5 ms·
Why can't they all be revolutionizing the world? This meme where only one thing can be revolutionary at a time really bugs me. Revolutions happen all the time a
by unalone 17y ago
Why can't they all be revolutionizing the world? This meme where only one thing can be revolutionary at a time really bugs me. Revolutions happen all the time and they are all awesome.
I also dislike that an article like this needs to open with the typical anti-TV comments. Ray Bradbury always struck me as a whiny brat of an old man who refused to embrace technology as being really neat. Whenever somebody quotes him just because he's Ray Bradbury I sigh a little.
- abossy 17y agoI totally agree. The overarching theme here is communications technology. Both the Internet and Television enable us to communicate on a massive scale. They're not even completely distinct entities anymore, and the lines between the two will become more blurred in the future.
- timr 17y agoYou're missing the point: television is everywhere. Even if you're generous and you assume continued exponential growth of the internet, it won't have the same global reach for a long time to come. When most of the world is still at the stage where clean water is revolutionary technology, it's kind of silly to suggest that Twitter is "changing the world" of much more than people who live comfortable lives in first-world countries.
- unalone 17y agoAgain I'll ask: Since when is a revolution measured by quantity? I mean, Twitter is arguably more cutting-edge than television. So in one sense it's more revolutionary. But television is spreading faster, so that's a revolution that's hitting more people. It doesn't need to be a competition between the two. I for one don't expect to pay television much mind in the coming years, no matter how quickly it's spreading everywhere else.
- chrischen 17y agoOk I don't see how Twitter is more cutting edge than television, but even if you don't watch TV, it will undeniably affect you more than Twitter once it's hype dies down, if Twitter even affects you more than TV right now.
- unalone 17y agoOk I don't see how Twitter is more cutting edge than television Let's see. Television is a form of communication in which there are a hundred channels and I am forced to pick one to consume. Twitter is a form of communication in which there are two million channels and I can create my own. That's cutting edge. but even if you don't watch TV, it will undeniably affect you more than Twitter once it's hype dies down, if Twitter even affects you more than TV right now I don't understand this. Not like I don't understand your mindset: I don't understand what you're saying. This is incredibly convoluted.
- chrischen 17y agoWay more people watch tv than use Twitter, facebook, or even all of the Internet. Heck more people use facebook than twitter. If anything, facebook is more cutting edge than tv, but no, it's not.
- InclinedPlane 17y agoWhat part of exponential don't you understand? At the current growth rate of the internet since 2000 you'd expect the entire population of the world to be using the internet by 2020. That may not occur, but you'd have to assume an end to the current growth rate of the internet.
- jrwoodruff 17y agoAgreed. Television may actually be the leading edge of the information revolution - it streams information, culture and entertainment to billions. Once an area is electrified, television enters the scene, and behind that comes... the internet? (Where's Bill Curtis when you need him)