I think the quote in the summary was taken out of context. Lee wasn't claiming that the general populace is becoming more ignorant - he was claiming that there is little incentive for individuals to do reporting on a local scale because most individuals are not simply interested in local matters but national and world news as well. It was a response to the interviewer, who asked how plausible it could be now or in the future for an individual with specialized local knowledge to start an online newspaper for profit. That's why I've tagged badsummary. The full excerpt in context:
James Turner: Do you think there would be a place for a model where I said, "I know more about Derry, New Hampshire than anybody else who can report about it. So I will just start a subscription site for anybody who wants to know about Derry"? Essentially, launch my own online newspaper by subscription and charge little enough that I'm making it up on volume. Could that work, or is that going to suffer from the same "getting the word out" problem that all the other disintermediation strategies seem to be hitting? Chris Lee: I don't know. I'd like to see it work. I guess I'm skeptical. I think one of the observations about how consumers are behaving in the past five years that has surprised me the most is, again, this lack of feeling responsible for knowing the news of their country and their local government of that day. I don't think it's just a technology question. I think if you asked people now versus the same age group 20 years ago, I think they'd be stunningly less informed now about boring news, and tremendously more knowledgeable about bits of news that really interest them. I'm not sure that's entirely bad. But the guy in Darien, Connecticut is going to be churning out a lot of news of the day. And if everybody'd rather dig into their little content niche for what they really care about, Mr. Darien's going to have trouble making money. I'm not sure that's entirely bad. But the guy in Darien, Connecticut is going to be churning out a lot of news of the day. And if everybody'd rather dig into their little content niche for what they really care about, Mr. Darien's going to have trouble making money.
I just don't see the need for timed cooking
And that is why you, sir, are no chef.
Get a report from someone at the scene and you're suddenly including in hysteria, panic, adrenaline, and a whole other list of things that someone seeing something unfamilar will have affect their judgement.
You insult me as though I'm making assumptions when you're the one who is assuming. Hysteria? Panic? I specifically said I'm a skeptic to the idea that aliens put that in our sky, mainly because I'm skeptical of intelligent life being anywhere near our solar system. I didn't even reference the other people who had seen it specifically - I did address a few of the "theories" that I saw several people mention in various articles and comments - but I drew no strong conclusion in any direction. I'm well aware that things that a complete stranger says are subjective / subject to bias, since that's a fairly basic social concept.
The entire leading point of my post was that I had no good idea of what the object was. I didn't claim that my post was verifiable, nor did I claim I have any intensive knowledge of meteorology, rocketry, or physics even.
It wouldn't matter if I had claimed those things though, because I take no shame in being incorrect over something like this. As somebody reading a news article in my spare time, I don't have any responsibility to anyone beyond myself to make a completely informed comment.
The Norwegian Meteorological Institute was flooded with telephone calls after the light storm — which astronomers have said did not appear to have been connected to the aurora, or Northern Lights, so common in that area of the world."
Article in English here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234430/Mystery-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html
More pictures here(in Norwegian): http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/troms_og_finnmark/1.6902392?index=false
Link to Original Source
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupted the state.
That's only partially correct. The more numerous the laws, the more potential for the abuse of power. A written law does not imply the level of enforcement for itself. Corruption results from improper delegation of power and intransparency of government. Of course, examples of these can be found in the cases of almost every major government in history.
More laws are the means of corruption, not the cause.