Slashdot Mirror

The early helicopter designer Anton Flettner made an interesting attempt in the '20s to harness wind power for ocean travel. The Flettner rotorship Bruckau used two tall, rotating cylinders to harness the Magnus Effect. It worked, but unfortunately turned out to be less efficient than normal propulsion.

Already happened, see the french satellite Cerise (and Lottie Williams from Oklahoma?)

This makes Joy a political target when he's in the press, but he believes that strongly about the problem our great-grandchildren could inherit. And this generational bomb is potentially a lot bigger problem than 'global warming'/air pollution thing!

Why the future doesn't need us.
Criticism *and* Support for Joy's opinions abound

And as are as 'futurists' are concerned, don't get me wrong--I love The Matrix and Michio Kaku as much as the next guy (or girl).

For those who didn't read it, Bill Joy wrote a thoughtful article back in April 2000 in Wired Magazine, entitled Why the Future Doesn't need Us.

Joy argues that, with the advent of Genetic Engineering, Nanotechnology, and Robotics (GNR), normal (non-modified, non-cybernetic) humans will be outdated and perhaps unable to compete. He makes a good argument, and there have been a large number of responses to his article.

Here's another page with a lot of related info.

Bill Joy isn't a Luddite either. We can thank him for Java & vi (for better and for worse...) He's definitely well versed in technology and social interactions...

Hasn't something similar been done with the Quagga?
I seem to recall that they were able to extract DNA from an improperly stuffed Quagga carcass. (The last one dying in a dutch zoo in 1833).
There is a selective breeding and research program currently underway http://www.tecsoc.org/pubs/history/2001/jun4.htm to breed them back into existance.

We are still getting on our feet, so you can be sure that any donation you send our way, no matter how small, will mean a great deal to us.

You can check out our Web page here: http://www.tecsoc.org .

If you are interested in helping our organization, or if you just want more information, please feel free to drop me a line at adam@tecsoc.org.

Thanks for your time, and for the many kind messages we've received from Slashdot visitors in the past year.

Yours,
Adam Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

We are still getting on our feet, so you can be sure that any donation you send our way, no matter how small, will mean a great deal to us.

You can check out our Web page here: http://www.tecsoc.org .

If you are interested in helping our organization, or if you just want more information, please feel free to drop me a line at adam@tecsoc.org.

Thanks for your time, and for the many kind messages we've received from Slashdot visitors in the past year.

Yours,
Adam Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

We are still getting on our feet, so you can be sure that any donation you send our way, no matter how small, will mean a great deal to us.

You can check out our Web page here: http://www.tecsoc.org .

If you are interested in helping our organization, or if you just want more information, please feel free to drop me a line at adam@tecsoc.org.

Thanks for your time, and for the many kind messages we've received from Slashdot visitors in the past year.

Yours,
Adam Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

We are still getting on our feet, so you can be sure that any donation you send our way, no matter how small, will mean a great deal to us.

You can check out our Web page here: http://www.tecsoc.org .

If you are interested in helping our organization, or if you just want more information, please feel free to drop me a line at adam@tecsoc.org.

Thanks for your time, and for the many kind messages we've received from Slashdot visitors in the past year.

Yours,
Adam Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

http://www.tecsoc.org/govpol/focus net vote.htm

Also, I have created a sort of "Choose-Your-Own-Adventure" game on my personal Web site that lets users explore the possibilities for what will happen next to resolve this year's election -- including a decision in the House of Representatives, and "faithless" electors in the Electoral College.

http://ortelius.cartographe r.c om/elect2000/elect.htm

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

http://www.tecsoc.org/govpol/focus net vote.htm

Also, I have created a sort of "Choose-Your-Own-Adventure" game on my personal Web site that lets users explore the possibilities for what will happen next to resolve this year's election -- including a decision in the House of Representatives, and "faithless" electors in the Electoral College.

http://ortelius.cartographe r.c om/elect2000/elect.htm

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper

In fact, when you actually look at the record of the debates so far, it's interesting to notice the other times the word "Internet" has been uttered.

In the first debate (3 Oct 00), the word "Internet" was used three times, all by Governor Bush:

• "Look. [Al Gore] is a man who's got great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet but he invented the calculator."

• "Testing is the cornerstone of [educational] reform... and we ask them to post the results on the Internet." (Does he mean "we will" ask them? I'm unsure.)

• "I believe there needs to be instant disclosure [of campaign contributions] on the Internet as to who is giving to whom."

And that's it! Neither of the vice presidential candidates mentioned the word "Internet" in their debate, and in Wednesday night's debate, the word "Internet" was only used in the instance which inspired (if that is the right word for Katz's repetitious drumming) this discussion.

So in all, four mentions of the Internet, all by Gov. Bush: once in a joke, once in a cultural criticism, and twice in useful applications of information technology.

Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/persec.htm#cell

http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/archivepersec.htm#9

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/persec.htm#cell

http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/archivepersec.htm#9

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/persec.htm#cell

http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/archivepersec.htm#9

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

- A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

- A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Judge Kaplan argued that computer code is "a matter of First Amendment concern. But computer code is not purely expressive." He goes further: "society must be able to regulate the use and dissemination of code in appropriate circumstances."

In other words, computer code is more than just speech, and as the courts have ruled since 1968, when laws "are limited to the noncommunicative aspect" of some form of conduct, they do not violate First Amendment protections.

This is a theme explored somewhat in a recent article in Salon (for which Mr. Garbus was interviewed, incidentally):

"... there is still no formalized legal definition for software. Is it a product subject to the same Uniform Commercial Code that would hold Maytag responsible if a washing machine electrocuted its user? Or because it can be repeatedly upgraded and changed, is it more like an ISP -- a service that's governed by the terms of a contract between its operator and user? Or is it speech, worthy of protection for its contribution to "an open exchange of ideas?" No single statute or decision spells this out."

While code certainly has an aspect that could be deemed speech worthy of protection (as Professor Touretsky movingly testified), it has nonexpressive aspects as well. That seems to be at the heart of Judge Kaplan's decision, and you will have to work hard to get around that on appeal.

Hence my questions to you:
1. What level of Constitutional protection does software or computer code deserve? Will you continue, in appeal, to take the hard line that computer code is purely speech?
2. I know this may be somewhat out of your purview as lawyers, but do you hold out any hope for legislative remedy? If so, how would you want Congress would alter the DMCA?
3. And, finally, what possible implications does Judge Kaplan's ruling have for other cases relating to the legal status of software, such as the storm brewing over business method patents on software?

Thanks for your time.

Yours,
Adam Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A the head of Celera himself said in recent Congressional testimony, "There is no example of the results of any genome sequence project being published in the scientific literature prior to meeting the established quality, order and completeness standards. It would be poor science policy and a terrible precedent for the young genomics field." (My emphasis.)

Of course, there aren't all that many published genomes altogether, are there? Those established standards for quality, order and compelteness are arbitrary, and peer review is sort of an odd process in a case that has seen so much public political ballyhooing. With the fruit fly genome, several minor errors were discovered and corrected - but remember that even very high accuracy (say, 99.5% accuracy) can mean many thousands of errors in a database this vast.

So the next few years will be spent tidying up and cleaning up the data. But the key areas will be ascertained first, and those will get the most attention. And then - even as we speak - people will be busy annotating, and trying to find correspondences between gene sequences and phenotype - that's the huge task of figuring out just what this vast porridge of G, C, A and T means.

For more, see our Biotech page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A the head of Celera himself said in recent Congressional testimony, "There is no example of the results of any genome sequence project being published in the scientific literature prior to meeting the established quality, order and completeness standards. It would be poor science policy and a terrible precedent for the young genomics field." (My emphasis.)

Of course, there aren't all that many published genomes altogether, are there? Those established standards for quality, order and compelteness are arbitrary, and peer review is sort of an odd process in a case that has seen so much public political ballyhooing. With the fruit fly genome, several minor errors were discovered and corrected - but remember that even very high accuracy (say, 99.5% accuracy) can mean many thousands of errors in a database this vast.

So the next few years will be spent tidying up and cleaning up the data. But the key areas will be ascertained first, and those will get the most attention. And then - even as we speak - people will be busy annotating, and trying to find correspondences between gene sequences and phenotype - that's the huge task of figuring out just what this vast porridge of G, C, A and T means.

For more, see our Biotech page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Genome 'Dark Horse' Comes to the Fore (BBC, 8 May 00)
Dot-Comming the Genome Race Wired, 8 May 00

For more, you can see our Biotech page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Genome 'Dark Horse' Comes to the Fore (BBC, 8 May 00)
Dot-Comming the Genome Race Wired, 8 May 00

For more, you can see our Biotech page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

I'm kind of spooked that governments are paying attention to sf. Not that I think Asimovian psychohistorical prediction and control is possible - I am quite certain it is wholly impossible - but I think there are many ideas and tools in science fiction that governments might use inappropriately.

But, then, that's just an anti-government reflex, I suppose. I'm glad that people making decisions are recogizing science fiction as the hotbed of innovation and insight its fans have long recognized it as.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

But despite the changes, it's a little difficult to just say that there are new ways of "thinking, breathing, interacting." (No, I'm not going to interpret you literally.) We are still (mostly) human, with human interests and desires that will only partly change. Many things about our condition will not change, and should not - there exist certain eternal things about who and what we are. I suppose that's the essence of philosophy and religion, and that's why churches still exist, even after the wide dissemination of information that refutes their supernatural theological premises: people still want to believe in things bigger than themselves, and they still want to believe in life beyond death.

The danger, as you rightly point out, is when the power in the hands of the entrenched social institutions and forces is used to attack those who endorse technological change. This is not always an attack by "conservatives" upon "liberals," but often the opposite. Anyway, it makes for fascinating reading a few centuries later (who doesn't love the Luddites?!), but seems to be turmoil for everyone in the midst of it.

Sorry for ranting!

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society

I completely agree with El Volio's astute comment - this set of technological changes does not necessarily presage a scientific age. There have been a great many instances of technological advance in history that had barely any scientific implications. (Of course, science is indeed being stimulated, by things like journalistic "skywriting" online, because every information technology has eased the discussion of discovery.)

As for there being lots of opponents of technology who strongly deride every advance, well, of course there are always going to be as many neophobes and neophiles. But technology's advance (as James Burke has shown again and again) is nearly unstoppable; the best a society can do is hope to direct it.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

It's an interesting idea for people who can't use other technologies because of their location, but I doubt it'll have any wide consumer market, when there are so many other established (and more reliable) technologies.

See this related article: Science-fiction staple new entry in high-speed Net (C|Net News.com, 22 Mar 00)

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

But these problems should be seen as part of a larger challenge facing intellectual property protections. The Napster and DMCA and DeCSS problems are all related to copyright - another form of intellectual property protection, which is challenged by our new information technologies' ease of dissemination.

Some people have called for major revisions to our copyright laws, and others (like Jeff Bezos and the people in the introduction above) have suggested that the patent system should face strict reforms.

These are sometimes extremely good suggestions, but we would do well to keep in mind the following:

• 1. The battles over intellectual property protection have been at least this
• intense before (even if patent applications have not be so prolific before), and the system survived.

  2. We cannot just tinker with these systems, but must treat them with profound respect (even if they are broken) because huge amounts of money and acclaim could end up going to people who don't deserve them, while innovators who do deserve them could get screwed.

  3. If we think of copyright and patent problems as parts of a larger set of intellectual property issues that need consideration, it will actually help avoid confusion -- and we will be more likely to convince others (read: legislators) that these issues deserve attention.

For more background on the patent problem, see James Gleick's superb piece, Patently Absurd (NY Times, 12 Mar 00).

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

But these problems should be seen as part of a larger challenge facing intellectual property protections. The Napster and DMCA and DeCSS problems are all related to copyright - another form of intellectual property protection, which is challenged by our new information technologies' ease of dissemination.

Some people have called for major revisions to our copyright laws, and others (like Jeff Bezos and the people in the introduction above) have suggested that the patent system should face strict reforms.

These are sometimes extremely good suggestions, but we would do well to keep in mind the following:

• 1. The battles over intellectual property protection have been at least this
• intense before (even if patent applications have not be so prolific before), and the system survived.

  2. We cannot just tinker with these systems, but must treat them with profound respect (even if they are broken) because huge amounts of money and acclaim could end up going to people who don't deserve them, while innovators who do deserve them could get screwed.

  3. If we think of copyright and patent problems as parts of a larger set of intellectual property issues that need consideration, it will actually help avoid confusion -- and we will be more likely to convince others (read: legislators) that these issues deserve attention.

For more background on the patent problem, see James Gleick's superb piece, Patently Absurd (NY Times, 12 Mar 00).

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

The legislation and rulemaking for COPPA was quite contentious, and the FTC is probably going to be much more of a stickler for children's privacy than it has been for Net fraud.

michael wrote that "We've already seen that the FTC refuses to investigate even large-scale privacy fraud on the part of Internet companies, so it seems extremely doubtful that they're going to deploy COPPA Vice Squads to go out and enforce compliance. Unless you're a really big company in really flagrant violation of the law, you have nothing to worry about."

But it's not quite that simple. Actually, the FTC has been conducting sweeps for Net fraud, and I expect they will start doing much the same thing for kiddie privacy. However, while fraud-hunting is challenging because you need to chase down elusive "businesses" that change online locations frequently, playing the sheriff for violations of children's privacy is easier: investigating and confirming violations are simpler since the FTC can go after established companies.

Also, FTC sweeps aside, COPPA may open the door for lots of lawsuits, perhaps even class-action suits. (Are your lawyers listening yet?)

COPPA ought to be taken very seriously, and many companies are scrambling to comply. (See, for instance, this C|NET article, Many Web sites will pay high price for children's data , or this Wired article, Time Running Out on Kid E-mail .)

Not complying by tonight is not a big deal. Not complying by early summer is a problem. If you don't have your act together by August, you're in serious trouble.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Also, I actually know a great deal about the laws regulating telemarketers (although certainly not as much as you probably have probably learned in the course of your research). A useful link you might want to put online as your site progresses is for the free Enigma software (which I first read of on Lockergnome which is just a little program that helps you keep track of and respond to telemarketers, letting you quote relevant laws.

The main problem you seem to have with my comment is, I believe, the same that several others have had - with my third point. Unfortunately, I think it may be a misunderstanding, because I did not quote the original article thoroughly enough before responding to it. When I said "no, no, no," I was responding to the question about whether "such behavior" could be "combatted." But if you go back to the original article, you'll see that Cliff was writing about whether laws like those that protect you from phone harassment (from pranksters instead of telemarketers) could also be used against DDOS attackers. I definitely don't think that's a good idea. And I greatly fear that the guaranteed protections of free speech will become dangerously entangled with computer code (indeed, they already are), which could provoke unfortunate unexpected consequences for both programmers and law enforcement.

Finally, one last point about something you wrote: "doesn't realize that the First Amendment and all the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court deal with INDVIDUALS and that telemarketers are calling on the behalf of a corporation/company. The activities of a company CAN be and ARE regulated, including what they CAN and CANNOT SAY."

I'm sorry to say you are incorrect. The distinction is not between individuals and corporations. There are no special rules on companies, or other corporate bodies. In fact, the word "corporate body" is redundant - the word "corporation" etymologically means "body," because a corporation is treated like a single person, rather than a mere association of individuals. Congress cannot make special laws restricting the speech of corporations.

However, Congress can make laws restricting the actions of individuals and corporations - and the Supreme Court has ruled in cases since about the days of WWI that certain things that are literally "speech" are actually actions - such as yelling fire in a crowded theather - and can thereby be regulated. The regulations and restrictions placed on telemarketers are not placed on their freedom of speech, but rather on their freedom to take certain "actions." If you were an individual (and not a corpoation) soliciting for money over the phone during restricted times of day, I bet you could be punished the same way a corporation would be.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments. And I very much look forward to watching your telemarketing pages progress.

Yours,
A. Keiper
Washington, D.C.

What? That's totally wrong, at least in the U.S. No laws have been passed by Congress restricting spam, and the few state laws that have been passed have been thrown out by the courts as violating constitutional free speech protections. Cliff, what protections do you think you have against spam? There are none. Please, I beg you, prove me wrong - log onto Thomas and find a law that protects you from spam.

(2) "Just wondering if the laws under which the U.S. Government is pursuing the DDoS attacks on Yahoo! and Amazon could be applied to telemarketers."

No, the laws being used to "pursue" the DDOS attackers are actually more akin to laws that would apply to grafitti artists or arsonists. They are not laws about "using a public network to bother end users."

As others have noted here, the technology is improving (in some areas) to combat telemarketers. And the technology to combat spam is improving, too. But there are bigger worries than these nuisances - and we should be more concerned about more important personal information than our e-mail addresses and our phone numbers.

(3) "Will laws be written to combat such behavior? Can such laws be written?"

No, no and no. "Congress shall make no law," the First Amendment tells us, to abridge the freedom of speech. That first amendment protects lots of things that are odious to many people - including, despite the best efforts of some wrong-headed Members of Congress, flag burning.

Imagine that a law is written preventing unsolicited commercial calls. What happens if I accidentally dial your phone number in an attempt to complete a solicited commercial call - can you prosecute me? What other forms of communication should be regulated next? Perhaps TV ads, for destroying your tranquility and peace of mind by letting commercialism interfere with your entertainment?

There are already strict laws regulating what you can say and spend in political campaigns. There are already strict laws in some areas against billboards. But how far do you want to go to abridge others' right to communicate - all in the name of avoiding a nuisance?

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

What? That's totally wrong, at least in the U.S. No laws have been passed by Congress restricting spam, and the few state laws that have been passed have been thrown out by the courts as violating constitutional free speech protections. Cliff, what protections do you think you have against spam? There are none. Please, I beg you, prove me wrong - log onto Thomas and find a law that protects you from spam.

(2) "Just wondering if the laws under which the U.S. Government is pursuing the DDoS attacks on Yahoo! and Amazon could be applied to telemarketers."

No, the laws being used to "pursue" the DDOS attackers are actually more akin to laws that would apply to grafitti artists or arsonists. They are not laws about "using a public network to bother end users."

As others have noted here, the technology is improving (in some areas) to combat telemarketers. And the technology to combat spam is improving, too. But there are bigger worries than these nuisances - and we should be more concerned about more important personal information than our e-mail addresses and our phone numbers.

(3) "Will laws be written to combat such behavior? Can such laws be written?"

No, no and no. "Congress shall make no law," the First Amendment tells us, to abridge the freedom of speech. That first amendment protects lots of things that are odious to many people - including, despite the best efforts of some wrong-headed Members of Congress, flag burning.

Imagine that a law is written preventing unsolicited commercial calls. What happens if I accidentally dial your phone number in an attempt to complete a solicited commercial call - can you prosecute me? What other forms of communication should be regulated next? Perhaps TV ads, for destroying your tranquility and peace of mind by letting commercialism interfere with your entertainment?

There are already strict laws regulating what you can say and spend in political campaigns. There are already strict laws in some areas against billboards. But how far do you want to go to abridge others' right to communicate - all in the name of avoiding a nuisance?

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Technology is changing education in two ways - by changing the ways we teach old things, and then by changing the very things we teach. So far, most of the uses of high tech in the classroom have been attempts to answer that first question: "How can we teach the same things differently?" Very few people are taking a stab at the hard questions, like, "Why should we teach long division, if students will always have calculators?" or "Why learn geography, if students will have world maps at the fingertips forever?"

I'm not staking out a position on those questions, I'm just trying to point out that a discussion about the best way to use laptops in education today is not grounded in a fundamental understanding of the deep, deep changes technology is wreaking in education. When we ask about laptops in education, let's not just marvel about what would be coolest (which is often how Boards of Education develop their budgets for computers), but let's try to ruminate over what standards we should set for learning.

We've got an archive of related articles and links on our Education page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

Technology is changing education in two ways - by changing the ways we teach old things, and then by changing the very things we teach. So far, most of the uses of high tech in the classroom have been attempts to answer that first question: "How can we teach the same things differently?" Very few people are taking a stab at the hard questions, like, "Why should we teach long division, if students will always have calculators?" or "Why learn geography, if students will have world maps at the fingertips forever?"

I'm not staking out a position on those questions, I'm just trying to point out that a discussion about the best way to use laptops in education today is not grounded in a fundamental understanding of the deep, deep changes technology is wreaking in education. When we ask about laptops in education, let's not just marvel about what would be coolest (which is often how Boards of Education develop their budgets for computers), but let's try to ruminate over what standards we should set for learning.

We've got an archive of related articles and links on our Education page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

In fact, the main flaw in the piece, as I see it, is that the author somehow assumed that "libertarianism" is the same as "anarchism." Libertarians know that there is an appropriate role for government, but that its role should be minimized to prevent an unhealthy accumulation of power in one corruptible institution. For the same reason, libertarians often oppose organized religion. And for the same reason, libertarians are now increasingly wary of aggregating corporate power.

It is a brilliantly American notion - best expressed in Federalist No. 10 - that factions and institutions ought to conflict with one another, for by their conflict is our freedom best preserved. Asking government to act against business institutions shows, therefore, not a sudden change of heart, but a deeper understanding of libertarian philosophy.

Occasionally, the author just went overboard, as when she blathered on about how librarians are civil servants paid by the public - and therefore, "true" libertarians should despise librarians? What nonsense.

Look, the political alignments of the tech communities (for there is not just one tech "community" of course) are likely to shift frequently in the coming years. As long as we don't get duped by "quick fixes," or slip into bed with an established political party, we will be able to keep sight of our ideas and ideals, and we shall watch our political power increase as society generally comes to accept the striking importance of technological issues.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

That said, you can find some nanotech links here:

• * My think tank's Innovation page has links to stories and other related sites.

  * The Open Directory Project has a number of great links here, including a link to the important Foresight Institute.

  * And, of course, there is Ralph Merkle's page.

Good luck. I wish /. had some rule that we would only offer assistance to students who let us read their finished products.

A. Keiper
Washington, D.C.

The consulting firm founded by Ralph Reed apologized today for encouraging "a small number of individuals" to express their views about the Microsoft case to George W. Bush, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. The firm said it would halt the contacts...

"We are not hoping or expecting that any different administration will pull back or withdraw this (antitrust) case," [Microsoft spokesman Dan] Leach added. "We believe and we fully expect that we will win this case on appeal."

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.

What I meant in that paragraph is that much of the learning that required expensive private tutors just a century ago will be available cheaply (or freely) over computerized networks that allow students' curiosity to control learning.

And (risking mutilation from my family and friends who are teachers), I can imagine a day when computerized systems might be so advanced that they make most teachers obsolete. People worry about how "impersonal" distance education will be, forgetting that any distance education over the Internet will be far more engaging than the "personal" education common for much of human history (like scholastic monks learning from thick handwritten books in the Middle Ages) or even U.S. history (recall the image of Abe Lincoln reading books by firelight).

Also, many students have been scarred, not helped, by teachers and peers in our public education system, and this might provide some relief.

A. Keiper

A century ago, wealthy families would spend huge sums so tutors could pay individual attention to a student. Now we can envision a day when all students get individual attention, from computerized teaching systems that have instant access to information unobtainable scant years ago.

Already there are online - and accredited - high school and university classes. Soon, neither work nor age nor location will impede your continuing education.

What's more, technology is not just changing how we learn, but what we learn. As others here have noted, we're moving to a system wherein the teaching of information literacy is becoming more common. But what does that mean? Does it merely mean the ability to navigate your way to the information you need? Or does it mean we will become know-nothings, unable to make the simple associations of knowledge that are possible when facts have been crammed into our mind by brute force? Santayana famously said that those who are not familiar with history are "doomed to repeat it"; if you don't know history, but merely know where to find it, are you doomed to repeat it? It's up in the air.

We have a number of articles on this topic on our Education page.

A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society