Fishing Planet: Cornucopia Pack Full Crack [full Version]
for the average citizen, not much has changed. i suspect that web sites now rank-order things for us in ways that older, more salient sites don’t, and that search engines now deem the meanings, and opinions, of their users more important than the data that google and yahool discover themselves. think of how google’s results changed with the removal of the “i’m feeling lucky” button. remember how people could browse the web using a browser without a search box? and now the web lacks both a news search box (unless you install one) and an opinion search box (unless you install one). would the web be less valuable now if the brain-dead yahoo or msn box replaced it? what if search engines integrated richer data sources, like wikipedia, and used it in preference to user-generated data for information retrieval? (more on that later). some might argue that “facts” are becoming transient, and hence become less informative than “opinions”. does this explain google’s recent suspension of their fact-checker? i suspect not. as marshall mcluhan, and others before him, understood, the real content, the news value of the internet, is a function of its social and physical dimension.
why should the web be more than a platform for the dissemination of information? instead of re-telling the history of search engines, just as there are now a thousand ways to list the best blt’s, better search engines will help us find them. why can’t we have, in the world of web apps, the agorimapp for yes-no, the casimi for all kinds of classification, an oask for complex requests like “i’m searching for a popular singer who sings the song i’m playing now”? why can’t we have a single response for all of those things? and why can’t that response be the sum of the most significant evidence in the entire space? search engines are getting better at understanding the meaning of the content they find, as evidenced by the fact that your google search for “www” which takes seconds to return, may not have loaded my wall street journal column on the world wide web?
ever since the digital revolution, we have had an arms race of sorts with technology. we have raced to develop new forms of visualisation, but have only managed to (re-)create new kinds of silos. as screen and device sizes (and the interactivity they enable) have expanded, so our circles have become more geometrically defined, our communications more separated and our public spaces less so. what this suggests, for me, is that the metaphor of the ecological niche is not being applied to our digital interiors. we seem to have outgrown the metaphor, but even so, there’s been a slow movement toward re-making the physical environment, or at least to allow the development of spatial hierarchies in the digital domain. the real question is why we have had the discipline to move towards such an obvious revolution in our physical environment, but have found it so hard to embrace its technological equivalent.
chat is the ultimate zookeeper. as with whacking a computer, it requires both aggression and time, and it’s hard to imagine how it could be convincingly implemented without the development of “dark knowledge”. one of the casualties of the explosion of online discourse will be the decline of the englished language. linguistic relativity and the loss of literacy have important consequences for the way we understand each other. we may, for example, end up discussing politics, social policy and personal relationships in a sibilant, slang-infested language that veers between different registers, colours and degrees of irony. a global conversation about the common good could develop an idiom that is truer to our desires, but which would need to be re-created from scratch.