#5 David Bendit:

"The vast majority of people on the Internet are consumers, not producers. Even in terms of comments, I'd wager that the comment-to-pageview ratio, even excluding rss, is far below 1%. Saying that all this cognitive surplus is going to the advancement of the Internet is nonsense. People are just finding new diversions. Instead of watching Seinfeld, they watch YouTube."

This may be broadly true, but all it takes is a comparison of the ratio of producers to consumers between television and the Internet to show that one medium invites more participation than the other.

Television is completely passive - you sit, you watch, you are given what the producer wants to give you and nothing more. There is no interaction between producer and consumer, unless you feel like writing a letter that no one will read.

The Internet provides an opportunity to interact with the producer, even if it's just posting a comment to tell him that his latest observation is 'teh suxx0rz'. By posting that comment, the consumer becomes a producer. Watching people get Rickrolled on YouTube may be no different from watching Seinfeld, but over time the YT consumer will create an account, leave a bunch of comments, and eventually produce their own videos.

In classic terms, a lot of Internet content seems scattered and chaotic. This, I'd argue, is because our classic media have been rigidly controlled and formatted in order to present a highly filtered view of reality. Real reality is a chaotic mess - that the Internet reflects this is a sure sign that something very organic and natural is taking place therein.

I'm starting to reach the point where I lose interest in artists whose work is only available through DRM-infested outlets. I've spent a lot of time over at eMusic discovering all sorts of great tunes I'd never have heard about otherwise - and since the artists and labels involved trust me to behave legally (which I do), I trust them to deliver value for my money (which they do).

...funny how that works.

"It is NOT bigoted but rather a statement of fact that "too many" (not "ALL", mind you) Christians would be have been delighted to read the thief in this story getting capped. And yes, "too many" would have readily shot the thief themselves."

I'm not a Christian, and I'd have quite readily shot him. This is a natural manner in which to respond to a direct threat to one's own safety, and has been since before humans being started walking on fewer than four legs. If a mugger is uncomfortable with the possibility of his own violence being returned with interest, perhaps he ought to find some other less perilous means of making a living. I hear getting a job is highly thought of...

You can't con an honest man. If, when looking into the possiblity of taking out a home mortgage loan, these people didn't stop and think for the ten seconds required to realize that they were gambling with their home life for the next thirty years, then frankly there's not much I can do except shake my head and thank my own personal diety of choice that I was not raised to be a greedy idiot.

And really, that's what it comes down to. The lenders were behaving in a reckless and stupid manner. The borrowers behaved in an equally reckless and stupid manner. As much as I'd like to help my fellow man, how far are we supposed to go to prevent our brethren from kicking themselves mercilessly in the dick when they plainly intend to do so regardless of our efforts to the contrary?

I deeply resent the insinuation that the government ought to remove our freedom to fail. It is by failure that we learn, and by learning that we eventually succeed. I don't need the government to tell me that variable-rate mortgages are a dangerously stupid idea. I don't need Big Nanny to sit on my chest and prevent me from living beyond my means. So either I'm some kind of nascent financial genius, or these people are a particularly Darwinian variety of moron.