Recent blog posts
Recent comments
- the odds were low
6 weeks 6 days ago - not quite a review
7 weeks 1 day ago - Thanks for the compliment!
9 weeks 5 days ago - Too little, too late
9 weeks 5 days ago - Hum, it look good
9 weeks 6 days ago - good thinking
10 weeks 4 days ago - Los Angeles Times Obituary
11 weeks 3 days ago - Cedars-Sinai Pulse Article
12 weeks 22 min ago - My Opinion
17 weeks 6 days ago - I
17 weeks 6 days ago
Wangston's Law
by firebus
05/04/2008 - 14:41
Humans should not waste their time discussing any question that can be answered by a robot (google, wikipedia, etc.)
Comments
Heard about your law on NPR
So, out of curiousity, why just a statment, why no argument to back it up?
I'm a talker, not a fighter...
I have no argument to back it up :) It's a personal preference. I haven't ever liked the kinds of conversations that Wangston's Law prohibits. IMO, the Internet's ability to answer all unimportant questions (correctly or not) makes purely factual conversation even less interesting.
Maybe there's a corollary with Information Theory, in that any statement that merely repeats data already available on the Internet contains less information than one that does not?
Wangston's Law on Public Radio
The fantastic Krissy Clark did a show about Google's effect on casual conversation that mentions Wangston's Law.
An avalanche of response to Wangston's Law
Traffic has increased by about 800% (from one view to eight views) since the story about Wangston's Law.
Living In Space wrote an excellent commentary that also proposes (and names) the opposite of this concept.
Since Krissy really misaligned (sic) me in her story, I'd like to take this chance to assure everyone that I will not tell you what to talk about at parties just because I have opinions about what you should not talk about at parties.