Just as a followup, because I did feel that this was a thought-provoking article, as an example of the "cost" of the Internet and our we-only-want-30-seconds-of-your-attention-for-a-soundbyte media, how many of you found that you no longer had the attention span to read the entire article? No need to reply...you know who you are. :-)
Attention -- the nature of it, the seeking of it, and the cost of giving it out indiscriminately -- is obviously a fascination of mine, so this article appealed to me. It made me think about the very nature of the Internet and its economic underpinnings, and why all of my browsers are equipped with add-ons like Adblock Plus. I don't see ads -- even subliminally, in the margins or in the top banner -- when reading this forum, and I never have to wait through a commercial when watching a YouTube video. I consider those things an intrusion into my life that is unacceptable in terms of cost, so I've found a way to block them. I'm going into this because some on this forum take the fact that I have set up less automated, manual blocks of *them* and their posts personally, as if it's some kind of "attack" against them. It's not. It's the consequence of sussing out that I have a limited amount of time left on this rock, and I don't want to piss it away with people or things that will simply waste it. It's not necessarily personal; it's the result of a cost/benefit analysis. Long experience has taught me that some subjects and some people are going to be *by definition* a waste of my time, and time is the one resource I cannot get back. So I've downloaded the EgoBlock Plus add-on, and installed it on my internal wetware browser. I recommend it highly. :-) And it's even free, so Alex doesn't have to worry about this post being spam. :-) All you need to run this add-on is free will, and the discrimination to use it. --- In [email protected], turquoiseb wrote: > > This subject line is a test, written after reading the article at the > link below. Despite what some here might have thought when they clicked > on it, neither the article nor the subject line is a reference to > Fairfield Life or the characters who populate it and often vie for your > attention. But both could be. The subject line is a very literal > description of the Internet and how it works. And the article is about > attention, period, how we live in a world that is nickle-and-dimeing us > to death by stealing tiny slices of our attention, and what the > cumulative cost of pissing away all that attention might be. > > It's also a little about people's goals when they desire to attract the > attention of others, and about goals, period. I loved the G.K. > Chesterton story from Tremendous Trifles about the two kids; it finally > made me understand why TMers want to fly. > > Anyway, enjoy: > > <http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/does-each-click-of-attention-co\ st-a-bit-of-ourselves/> http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/does-each-click-of-attention-cos\ t-a-bit-of-ourselves / <http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/does-each-click-of-attention-co\ st-a-bit-of-ourselves/> <http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/does-each-click-of-attention-co\ st-a-bit-of-ourselves/> >
