I sense a long reply where I break down quotes. Apologies in advance for that.
No need.
That must be why we've built so many roads, and parking lots, and gas stations, and other infrastructure to accommodate automobiles: because they're not all that different from horses.
Well, no, that was to address the shortcoming of the automobile.
This just evades my point.
The automobile is not only essentially different from the horse: these esssential differences have led to profound transformations of both society and the physical environment.
By comparison, the impact of the MP3 player has been trivial.
One could argue that there are apparatuses for MP3 players that were created specifically for it that don't exist for a walkman (devices like iHomes to play music, plus online music stores, which, once again, didn't exist for cassettes because the technology wasn't there).
Yes, one could. But one could
not argue that the iPod has had anything like the impact or significance that the automobile has had.
And
that is the whole point here: the wild and unsubstantiated claims that you and other posters have been making for the revolutionary significance of what are really fairly minor technological advances.
My parrot? What the flying fuck?
Read his replies, and you'll see what the flying fuck.
Anyone who quotes someone else's post, and then adds a single word like "this" is just parroting.
The transfer to digital music is meaningless?
That's not what I said. I don't reply to mischaracterizations and misquotes.
Honestly, as a history major, I try and take the long view to things and see what little change profound events can seem to have (I'm someone who believes that William the Conqueror's invasion of England didn't radically alter the social system of the nation much less bring in so-called feudalism to the nation and lead to the modern English system of law). However, when looking at the progression of technology in history, there can be no doubt that it has been advancing at an exponential rate. We are now in the digital age and technology thirty years ago is very far behind what it is today. These aren't superficial differences.
Well, as a history professor, I give you credit for trying to take the long view. I just don't think you're succeeding.
Some technologies have advanced very rapidly in the past thirty years. But others have advanced slowly, while others have hardly advanced at all.
What's more, in many cases, the stagnant technologies are far more significant to far larger numbers of people than the showy brilliancies of the so-called "digital age."
All the digital gadgetry in the world can't compare for importance to simple things like cement or corrugated iron, both of which were invented in the mid-19th century, and have remained basically unchanged ever since.
The building of the information superhighway has been far less significant to far fewer lives than the building of the Kinshasa highway in the Congo, which let the AIDS virus escape and begin its slow burn through the human population.
And the humble cargo container has done more to revolutionize world trade, and the world itself, than any form of information technology.
A book that might help you break the spell of techno-hype is David Edgerton's
The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900. At the very least, it will give you a more balanced perspective on the relative importance of today's information revolution compared to the second industrial revolution more than a century ago.
The idea of digital music and the mp3 player has threatened the entire order of the music industry.
I've omitted most of this paragraph.
None of the the music-industry trends you described therein began with digital technology. They began--surprise, surprise--with the cassette tape. I vividly remember picking up a cassette recording of the
In God We Trust, Inc EP by the Dead Kennedys, released in 1981. The B-side was left blank, except for the following words: "Home taping is killing record industry profits! We left this side blank so you can help." The introduction of digital media only accelerated a pre-existing trend.
That's where I disagree. To argue it's superficial changes based on the fact that uses are similar doesn't make sense. If we go with weapons analogies, it's closer to a crossbow and early guns in that the principle behind them is different. Except one thing, crossbows were probably better.
That must be why European armies were so quick to discard the crossbow in favour of primitive handguns--because crossbows were better.
Actually, crossbows
were better, in some respects--but not in others. And it was those other respects that proved decisive.
In any case, I developed my weapon analogy much more fully in a later post.
The iPod offers at least slight advantages in most things compared to the Walkman.
Well, I'm glad we agree on
one thing.
I'm just wondering why you're saying this as if you were somehow contradicting me. IIRC, I even mentioned those slight advantages in an earlier post.
I think that furthers my point. Part of the reason why there's such a dramatic step between the Walkman and the mp3 player is that there was a step in between the laid the foundation.
That makes no sense. You're arguing that incremental progress is more "dramatic" than a single leap.
Before the Walkman, there was nothing. The only way to listen to recorded music while walking around was to carry a boombox on your shoulder, like a character in a blaxploitation movie.
Before the MP3 player, there was the Walkman. And the Discman, which, like the Walkman, evolved over time, becoming smaller and less battery-hungry. And false starts like the DAT and the Minidisk, both of which failed to supplant the cassette. And then finally, after years of trying and failing, the industry finally came up with a format that was superior to the cassette.
The first is revolution. The second is evolution.
). I don't see either of those as iterative because to me it seems like an entirely new way of looking at music then before... essentially it's now just information and is divorced from the physical medium. That's what you're really getting when you go from analog to digital. Though I'd actually downplay some of the other things that people are using as examples of what DAPs can do.... because a lot of that is really just a convergence of what's really a PDA which is another story entirely.
Seeing as nobody seems to give a crap about sound quality today, the death of red book means we'll get nothing but terrible sounding low bitrate MP3 for years to come 
Then again seeing as hardly anybody has half a clue how to mix + master things properly these days, it's not like new CDs sound that much better.
