parents who are so upset about the blog have a fair level of denial about their children's behavior away from home. Maybe the parents got upset after they recognized some of the more undesirable traits of their own children in her comments.
Perhaps the best thing to do in this case would be for the school system to just tell Nathalie not to do it again and to evaluate her as a teacher based on her classroom effectiveness with those "little brats".
Hmmm She wrote a private blog published outside of work time, away from work space, yet negative and critical about those at her work site. What should the electronic age groupies make of this? Can a teacher be suspended and, as may happen in this case be fired, because he or she criticizes her campus work environment, co workers and students? Are Nathalie's comments protected free speech, since there were made away from the school and done without school resources or imput. Should parents or students offended seek litigation to resolve any claim of injury, rather than a school taking away a job from a teacher simply because she criticized it while away from work?
Here are some of Natalie's blog posted comments: her students are “out of control” and “disengaged, lazy whiners”, “There’s no other way to say this: I hate your kid,” “Rude, belligerent, argumentative fuck” and said of one student, that she brought about "scornful feelings that reach a fever pitch", "she dresses like a streetwalker" and of one parent duo, "don't they know how to raise kids?"
As a former teacher of many years I have heard those and more in teacher lounges and in private conversation. It's the usual grumbling that all workers do time to time as a release from the frustrations of a job. But blogging it for anyone to see is the new age way of griping about a job. Her blog has been shut down by AOL, and the Superintendent of Schools, Robert Laws, says the blog posts should result in Munroe’s termination (even though the district only has begun to investigate the case).
What odd about Nathalie's remarks is that she finds those negative qualities in some teens to be un natural ones. Teens are immature and often exhibit both wonderful qualities and the negative behaviors she criticized. The annoying behaviors she blogged of are manifestations of growing up, as any parents or person who works with or is around teens can attest. Nathalie seems clue less and lacks humor about teen angst. Where was the humor in her comments? There is none, giving evidence that Nathalie is a frustrated teacher who released her frustration, foolishly, in an online blog. Making such a fuss about what she did might be a huge over reaction.
The parents who demand her firing and are so upset are also over the top. In none of her comments did Nathalie specifically name or in any way identify a student. I wonder if the parents who are so upset about the blog have a fair level of denial about their children's behavior away from home. Maybe the parents got upset after they recognized some of the more undesirable traits of their own children in her comments.
Perhaps the best thing to do in this case would be for the school system to just tell Nathalie not to do it again and to evaluate her as a teacher based on her classroom effectiveness with those "little brats".
Adds We See And Ignore
Seen any pop-up ads on line today? I think the odds are probably, yes. And an even greater odd than that is that you ignored the pop ups ads that were thrown at you. Some ad facts first......According to an Adweek Media/Harris poll, although the internet is considered to be a prime spot to target and reach consumers with those annoying advertisements we are forced to tolerate. When adults were asked which type of ads do they tend to ignore or disregard the most, over six in ten say Internet ads (63%). It seems reasonable to me, because there are some rare cases in which I did read an ad and even followed a link on it.
Among those who often ignore Internet ads, 43% ignore banner ads the most and 20% say that they ignore search engine ads the most. Smaller percentages say they ignore television ads, 14%, radio ads, 7%, and newspaper ads 6%. Only 9% of Americans say they don't ignore any of the listed types of ads. Haha But those must be brain dead people. No figure was given for what must be the most ignored of all, the E mail box spam junk mail ads.
Of course the kind of ad that one would view depends on many things, age sex, occupation, religion etc. The sex of the viewer is one factor that has a strong impact. Women, for example, will look at more clothing ads than men, and men will look at more car ads than women. That's why we get those targeted ads on line so often. You know, we go to a web site that sells computers and for several days we get side banner ads announcing deals on computers.
Adware tracking is efficient. It might also explain why you have those porno ads coming to your home page so often. Shame on you for going to my...err..those sites! I promise not to tell anyone.
One observation I have about ads on line is how we react to them. Because ads have always been on our computers, and to a larger degree than the ads we see on a TV program or listen to on radio, we don't seem to either notice them or mind them as much as we do that when ads run while watching a favorite TV program.. Most people accept on line ads as "part of going on line". They adapt by ignoring many of them.
That's why advertisers track us and bombard us with so many ads, that and the fact that it is much cheaper to advertise that way. But look at the figure I gave above for newspaper ads. Only 6% of people ignore them. This is because we trust newspapers more than we trust electronic medium advertising and many people actively want and seek out newspaper ads . The second oldest medium has the second highest trust factor for consumers, radio ads. Only 7% ignore them. Finally the third oldest medium, TV, has only a 15% ignore figure. (On the other hand, it does have reality TV and the other idiotic programs) This shows we have greater trust in the mediums that have been around the longest.
Haha Only when my newspaper starts advertising breast and penile enlargement, will I lose trust in it. The more stable and conservative ads we find on the older mediums make us more attentive to the content of them. The internet ads are frequently looked on with suspicion because far more fraud takes place through use of them.
So, although 91% of Americans say they ignore some of the ads they see, this does not mean it's a lost cause for advertisers or that we will see fewer advertisements. Rather, companies looking to effectively reach consumers may need to target their messages as well as their chosen medium to best appeal to the desired group. Forget what you are thinking! No, it doesn't meat they so should all send me their penile enlargement pitches.
Among those who often ignore Internet ads, 43% ignore banner ads the most and 20% say that they ignore search engine ads the most. Smaller percentages say they ignore television ads, 14%, radio ads, 7%, and newspaper ads 6%. Only 9% of Americans say they don't ignore any of the listed types of ads. Haha But those must be brain dead people. No figure was given for what must be the most ignored of all, the E mail box spam junk mail ads.
Of course the kind of ad that one would view depends on many things, age sex, occupation, religion etc. The sex of the viewer is one factor that has a strong impact. Women, for example, will look at more clothing ads than men, and men will look at more car ads than women. That's why we get those targeted ads on line so often. You know, we go to a web site that sells computers and for several days we get side banner ads announcing deals on computers.
Adware tracking is efficient. It might also explain why you have those porno ads coming to your home page so often. Shame on you for going to my...err..those sites! I promise not to tell anyone.
One observation I have about ads on line is how we react to them. Because ads have always been on our computers, and to a larger degree than the ads we see on a TV program or listen to on radio, we don't seem to either notice them or mind them as much as we do that when ads run while watching a favorite TV program.. Most people accept on line ads as "part of going on line". They adapt by ignoring many of them.
That's why advertisers track us and bombard us with so many ads, that and the fact that it is much cheaper to advertise that way. But look at the figure I gave above for newspaper ads. Only 6% of people ignore them. This is because we trust newspapers more than we trust electronic medium advertising and many people actively want and seek out newspaper ads . The second oldest medium has the second highest trust factor for consumers, radio ads. Only 7% ignore them. Finally the third oldest medium, TV, has only a 15% ignore figure. (On the other hand, it does have reality TV and the other idiotic programs) This shows we have greater trust in the mediums that have been around the longest.
Haha Only when my newspaper starts advertising breast and penile enlargement, will I lose trust in it. The more stable and conservative ads we find on the older mediums make us more attentive to the content of them. The internet ads are frequently looked on with suspicion because far more fraud takes place through use of them.
So, although 91% of Americans say they ignore some of the ads they see, this does not mean it's a lost cause for advertisers or that we will see fewer advertisements. Rather, companies looking to effectively reach consumers may need to target their messages as well as their chosen medium to best appeal to the desired group. Forget what you are thinking! No, it doesn't meat they so should all send me their penile enlargement pitches.
Most Desirable List
I's time to unveil AskMen's 10th Annual 'Most Desirable List". And the winner is....Blake Lively. Who? Ahhhhh I never heard of the woman, and I am not going to waste a google on her.Here's the rest of the Top 10:
2. Mila Kunis
3. Sofia Vergara
4. Selita Ebanks
5. Miranda Kerr
6. Cheryl Cole
7. Scarlett Johansson
8. Katy Perry
9. Anne Hathaway
10. Jessica Pare
Ok, how many of those women have you heard of? Ever seen? I can answer only Scarlett Johansson, Katy Perry and Anne Hathaway and that's because they are overexposed actresses. I have never actually seen a movie with either. What does the lack of recognition by me say about my "cultural literacy"? Well, I am virtually illiterate when trendy, celebes are concerned.
It's the same thing with current music, art and literature. I don't know what's going on with it all.
But Alas! I don't want to know about them. When I glance what comes out of those areas makes me think it is a not much worth getting excited about. But then, as we age we tend to remain stuck in our own youth culture, leaving only grudgingly. Though I know nothing about 8 of the 10 on the list, I would guess that talent isn't what got some or them on the list. Today, celebrity is all more style and less about substance. If you doubt me, listen to some of the culture's most played and most purchased songs. I think you will be under whelmed.
My theory about the change in the kind of celebrity today is that communication makes instant celebrities of people for both good and bad reasons, most often though talent or merit is a minor factor in the equation. The five minutes of fame Andy Wharhol mentioned in the 60's is now down to about 30 seconds. Celebrities like those on the AskMen's list come and go so fast that only the core of the culture (mostly the youngest members who seem to set cultural norms now) can keep track of who the icons are.
Well, one good thing about the list. I don't see Lady Gaga on it.
2. Mila Kunis
3. Sofia Vergara
4. Selita Ebanks
5. Miranda Kerr
6. Cheryl Cole
7. Scarlett Johansson
8. Katy Perry
9. Anne Hathaway
10. Jessica Pare
Ok, how many of those women have you heard of? Ever seen? I can answer only Scarlett Johansson, Katy Perry and Anne Hathaway and that's because they are overexposed actresses. I have never actually seen a movie with either. What does the lack of recognition by me say about my "cultural literacy"? Well, I am virtually illiterate when trendy, celebes are concerned.
It's the same thing with current music, art and literature. I don't know what's going on with it all.
But Alas! I don't want to know about them. When I glance what comes out of those areas makes me think it is a not much worth getting excited about. But then, as we age we tend to remain stuck in our own youth culture, leaving only grudgingly. Though I know nothing about 8 of the 10 on the list, I would guess that talent isn't what got some or them on the list. Today, celebrity is all more style and less about substance. If you doubt me, listen to some of the culture's most played and most purchased songs. I think you will be under whelmed.
My theory about the change in the kind of celebrity today is that communication makes instant celebrities of people for both good and bad reasons, most often though talent or merit is a minor factor in the equation. The five minutes of fame Andy Wharhol mentioned in the 60's is now down to about 30 seconds. Celebrities like those on the AskMen's list come and go so fast that only the core of the culture (mostly the youngest members who seem to set cultural norms now) can keep track of who the icons are.
Well, one good thing about the list. I don't see Lady Gaga on it.
E versus paper books
Electronic books are pushing the traditional paper books hard. Amazon.com recently announced it sells more E books than paper versions. It's interesting, but then, one would expect higher sales of E books via an electronic seller since the target purchaser is already electronically oriented. Sales of E books overall in comparison to regular paper books is still a small portion of the market. But I wonder how large a segment of the book market the electronic book will become.
I doubt E reading will ever entirely replace traditional paper book reading. It's as unlikely to happen as was the replacement of paintings by the camera image when photography was invented and became the rage. I think E reading may in fact expand the book market a little, given it makes reading convenient in this convenience oriented world. But paper books will always be a large segment of the market, because part of humanity will not like reading via an electronic devices.
Basically, one who reads with an E reader gets a quicker and more sterile experience in reading. But the paper book reader is more apt to want the physical object that is the paper book, feeling that it is part of the reading experience to have a book in hand. The fact that so many people keep collections of books that they have finished reading long ago read shows that a physical bond with a book is important to many of us. Too, a new technology tends to accompany an old one, not replace it. TV did not kill radio, and though color TV did kill black and white TV the superiority of the former over the latter is a far different thing than E versus paper book reading.
Of course children, who are not as bonded to reading paper books as adults, will be the market segment to embrace E readers fastest. But then, within that group there will always be those who want the physical book in preference as opposed to the electronic one. I think the main reason is that reading a paper book is a far different method of reading than is reading electronically. If you think about how you read a newspaper on line and how you read it off, it will illustrate this point.
When we read a paper book we tend to read it in entirety, but when we read on line we tend to dabble, skim, select portions to read. I think our bond to the written material is deeper when we have the book in paper form. In particular, our culture now is transitory, a throw away one. E books reflect that changing reality. It might not be an exaggeration to contend, but I will, that in this time we need more traditional ways of transferring thoughts and ideas, not more electronic modes that are faster, convenient and easier to use.
I doubt E reading will ever entirely replace traditional paper book reading. It's as unlikely to happen as was the replacement of paintings by the camera image when photography was invented and became the rage. I think E reading may in fact expand the book market a little, given it makes reading convenient in this convenience oriented world. But paper books will always be a large segment of the market, because part of humanity will not like reading via an electronic devices.
Basically, one who reads with an E reader gets a quicker and more sterile experience in reading. But the paper book reader is more apt to want the physical object that is the paper book, feeling that it is part of the reading experience to have a book in hand. The fact that so many people keep collections of books that they have finished reading long ago read shows that a physical bond with a book is important to many of us. Too, a new technology tends to accompany an old one, not replace it. TV did not kill radio, and though color TV did kill black and white TV the superiority of the former over the latter is a far different thing than E versus paper book reading.
Of course children, who are not as bonded to reading paper books as adults, will be the market segment to embrace E readers fastest. But then, within that group there will always be those who want the physical book in preference as opposed to the electronic one. I think the main reason is that reading a paper book is a far different method of reading than is reading electronically. If you think about how you read a newspaper on line and how you read it off, it will illustrate this point.
When we read a paper book we tend to read it in entirety, but when we read on line we tend to dabble, skim, select portions to read. I think our bond to the written material is deeper when we have the book in paper form. In particular, our culture now is transitory, a throw away one. E books reflect that changing reality. It might not be an exaggeration to contend, but I will, that in this time we need more traditional ways of transferring thoughts and ideas, not more electronic modes that are faster, convenient and easier to use.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Egyptian Uprising
The Egyptian disaffected are still protesting and rioting for "freedom". Isn't it amazing to see the world's oldest civilization even mentioning the word democracy? I doubt they will bring forth any real democracy. I am more inclined to believe they will have another nutty Islamic government with sham facades of a "democratic constitution" will arise.
One thing I like about this latest world crises is that the U.S. is sitting and watching instead of jumping into and interfering. I have to give Obama credit for this reaction. Unlike the policy of Cowboy Bush the U.S. now seems to have learned that it does not benefit from manipulating governments in third world nations. The "Oh, he is a dictator, but our dictator" mindset is no longer a viable policy toward emerging countries. It's the first time that I can remember in a while that a revolutionary movement in a poor despotic nation hasn't featured the usual "Down with the U.S." signs and rhetoric. It's rare that the U.S. isn't falsely blamed for the troubles of a failed political system in the third world.
Another unusual thing about the Egyptian revolution is it is being fueled by twitter and face book texts. Even the revolution in Tunisia that started the unrest in the Islamic dictatorships in the Mid East, was made possible only by communication through internet sites that the government can not fully block or censor. Technology today makes total blackouts impossible, and this will make revolutions easier to plan, and propagate.
One might even contend that this is the beginning of the age of "twitter Revolution" that will greatly change islamic dictatorships from one man absolute brutality rule to..whatever will emerge in those nations. Let's hope the new governments are not more of what came out of Iranian revoltuion in the 80's, a crazed fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship.
One thing I like about this latest world crises is that the U.S. is sitting and watching instead of jumping into and interfering. I have to give Obama credit for this reaction. Unlike the policy of Cowboy Bush the U.S. now seems to have learned that it does not benefit from manipulating governments in third world nations. The "Oh, he is a dictator, but our dictator" mindset is no longer a viable policy toward emerging countries. It's the first time that I can remember in a while that a revolutionary movement in a poor despotic nation hasn't featured the usual "Down with the U.S." signs and rhetoric. It's rare that the U.S. isn't falsely blamed for the troubles of a failed political system in the third world.
Another unusual thing about the Egyptian revolution is it is being fueled by twitter and face book texts. Even the revolution in Tunisia that started the unrest in the Islamic dictatorships in the Mid East, was made possible only by communication through internet sites that the government can not fully block or censor. Technology today makes total blackouts impossible, and this will make revolutions easier to plan, and propagate.
One might even contend that this is the beginning of the age of "twitter Revolution" that will greatly change islamic dictatorships from one man absolute brutality rule to..whatever will emerge in those nations. Let's hope the new governments are not more of what came out of Iranian revoltuion in the 80's, a crazed fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)