What is the difference between 'hot' and 'cold' media as described by Mcluan (sp?)?
Funny article there - someone who studies McLuhan being so bad at English grammar and structure.
Yes, just realised, (on my second reading!). Must be translated, although it still makes sense to me!
Thanks for the link. As Dave says the grammar is just awful and makes McLuhan's points look pretty weak. This hot and cold media is utter nonsense to me. I understand the concept but fail to see its usefullness either pedagogically or semantically. Seems like a bunch of fluff to me and I know contemporaries at his time would agree with this. That is until the 60s movement glorified anyone with a voice who was anti establishment in any way.
Sorry McLuhan, hot and cold media is just a silly notion. But I do like your ideas on the oral, written, gutenberg and electronic ages. That is spot on and very interesting.
Very few deep ideas can be expressed in a couple of paragraphs, especially if filtered through someone else ( to the end of the whole article, add a "or something like that...").
I imagine reading McLuhan's thoughts on the matter, where he has enough latitude to properly express himself, might make the efficacy of the terms more apparent.
On a completely different note, I think its interesting how my use of big words like 'pedagogically' and 'semantically' spurred you on to use your own big words, such as 'efficacy' and 'latitude'. Funny thing how the mind works. Maybe I am way off, I just thought my usages may have cued yours, since, as males our egos are strong and always telling us to one up the next male. Again, I could be way off here.
I guess that depends on what you consider big words...
So you don't consider efficacy or pedadgogical big words? I'm guessing if you surveyed 1000 adult americans about their meaning, you'd get 20% knowing either definition.
'Pedagogical' is not normally part of my (repertoire? vernacular? ) but I encounter and use 'efficacy' all the time in medical literature (My wife's field but I read and edit her stuff a lot.)
Perhaps. But they wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, would they?
hehe nice words. Ya efficacy is a good one and it is used alot in electromagnetism jargon as somewhat of a synonym for efficiency.
Yeah, they're really close, but they're not quite synonyms.
I thought this intuiively but didn't have the courage of my convictions until I'd checked it.
Here's a differential in a financial article:
"...an efficient practice is often defined as one that maximizes profit for the given resources at its disposal. Efficacy is defined as the power or capacity to produce a desired result (i.e., effectiveness). Efficacy is neutral on efficiency. That is, it is possible to be effective while being inefficient. As an example, suppose you provide an outstanding financial plan to your client. The client derives great benefit from the plan, but it took you (and/or your staff) an inordinately large amount of time to complete it. You might consider the delivery of the plan and the client’s need as more important than the efficiency of delivering the product to the client.
It is also possible to be efficient while also being largely ineffective. Simply pumping out products or work without considering the value to one’s clients could create such a situation.
I guess a simpler and more dramatic example might be that destroying a city with an atom bomb is quite efficacious (does the job with flying colours) yet quite inefficient (in terms of effort and energy expended).
Nicely said sir, nicely said.
Separate names with a comma.