PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Datruth on December 17, 2006, 09:09:22 am
-
It's official, and on Monday you can buy a copy of Time Magazine to read the article behind it.
It has the youtube background for vids, pause button, full screen, all that, but instead of a video, there is a foil like box in the center, with the youtube frame around it.
At the top it says Times person of the year 2006
And at the bottom it states plainly, You.
Youtube has changed the information age, and allows user generated content.
It's search functions Rival Google and it's power is seen with the demise of a senator for his meckack remark.
Steve and Chad, have revolutionized the world. Entertainement on a new level.
The power is in your hands.
I'm glad to say I was on the Youtube Bandwagon, Wayyy before it was ever popular.
I hope now you will all join me.
Sincerely,
~~Datruth
-
Youtube is in no way, shape, or form any sort of revolutionary identity. The revolution happened over a decade ago. The only thing special about youtube is that it's well known.
-
Youtube is in no way, shape, or form any sort of revolutionary identity. The revolution happened over a decade ago. The only thing special about youtube is that it's well known.
Time magazine disagrees with you.
I suggest you pick up a copy of the magazine on monday.
And i also have a feeling you don't use youtube, those who haven't used the computer, never understood it's power.
That same is true with youtube.
User generated information, voted on, favorited, vloged, spoken about, and featured, has won the time's greatest achievement.
~~Datruth
~~~~~Edit:
A man running for senator, lost his senate seat because of it.
The majority agree, had he not made his racist statement, and had it not traveled on youtube, he would be in our U.S senate today.
The power in that... is amazing.
-
Time magazine disagrees with you.
Because they're stupid.
I suggest you pick up a copy of the magazine on monday.
Why should I?
And i also have a feeling you don't use youtube, those who haven't used the computer, never understood it's power.
I've used youtube hundreds and hundreds of times, not to upload stuff though.
That same is true with youtube.
Except that I've used youtube, and I understand why people think it's so powerful. It's just that I think such opinions lack historical perspective.
User generated information, voted on, favorited, vloged, spoken about, and featured, has won the time's greatest achievement.
Such things have been around since long before Youtube hit the net.
A man running for senator, lost his senate seat because of it.
A lot of stuff has been changed through Youtube. However, Youtube isn't revolutionary.
The majority agree, had he not made his racist statement, and had it not traveled on youtube, he would be in our U.S senate today.
Are you saying that before Youtube, people were not able to share information via the net?
-
Please, explain to me how youtube is not revolutionary my friend ;) :)
Tell me any website, that was around, before youtube, that did everything youtube does.
Please.. if such a website exists, that revolutionised us, explain to me where it can be found. 8)
The way you speak, and the words you say, are as if youtube is a redo.... whom and what is it redoing that's done so well?
~~Datruth
-
Tell me any website, that was around, before youtube, that did everything youtube does.
~~Datruth
Try typing 'www.google.com' into the address bar.
-
Tell me any website, that was around, before youtube, that did everything youtube does.
~~Datruth
Try typing 'www.google.com' into the address bar.
If google, is the same as youtube... and youtube didn't revolutionize anything.
Than why did google feel like it needed to buy youtube?
Google, does not provide videos with a community, feedback systems, favoriting, your own channels, NONE of that.
Even after Youtube, people tried to copy, like Google video, but they failed.
Google video is shutting down soon, google now owns youtube and will use it's resources there.
Google, and Youtube, are two different brands.
Two brands that would be the same would be like Google buying ask.com
Google would never buy ask.com..... why? Because they are 99% equal.
Google bought youtube, and for 1.6 billiion, because it was revolutionary, and it provided a niche that wasn't there before.
An internet media, by the people, and for the people, NO ONE has done that before.
~~Datruth
-
The Times person of the year is actually "You", to represent all bloggers, community websites and videowebsites who contribute to the "digital democracy".
Picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b2/TIME_Person_of_the_Year_2006.jpg/180px-TIME_Person_of_the_Year_2006.jpg)
/me mumbles something about "read before you post".
-
"For seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, Time's Person of the Year for 2006 is you," the magazine's Lev Grossman wrote.
The magazine has put a mirror on the cover of its "Person of the Year" issue, released on Monday, "because it literally reflects the idea that you, not us, are transforming the information age," Editor Richard Stengel said in a statement.
Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-12-17T020450Z_01_N15184106_RTRUKOC_0_US-TIME.xml&WTmodLoc=USNewsHome_C1_%5BFeed%5D-8&rpc=92)
It is not YouTube, it is you ... whole Web 2.0 thingy.
They must be really hurting for subscribers to pander so blatantly to their customers ;)
-
The Times person of the year is actually "You", to represent all bloggers, community websites and videowebsites who contribute to the "digital democracy".
Picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b2/TIME_Person_of_the_Year_2006.jpg/180px-TIME_Person_of_the_Year_2006.jpg)
/me mumbles something about "read before you post".
At the top it says Times person of the year 2006
And at the bottom it states plainly, You.
I watched the Cnn documentery about this, i listened to the person who actually choose the person of the year, and he said that it was youtube that had won, it's idea, what it does.
Him describing the age of technology and sharing and content of videos is good and all, and i'm all for it, but youtube was the inspiration for it all.
Without youtube, this cover would not exist.
OH and thom... try reading my post before you post, i know about the picture, i saw it last night already, no need to remind me.
The you, plainly is a play on the phrase Youtube, If you haven't noticed, look around the reflective thing... what do you see?
Did anyone else watch Cnn's documentery about this, i should go check youtube to see if it's there ;)
Yes it means i'm breaking some laws.... do i care... not really.
~~Datruth
-
From abc news...
Dec. 17, 2006 — According to Time magazine, you are the person of the year.
Yes, you, along with everyone else in the "digital democracy" blew other contenders, including North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il and President Bush, out of the water (though both made it into the magazine's list of "People Who Mattered.")
/me agrees with ThomPhoenix.
-
I'm getting the urge to post about a rice-bag.
-
Do tell Kary, is it a nice bag?, for a rice bag that is...
Anyone else think this whole mirror thing is a little unoriginal (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/LookAtYourself.jpg)
-
Minute rice, Uncle Bens or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwOQMf_C-Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwOQMf_C-Q)
-
ThomPhoenix is correct. Time magazine only cited YouTube... along with other sites like Facebook, MySpace and Wikipedia. So it wasn't YouTube who won, it really was "You".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6187113.stm so says the BBC too.
I also think that YouTube wasn't anything revolutionary. No more than wikipedia, and I'd say less than wikipedia. Certainly it was evolution using the increasing speed available to users of the web and mainly a good business idea.
-
also a website is not a person so can not win "time's person of the year"
-
ermmmm youtube is about the same as myspace to me, jsut a fad thatll prolly be forgotten about and replaced in a few years....
i do think youtube is nice for finding videos and what not...but i dont know if its so imcredibly omgz!!! awesome to start a topic about it :flowers:
-
precedent (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Time_%28Simpsons%29.jpg/200px-Time_%28Simpsons%29.jpg)
-
dam that rod!
-
Please, explain to me how youtube is not revolutionary my friend ;) :)
Tell me any website, that was around, before youtube, that did everything youtube does.
Please.. if such a website exists, that revolutionised us, explain to me where it can be found. 8)
The way you speak, and the words you say, are as if youtube is a redo.... whom and what is it redoing that's done so well?
~~Datruth
Throughout the 1990's, it became easier and easier to host files and start up your own website. That's why Youtube isn't revolutionary - all the things it does were around long before.
The thing about Youtube is that it's convenient and popular, but I'm not sure that's reason enough to call it revolutionary.
About myspace: People don't use it to say anything important. They just use it to hook up and look cool.
Livejournal and its clones are better.
But before all of these things, people had personal websites and there were BBS rings like Onenet, and before that was Usenet!
-
Long live UseNet. :thumbup:
-
I agree with Datruth when he says Youtube was revolutionary. I use it alot and you can watch all sorts of things. It's amazing for people like me who like to watch old stuff like an enterview of Cazuza, Genesis playing at their garage or something of the kind. I don't know where else to find those.
And I consider the fact that it is so easy to access and know about a contribute to its revolutionary aspect.
Of course wikipedia ranks better in my opinion, but Youtube's a big deal.
-
Sadly, a large number of the files hosted on youtube have no business being there as they are blatant copyright infringements. If there were not sites like this available there would be less justification for the copyright cartel to wage war on the public interest in "intellectual property". The cartel would still try but it would be a harder sell. The worst part of the whole deal is the copyright/patent/trademark is a privilige granted by the state that carries liitle in the way of obligations on the grantee in return.
-
Of course wikipedia ranks better in my opinion, but Youtube's a big deal.
Wikipedia is even less important than Youtube. It's more convenient, but everything on it could easily be communicated in a variety of other ways which have been around longer.
Sadly, a large number of the files hosted on youtube have no business being there as they are blatant copyright infringements. If there were not sites like this available there would be less justification for the copyright cartel to wage war on the public interest in "intellectual property". The cartel would still try but it would be a harder sell. The worst part of the whole deal is the copyright/patent/trademark is a privilige granted by the state that carries liitle in the way of obligations on the grantee in return.
Not true. The more difficult it is to enforce copyrights, the less motivation there is for the RIAA to be jerkholes. I want them to be fighting an impossible battle so that they eventually give up.
-
How long before they pay the politicians to make copyright infringement punishable by prison time? Such is a possibility already in Australia ( see this (http://weatherall.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_weatherall_archive.html#116406475922663824)). The link does not specify incarceration but it does talk about infringement being a criminal offense so the potential is there. You think there are a lot of potheads in prison now, wait until dl'ing mp3s gets the same treatment.
Big business does not give up easily they just fight dirtier.
-
How long before they pay the politicians to make copyright infringement punishable by prison time? Such is a possibility already in Australia ( see this (http://weatherall.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_weatherall_archive.html#116406475922663824)). The link does not specify incarceration but it does talk about infringement being a criminal offense so the potential is there. You think there are a lot of potheads in prison now, wait until dl'ing mp3s gets the same treatment.
Big business does not give up easily they just fight dirtier.
I'm not sure if you disagree with me or not.
-
Mostly not. The only way things will get better is if enough people tell the politicians enough is enough and they won't get elected if they keep it up. Unfortunately that is not likely as most people could care less about copyright until they get served with a supoena. At the very least the copyright cartel should be required to make available in a digital format anything they own that they choose not to offer commercially to the public. I greatly object to some mogul deciding what culture I am allowed to consume and burying everything else until it is lost.
-
It only happens that way in some cases. For instance, there's a band I like called Splashdown. They had an album under Universal which was absolutely amazing, but Universal decided not to release it. Universal also refuses to sell the rights to the album back to the band. Something similar happened to a band called Jawbreaker when they went to Geffen, until Geffen rereleased the album some years later (Technically, they sold the rights to Blackball records, a label started by Adam Phaller, the band's drummer). But such cases are the minority. The big issue is that major corporations have a monopoly over the means of distribution and promotion.
If people can use P2P software and music websites to access well known music, those mediums will flourish. As a result, more indie stuff will get more attention since they exist along side the mainstream stuff shoulder to shoulder as opposed to being completely blocked out by Clear Channel etc.
-
ThomPhoenix is correct. Time magazine only cited YouTube... along with other sites like Facebook, MySpace and Wikipedia. So it wasn't YouTube who won, it really was "You".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6187113.stm so says the BBC too.
I also think that YouTube wasn't anything revolutionary. No more than wikipedia, and I'd say less than wikipedia. Certainly it was evolution using the increasing speed available to users of the web and mainly a good business idea.
Wiki.. is more important than youtube....
Show me one person who would buy it for 1.6 billion.
Game, set, match.
No investor would feel that Wiki is better or more revolutionary than Youtube.
Youtube, was the inspiration for this cover, but after reading a few articles you guys were right that it isn't exclusively youtube but a few other sites, and it's more of an idea, than a site.
OH and someone here, i believe miadan, mentioned youtube is a website and can't be person of the year.
A few decades ago, The computer, was person of the year.
Again, game, set, match.
AS for copyright infringement, If you buy a cd and want to share it with people, on a global scale, I HAVE no problem with it.
~~Datruth
-
Yeah well That is all very fine and good but let me know where I can get copies of this (http://www.myspace.com/thegarfieldband) bands albums. I saw nothing on that site that would let me. I suppose I could listen to them if they didn't use crappy flash which is not well supported in linux.
-
AS for copyright infringement, If you buy a cd and want to share it with people, on a global scale, I HAVE no problem with it.
I don't think it's up to you, though?
-
That would have to be one huge sound system and would deafen almost everyone so you could reach every last person .....
-
Yeah well That is all very fine and good but let me know where I can get copies of this (http://www.myspace.com/thegarfieldband) bands albums. I saw nothing on that site that would let me. I suppose I could listen to them if they didn't use crappy flash which is not well supported in linux.
Just go to one of their shows and ask them in person.
-
AS for copyright infringement, If you buy a cd and want to share it with people, on a global scale, I HAVE no problem with it.
I don't think it's up to you, though?
The power is with the people.
Unless you are a totalitarian...
The government is for the people and by the people, in order to protect our civil liberties.
Its abilities stop after that point and become frivolous poltics.
The power lies with us, the people.
So yes karyuu... i believe this is up to me.
And I have made my stance.
Have you?
~~Datruth
My views on the subject posted:
http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=26860.0
-
The idea of taming livestock to be used as a source of food was revoluntionary. The idea of using electricity as a source of power to fuel anything from light bulbs to give light over expensive candels, to modern day times of powering the computer you currently are using, was revolutionary. The idea of taking food and keeping it cold to make it last longer was revolutionary. Youtube is not revolutionary.
The person who invented the refridgerator was not a revolutionist. The idea to store food to keep it cool to make it last longer was long ago thought of before the fridge ever came out. All the fridge did was make this idea convenient to the masses. Before that, it was limited to a room full of ice blocks.
The idea of massive public sharing of videos, opinions, information, data, etc, etc was well in existance long before YouTube came along. YouTube simply made sharing videos easy, a convenience. Before youtube, there was/is bit torrent, before that, peer 2 peer programs, before that, user made websites, before that, Usenet, etc etc. The idea behind the Internet itself was to be able to send and share data with people all over the world.
If anything, YouTube is no more than the VCR. But unlike the VCR, you can share vidoes with people all around the world near instantaneously.Again, it's convenience. The creators of YouTube took the idea of sharing videos, and made a simple, easy way to do it. But they weren't the first ones to do it/ think up the idea.
A product is never revolutionary, it's the idea behind the product that is. YouTube is a product of the idea that there should be a way to massively share videos with people all over the world. But that idea has been around long before YouTube.
-
The idea of taming livestock to be used as a source of food was revoluntionary. The idea of using electricity as a source of power to fuel anything from light bulbs to give light over expensive candels, to modern day times of powering the computer you currently are using, was revolutionary. The idea of taking food and keeping it cold to make it last longer was revolutionary. Youtube is not revolutionary.
The person who invented the refridgerator was not a revolutionist. The idea to store food to keep it cool to make it last longer was long ago thought of before the fridge ever came out. All the fridge did was make this idea convenient to the masses. Before that, it was limited to a room full of ice blocks.
The idea of massive public sharing of videos, opinions, information, data, etc, etc was well in existance long before YouTube came along. YouTube simply made sharing videos easy, a convenience. Before youtube, there was/is bit torrent, before that, peer 2 peer programs, before that, user made websites, before that, Usenet, etc etc. The idea behind the Internet itself was to be able to send and share data with people all over the world.
If anything, YouTube is no more than the VCR. But unlike the VCR, you can share vidoes with people all around the world near instantaneously.Again, it's convenience. The creators of YouTube took the idea of sharing videos, and made a simple, easy way to do it. But they weren't the first ones to do it/ think up the idea.
A product is never revolutionary, it's the idea behind the product that is. YouTube is a product of the idea that there should be a way to massively share videos with people all over the world. But that idea has been around long before YouTube.
I agree with you neko, so cars are not revolutionary because the idea of the wheel was thought up well in advance.
Ideas always exist my friend....
It's people who take them and use them properly who win.
Ask.com fails
yahoo.com search fails
and msn.com search fails.
Google wins, Google being bigger than Disney and Time warner put together.
The idea was there, but they sucked at it.
Google revolutionized it, and NO ONE can say google was not part of a revolution in the way we live.
You have it all wrong Neko, your analogies lack coherence.
Youtube, was the first, is the first, and has always been the first, to do what it does.
Call it what you like, there has been nothing before it, that slightly looked at it.
Even if the interent, in essence did it, Youtube was a whole other system, a community, it was marvelous.
You will not deny youtube it's much deserved credit Neko, it is worth more than any of us may be in our whole lives. 1.6 billion.
~~Datruth
-
I don't get what the big deal is :P
It's just a place to share videos. Fun fun fun. I don't think I'm going to marvel at it though.
-
Youtube, was the first, is the first, and has always been the first, to do what it does.
Let's say you do something new. I then do it while wearing a funny hat. I was the first to do what I just did, given that what I did was slightly different than what you did and therefore not the same thing. By your logic, that is.
-
Youtube, was the first, is the first, and has always been the first, to do what it does.
Let's say you do something new. I then do it while wearing a funny hat. I was the first to do what I just did, given that what I did was slightly different than what you did and therefore not the same thing. By your logic, that is.
Youtube is not slightly different than ANYTHING.
Name something that "without a hat" is youtube...
Your analogy is flawed, nothing has come near this.
~~Datruth
-
Youtube is not slightly different than ANYTHING.
Name something that "without a hat" is youtube...
Your analogy is flawed, nothing has come near this.
~~Datruth
Blogs? Napster? Private at home websites? Usenet?
-
Yeah well That is all very fine and good but let me know where I can get copies of this (http://www.myspace.com/thegarfieldband) bands albums. I saw nothing on that site that would let me. I suppose I could listen to them if they didn't use crappy flash which is not well supported in linux.
Just go to one of their shows and ask them in person.
I am not certain but I don't think they have had one in more than 20 years. They broke up in the eighties and haven't had an album since. They are one of those bands that are not commercial enough for the cartel to re-issue their albums. I might be able to buy an album off ebay, I see some listed but I don't have a stereo, much less a turntable so it would not do me much good.
Just goes to show that the cartel is limiting what culture I have access to. To my way of thinking the record company which holds the rights to this material has forfeited them by not making it continuously available. Legally, of course, that is not so.
-
I would like to point out to you the website www.sellaband.com, where the rights of a band's music is not owned by a big recordcompany, but by the fans themselves. Profit of the band goes to the fans/investors and the SellaBand for a couple of years (I think 2 or 3) and after that the band gets everything. It's a great Dutch initiative ;)
-
That is all well and good but doesn't do anything for "legacy culture." Certainly there are more ways now than ever before to produce your own music. Copyright as it exists now is broken and the cartels are trying to make it even more repressive. I think we can all agree with that. The idea is sound but the implimentation is not.
-
ThomPhoenix is correct. Time magazine only cited YouTube... along with other sites like Facebook, MySpace and Wikipedia. So it wasn't YouTube who won, it really was "You".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6187113.stm so says the BBC too.
I also think that YouTube wasn't anything revolutionary. No more than wikipedia, and I'd say less than wikipedia. Certainly it was evolution using the increasing speed available to users of the web and mainly a good business idea.
Wiki.. is more important than youtube....
Show me one person who would buy it for 1.6 billion.
Game, set, match.
No investor would feel that Wiki is better or more revolutionary than Youtube.
You don't need to buy wikipedia... Google is already integrating it with its searches freely... why would it need to buy it, just for the name? Just because someone doesn't run out and buy something doesn't mean that it's not more important than something else. Plus buying something which has entirely GPL content is dumb...
Game, set, match. ;)
I'd even go as far as saying that YouTube used the concept of Wikipedia (or any other similar system which came earlier) as the foundation of its website. Instead of allowing people to create and upload text information, they did it with videos. They certainly didn't invent anything new, only put it in a convenient form. Convenience is everything, which is why it became so popular. It's evolution, not revolution.
-
Youtube epitomizes mankind: pure, unadulterated, uncensored chaos. There's so much crap to drudge through to find something decent it completely defeats the purpose. It's like the freaky colonel guy said: It hampers evolution, not enhance it. How can we evolve to a higher form of life when a fat kid dancing around his room with a lightsabre (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmnXWYYC24c) is what we find entertaining?
-
Yeah well That is all very fine and good but let me know where I can get copies of this (http://www.myspace.com/thegarfieldband) bands albums. I saw nothing on that site that would let me. I suppose I could listen to them if they didn't use crappy flash which is not well supported in linux.
Just go to one of their shows and ask them in person.
I am not certain but I don't think they have had one in more than 20 years. They broke up in the eighties and haven't had an album since. They are one of those bands that are not commercial enough for the cartel to re-issue their albums. I might be able to buy an album off ebay, I see some listed but I don't have a stereo, much less a turntable so it would not do me much good.
Just goes to show that the cartel is limiting what culture I have access to. To my way of thinking the record company which holds the rights to this material has forfeited them by not making it continuously available. Legally, of course, that is not so.
Are they all dead?
Youtube epitomizes mankind: pure, unadulterated, uncensored chaos. There's so much crap to drudge through to find something decent it completely defeats the purpose. It's like the freaky colonel guy said: It hampers evolution, not enhance it. How can we evolve to a higher form of life when a fat kid dancing around his room with a lightsabre (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmnXWYYC24c) is what we find entertaining?
Youtube is extremely censored. Are you kidding me?
-
@Datruth, I have to say that it is You, and Me, and anyone who has made content available via the internet that has won the award.
YouTube is just used as the most visible publicly accessible example of what the public can do if people are given the means. Does this mean that any blog or website is less valid than a vlog on YouTube?
NO!
That would equate to saying that any film/movie is more valid than any book or Radio Show.
Just because something involves the use of video has no impact on its, ummmm, impact.
-
\\o// ahhaha i like that Idoru
-
ThomPhoenix is correct. Time magazine only cited YouTube... along with other sites like Facebook, MySpace and Wikipedia. So it wasn't YouTube who won, it really was "You".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6187113.stm so says the BBC too.
I also think that YouTube wasn't anything revolutionary. No more than wikipedia, and I'd say less than wikipedia. Certainly it was evolution using the increasing speed available to users of the web and mainly a good business idea.
Wiki.. is more important than youtube....
Show me one person who would buy it for 1.6 billion.
Game, set, match.
No investor would feel that Wiki is better or more revolutionary than Youtube.
You don't need to buy wikipedia... Google is already integrating it with its searches freely... why would it need to buy it, just for the name? Just because someone doesn't run out and buy something doesn't mean that it's not more important than something else. Plus buying something which has entirely GPL content is dumb...
Game, set, match. ;)
I'd even go as far as saying that YouTube used the concept of Wikipedia (or any other similar system which came earlier) as the foundation of its website. Instead of allowing people to create and upload text information, they did it with videos. They certainly didn't invent anything new, only put it in a convenient form. Convenience is everything, which is why it became so popular. It's evolution, not revolution.
Ohh... it' evolution... not revolution?
So the car... was an evolution on the wheel and later on the wagon, and later on the horse driven wagon?
I'm sorry.. but the Car was Revolutional.
It changed everyone's lives.
Why can't it be both? An evolution of an object, or idea, that becomes revolutional, WHY can't youtube be concidered revolutional.
The darn thing is worth 1.6 billion.
And it has added about 80 dollars to google stock, 80 BUCKS!! That's more than most companies stocks are worth.
Your spewing out NONSENSE xordan.
Your first trying to say, WIKIPEDIA, is the FRAMEWORK of youtube....... how in the world are they alike?
Then you are saying Wiki is doing a better job than youtube is, at what it does...
YOUTUBE is completely different than wiki... in a trillion ways... i don't even see how their frameworks connect.
Can someone who agrees with xordan, please explain it to me?
Am i the only one who thinks WIKI is a completely different product than youtube, and that Youtube is 100 times the produce wikipedia is?
Should we go off which site has more hits? If that's the case, i'm pretty sure youtube would come out winning?
And you know why google, WILL NOT buy WIikipedia, it's not because of search.....
It's becuase it has no growth value, and it really isn't that interesting.
~~Datruth
-
Why can't it be both? An evolution of an object, or idea, that becomes revolutional, WHY can't youtube be concidered revolutional.
The darn thing is worth 1.6 billion.
And it has added about 80 dollars to google stock, 80 BUCKS!! That's more than most companies stocks are worth.
Just becuase some one is willing to pat 5 dollars for a pen cap, does not mean that pen cap is actually worth 5 dollars.
Am i the only one who thinks WIKI is a completely different product than youtube, and that Youtube is 100 times the produce wikipedia is?
Wiki and youtube have the same idea behind them. That is to host a convenient way to share data with a massive amount of people freely and openly. Wiki shares data in the form of text. YouTube shares data in the form of videos. The underlying principle of the two is the same.
Again, the invention itself does not bring the change, a revolution, in things are done. It's the concept, the idea, behind the invention that does. The invention itself nearly facilitates the idea. There are many other video hosting websites out there. But becuase Youtube is generally excepted as the best, most convenient, way to share videos, it is the most popular used.
-
Why can't it be both? An evolution of an object, or idea, that becomes revolutional, WHY can't youtube be concidered revolutional.
The darn thing is worth 1.6 billion.
And it has added about 80 dollars to google stock, 80 BUCKS!! That's more than most companies stocks are worth.
Just becuase some one is willing to pat 5 dollars for a pen cap, does not mean that pen cap is actually worth 5 dollars.
Am i the only one who thinks WIKI is a completely different product than youtube, and that Youtube is 100 times the produce wikipedia is?
Wiki and youtube have the same idea behind them. That is to host a convenient way to share data with a massive amount of people freely and openly. Wiki shares data in the form of text. YouTube shares data in the form of videos. The underlying principle of the two is the same.
Again, the invention itself does not bring the change, a revolution, in things are done. It's the concept, the idea, behind the invention that does. The invention itself nearly facilitates the idea. There are many other video hosting websites out there. But becuase Youtube is generally excepted as the best, most convenient, way to share videos, it is the most popular used.
Using your same analogy I underlined, that would mean the Internet would be included, as well as google, yahoo, and a MILLION other websites and items.
THAT is the most GENERAL definition of youtube i've ever heard.
And that's not it's aim.
It's Aim is to create a community that can express itself thorugh vlogs and can choose themselves, what they like, and what they like to see. All done in the form of videos.
That's a WAY better definiton of youtube.
But hey, i understand why you defined Youtube so Generally, because you needed to link it up to youtube.
Which you can't do.
You can't... and your attempt at it, links up the whole internet..
It's like saying your related to EVERYTHING in this world... because.. you live on it... therefore.. everything is just an evolution of everything else.
Nothing is genuienly new... because.. we thought it up already.....it's VERY VERY general counterpart.
Again... the wheel and the car.
~~Datruth
-
The internet was around long before Youtube.
Case closed.
-
You have your opinoin, and I'll have mine. It seems we have both made our points and things would just go round and round in circles never getting anywhere in the end so I'll agree to disagree with you. :)
(@datruth)
-
There can only be one! Fight!
-
The internet was around long before Youtube.
Case closed.
What... are you talking about?
Youtube's function is not the same as the internet, yes if we use Neko's Very very general look at it... then we get it.
But then zanzibar, me and you are identical, Genetically anyways, about 99% alike, if we use the same general route neko took.
In truth though, we are ideologically opposite in alot of ways.
You have your opinoin, and I'll have mine. It seems we have both made our points and things would just go round and round in circles never getting anywhere in the end so I'll agree to disagree with you. :)
(@datruth)
I agree, there is no right and wrong at this point, it's all up to the person.
I have no place telling you to examine things the way i do, if you feel you want to examine it generally you have the right.
Maybe i'm just not looking at it right.
You have become the more honorable man by agreeing to disagree first, for that i thank you :)
There can only be one! Fight!
I found that kinda funny, but i really don't want readers to go through spam as they are reading the thread.
AS for youtube and the thread:
They have revolutionized the internet, and the way we look at videos.
They have created a community that works together...
and.... is worth 1.6 BILLION dollars!!
GO youtube!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to mention one thing though:
If someone asked me to pick the times person of the year, i would pick Iran's leader Ahmadinejad.
The definition of times person of the year was something like:
the person who most affected news this year, for better or for worse.
IF we use that definition, i would say definetely Ahmadinejad get's the title.
~~Datruth
-
Obviously, not all differences are the same!
-
Obviously, not all differences are the same!
I didn't get that, and read it like 10 times.. i mean i understand it.. but what does it mean?
If it's just a joke... ignore my post lol ;D
~~Datruth
-
I want to mention one thing though:
If someone asked me to pick the times person of the year, i would pick Iran's leader Ahmadinejad.
The definition of times person of the year was something like:
the person who most affected news this year, for better or for worse.
IF we use that definition, i would say definetely Ahmadinejad get's the title.
~~Datruth
The only reason I remember that name is because the way the Americans say it it sounds like "I'm-a-dinner-jacket"...
Anyway, maybe it's because I don't live in the internet-obsessed world of America (at least, more-so than us), but outside of America I barely hear YouTube talked about AT ALL. Let alone it being the furthering of human society.
Personally, I find FOX News to be hilarious. I was watching RTENews (Radio Teilifis Eireann - Irish TV) who were very professionally discussing the Prostitute Murderer case, and then I turned to FOX, and they were discussing a new YouTube video about these big-boobed woman being chased by silicon breast implants ::)
EDIT: Here's a link that proves my point about YouTube. It's not funny, it's not nice, and it's not beneficial to society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0UFIA4Wh7E
and the response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB8ZqorPQdY&NR
This crap is all over that site. It's either flame-wars, videos of babies falling over or biased political satire.