Slashdot Mirror

While I agree with some of what you're saying, I do believe the study is unbiased and got its funding from a neutral source. The MacArthur foundation has $7 billion worth of investments. It uses the money it makes each year from those investments to fund projects, non-profit organizations and studies like this one.

No one on the board of directors has any overt or influential ties to the gaming industry, tech industry or social networking giants.

I don't think the study is a load of tripe, but like you I don't think we should all rush to plop our kids in front of a computer screen and sign them up in Second Life/WoW because "it's educational!" At best it's edutainment or inspires some kids who were already technically inclined to learn more.

This is what I think is the most important lesson from the study:

"It concludes that learning today is becoming increasingly peer-based and networked, and this is important to consider as we begin to re-imagine education in the 21st century." (Connie Yowell, Ph.D., Director of Education at the MacArthur Foundation)

As long as it's balanced with real life "social networking" online interaction is beneficial. But if the next generation of young people enter the real world knowing nothing but how to text each other, run a successful WoW raid and manage friends on Facebook, we're looking at an epidemic of cognitive dissonance.

• MacArthur Fellowship ($500,000)
• Feynman Grand Prize ($250,000)
• Rolex Award ($100,000)

I agree that originally, this was tainted money, in the ways Microsoft originally made it, but I don't think the Gates foundation is a front for more manipulation. I think this really is from his heart, maybe with an occasional nudge from Melinda.
        If Bill Gates was just milking his donations for maximum publicity or leverage, would he have picked the causes he has? He could focus totally on those medical causes that matter most to the industrialized world, for example. He could avoid all the more politically controversial causes out there. When it comes to willingness to let the chips fall where they may, I'd say the Gates Foundation compares favorably to two of the biggest alternatives, the MacArthur and Ford Foundations:

http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.85522 9/k.CC2B/Home.htm

http://www.fordfound.org/

(Info on both the Ford Foundation's Sexuality and Religion divisions, and the MacArthur Foundation's Copyright law related work is accessable through these links. The latter may be of special interest to many Slashdotters. Both programs are examples of a foundation not shying away from doing what it thinks is right for fear of alienating business partners, funding sources or sections of the general public.)

        Mr. Gates could increase giving to Europe, where Microsoft has had the most trouble, and he could focus on causes that are likely to be dear to the very politicians that have pushed hardest for fines. He doesn't appear to be doing this.
        Bill Gates could also just about ignore Africa, or at least give a much smaller percentage of totals there, and still reap the same sort of publicity. Instead of his saying that computers aren't what's needed first in developing nations, he could encourage someone else to pay for more hardware everywhere, just so he could 'give' away lots of software and count that in press releases as donations worth the full retail value, even though it would actually cost him very little. His whole computer initiative goes exactly the other way. The Gates foundation only pushes computerization in areas developed enough to have libraries and similar locations, and actively avoids treating computerization as a solution where basic infrastructure such as reliable food sources, roads or water filtration are more pressing needs. They also avoid pushing computerization where political stability is suspect or obviously lacking. They don't support 'computer in every classroom' or 'every student's home' type programs, and they do pay for both machines and networking, including some pretty long haul wiring runs.

FYI, Holland was one of the MacArthur Foundation Fellow's a few years ago.

Richard Stallman is a genius.

With $500,000 in the bank, he wants YOU to code for FREE.

And many of you DO.

That's why he's a genius.

Several hundred nominators assist the Foundation in identifying people who should be considered for a MacArthur Fellowship. Nominators, who are appointed each year and serve anonymously, are chosen from many fields of endeavor and challenged to identify people who demonstrate exceptional creativity and promise. A 12-member Selection Committee, whose members also serve anonymously, meets regularly throughout the year to review nominee files, narrow the list, and make final recommendations to the Foundation's Board of Directors. Typically, between 20 and 25 Fellows are selected each year. (from The MacArthur Foundation)

I think you mean Eve Troutt Powell

Now here's a hottie. If only she'd crack a smile ...

Way to go, Macarthur Foundation!

Q. Why does the program not use the term "genius" regarding its Fellows?

A. We avoid using the term "genius" to describe MacArthur Fellows because it connotes a singular characteristic of intellectual prowess. The people we seek to support express many other important qualities: ability to transcend traditional boundaries, willingness to take risks, persistence in the face of personal and conceptual obstacles, capacity to synthesize disparate ideas and approaches.

Check her out, she's a hottie!

It was a different time, with a different kind of economy. And guys like Leonardo, or later, Mozart, sought out sponsors, patrons.

This tradition continues today. Richard Stallman and Tim Berners-Lee being two receipients of the MacArthur "genius" fellowships .

Our modern understanding of intellectual property is merely a convention. It is not a natural law.

Having said all that I find I agree with dpilgrim that his photographer was making a poor choice about how to adapt to the introduction of new technology.

There are lots of tasks which were once the province of highly-skilled craftsmen. People who have had their rice bowl broken by technology have my sympathy. But they are best served by adapting.

The theoretical problem is that Fairness is seen from the buyers perspective however rationel the pricing looks to the seller. Humans have an inate sense of fairness. As social beings we have been selected for that as a mean to better survive in a group setting. Dynamic pricing goes against this fairness sense and we consequently finds this appaling. Professor Rabin recently won the MacArthur price (same as Stallman won earlier) for incorporating this Fairness sense into modern economic theory.