We are having quite a nice discussion in the comments of the post about Republican Muslims if you would like to join in.
We are having quite a nice discussion in the comments of the post about Republican Muslims if you would like to join in.
Customers Warm to Coffee Shops That Ban Wi-Fi Access
[Via Age of Engagement | Big Think]
More signs of a shift in society towards time and space that is unplugged: Cafes are attracting customers by banning Wi-Fi access. “People come here because we don’t offer it. They know they can get their work done and not get distracted,” Los Angeles cafe owner Dan Drozdenko tells the blog Where the Locals Eat.
[More]
Why would I go to a coffee shop if I simply wanted to sit?
I go to coffee shops to get work done, work that often requires an internet connection. Am I going to be forced into WarDiving to find my wifi connections? Will free Wifi only be found at dingy little parlors found on the bad side of the tracks while the upscale people, who all have offices of their own to access the Internet, get the nice places?
Truthfully, I often sit in a cafe drinking something with no wifi for hours. I have had 2 hour discussions with people in a cafe. Nobody tries to run me out because I am preventing the table from being turned over. Why only stopwatch police for laptops?
How about this – use congestion charging. WiFi is free when the place is empty. When occupancy reaches a threshold, charge for the Wifi. SImply give people 5 minutes to complete there work and make the WiFi password protected. To get the password, buy a drink.
Best of both worlds. Then I will not have to get work done in some rat-invested dump with barred windows.
by inju
Vanity Fair’s Broken Washington: A Few Solutions
[Via Age of Engagement | Big Think]
Todd Purdum has a feature in Vanity Fair this month that is so rich with insight, color, and analysis regarding the communication challenges facing the Obama administration that I immediately plugged the article into my graduate course syllabus for the semester.
“The sheer growth of the federal government, the paralysis of Congress, the systemic corruption brought on by lobbying, the trivialization of the ‘news’ by the media, the willful disregard for facts and truth, these forces have made today’s Washington a depressing and dysfunctional place,” writes Purdum in the subscription protected article. “They have shaped and at times hobbled the presidency itself.”
Purdum describes what’s historically different today about Washington even in comparison to the Clinton era. He relates the loss of civil discourse, the structural dysfunction of redistricting that enables House members to be ever more hyper-partisan, and the roadblock of the filibuster. He also focuses on the loss of bi-partisan socializing among Congressional members, as Republicans sleep in their offices rather than maintain a home and social ties in Washington, DC , avoiding the risk of being “polluted” by the Capital’s “cozy culture.” And of course, there is the ever stronger influence and financial might of lobbyists.
[More]
I agree with everything said in the second paragraph. Every clause is correct.
At least to what I already think. I will have to be very careful reading it, then, to make sure it is not a case of confirmation bias. It will have to have some facts that really do demonstrate that there is a quantitative difference in discourse today in Washington than before and that the media is really a big cause of the problem, rather than simply an effect.
I will have take some time reading the article and digesting it. What? It is behind a pay wall and can not be accessed. Of course, I forgot it is being published by the same media that it is railing against. While it may be correct – it is a logical fallacy to belive someone’s job description means that they can not possibly be correct – it does serve as a reminder that contemplating one’s navel like this is part of the media.
What would be important is not just ‘recognizing’ there is a problem but to also suggest pathways to: 1) verify that the model is correct , and 2) find solutions.