Slashdot Mirror
Interview: Ask Jon Katz Almost Anything
I have gotten a stack of e-mails lately requesting an interview with Jon Katz. And last Friday, after we got Jon up on the little stage in our LinuxWorld booth, where he engaged in a live two-hour dialog with over 100 Slashdot readers and other show attendees, I got the same request in person - over and over. Jon is, without doubt, the most hated Slashdot Author, but he is also the most-read, the most-discussed, and the most puzzling, at least according to the e-mail I get about him. It's time to stop guessing about Jon and why he writes what he does the way he does, and to simply ask him! One question per post, please. The question and moderation cutoff time is Wednesday noon, U.S. EST, at which time I'll forward 10-15 questions to Jon via e-mail. Answers will appear Friday.
a) Who do you suppose the main culprits are? Why do you suppose that certain forums (like /.) can be somewhat civil one day and full of trolls and flamers the next? Is it simply a matter of certain people skipping 4th grade classes for the day, the flood of newbies, a popularity thing or just the nature of the beast? This leads into the second part of my question...
b) Do you foresee a circumstance where the net will ever be a civil place without comprimising anonymity and free speach? Or is every net medium which tries to provide these things doomed to go the way of Usenet?
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I'm afraid Jon _is_ in fact a Bad Writer, by almost any standard. He spells OK, though that might be Microsoft Word...
So, your question is misguided. Instead, one might ask how often Katz has to name-drop or remind people of the privilege and connections he has. What I would be very interested to know is, at what point did the Slashdot crew know Katz was 'in a previous life' (gah! Can we say pretentious?) the Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News? I know that until today I thought he was just a Wired hack writer who also had written for Rolling Stone, but I'll tell you, the Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News _does_ _not_ have trouble arranging interviews. Think about it a second. It's all about networking, who you know. Would _you_ be rude to a 'web journalist' whom you know actually has a history of being Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News? Who might he be rubbing elbows with, in his comfortable 'faux drop-out' stance? I flat guarantee that anybody who _does_ know would fall all over themselves to curry favor with him: and perhaps this is what happened to the Slashdot folks.
So, in a way, though Jon's self-promotion has little to do with the story, it has everything to do with his presentation of the story and spoke volumes to anyone who was clued enough to think about it- unfortunately, nobody was. It's not that Jon _self-promotes_ and curries favor with these big media companies- if you or I tried to do that we'd fail laughably, if Rob Malda with all his new wealth tried to do it they'd laugh in his face. Jon attempted to con us into thinking he was some wandering outsider journalist, and it must have been fun and gratifying. The power centers of big media remember, and they lost no time in asking the former Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News what he thought about the merger.
I, too, thought Jon was mad for self-promotion, but in fact he's only acting out of habit and being unwilling to give up the power and privilege he apparently walked away from. He doesn't need Slashdot's help to get on the talk show circuit, to sell his book to Amazon. He didn't even need to fight to get on the Rolling Stone masthead, or on Wired. His past was his ticket, the key to open all those doors normally open only to talent and hard work.
That gives me the idea for the one question I'll formally ask...
How did you get to be Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News?
The man was Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News. With that on your resume you don't _need_ a day job ;)
Not bloody likely for a former Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News...
Atheism is the *LACK* of the belief that Gods do exist, rather than requiring the active belief that they don't. The difference is subtle, but highly relevant.
To say that both atheists and theists have a burden of proof is to assume that the neutral "maybe" position of agnosticism is the default starting point. But this is unfair for two reasons:
1 - There are certain types of statements that are not possible to disprove even if they are in fact false. The assertion that there is a god is such a statement. The logical term for it is a "non falsifiable assertion". If a claim is not falsifiable, then the burden of proof must lay with the claimant, because it would be impossible for the skeptic to prove himself even if he were correct. (It is often impossible to prove that you *didn't* do something, or that something *didn't* happen, or that something *doesn't* exist. Sure it's impossible to disprove god, but it's also impossible to disprove a number of other things, even things we don't believe in, like leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and so on.)
2 - We never give the benefit of the doubt to "maybe" cases in any other question, why should this be any diferent? We don't go around believing in the tooth fairy and in leprechauns, even though they are just as undisprovable as is god.
Thus, most athiests argue that atheism is a reasonable default starting hypothesis rather than something needing proof. All that is needed is to counter alleged proofs of god rather than come up with a disproof of our own. (because such a disproof isn't possible even if we are correct).
Now, keep in mind that I'm not asking that you agree with the above stance, only that you recognize that it is what most atheists think, and your argument is aimed at a strawman position very few atheists actually hold. You can't honestly counter the atheist position if you don't even know what it actually is.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
First, was there ever a real JonKatz?
:)
If so, when did you kill the real JonKatz and replace him with a JonKatz generator?
Can we expect a source release of the real JonKatz generator, or are you keeping it under wraps so people don't bug you about it, like they do with the SlashCode?
Really, we're curious. Do you really expect us to believe you'd use a title like "Dying Babies and The Myth of American Freedom" if you just wanted to talk about Censorship?
For those who don't know, the JonKatz generator takes buzz-words and input on a popular topic, and mangles it with the (patented?) unique verbose Katzian style. I can imitate it, but never perfect it, as the real JonKatz generator looks coherent, but at a second glance never is.
Simple example--this isn't as good as the real JonKatz Generator, since I'm using its output as input, and JWZ's dadadodo as the generator. But it isn't too far off. The incoherency is similar, but the grammar and structure need some work.
Free music sites, order vitamins and Slashdot. Free browsing, habits. But they can keep our information from copying a world where this information on citizens, the right to track their habits.
In the FDIC, all the distance between corporate and increasingly dependent on and portals and intellectual property can't really be more than AOL and intellectual property can't really be privacy. According to attempt this, the Web sites, order vitamins and writing cool software buy, books check out, of our privacy is a law enforcement agency or preventing Court in and civil libertarians would explode in and other businesses. If you enter, what data marketing and the Net and unintended, however, as we get our political systems already seems remote. All of privacy they can even trace our government has have acquired or invoke the Net and unintended, however, as the minute they fail to Site to Site to the data is increasingly dependent on the largest Financial Institution Web.
Really, I think the JonKatz generator is an excellent program. But the Slashdot community deserves to know the truth about it.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Either way, it's -not- the Real Bruce, and it -is- one of the few people in the world I'd love to see getting a job cleaning Three Mile Island. From the inside of the reactor core. With a toothbrush. With only the hot grits they seem to love for company and protection.
I'm sure they're glowing with anticipation. Or does that come afterwards? :)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Libertarianism means a lot of different things to different people. Usually, it is meant purely in the context of a hypothetical "Big Government". However, recently, events have shown that duly elected Governments around the world can be dictated to and ordered around by "Big Corporations", who are accountable to no-one, including the market place.
Can you pin down, exactly, what your interpretation of Libertarianism is, and how it handles the whole power question, where you have Corporate Law, rather than Government Law?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I have two questions. First, do you agree with me in seeing your posts as popular digests of our culture, intended for a lay audience? Second, if you do agree, why do you persist in using Slashdot as a forum?
I will be very interested to read your answers. Perhaps the basis of your friction with Slashdot is, after all, just a confusion about audiences. Thanks for having the courage to offer an interview. I hope it leads to some kind of dialog that clears up the Katz-Slashdot controversy.
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
You obviously have a great deal of thoughts about what the Internet is, will be, and should be, many of which I have never agreed with. However, one thing I am impressed by is how you continually use the evolving Slashdot forum as both fodder and testing ground for your ideas. Are you representative of an emerging crop of journalists that will rely just as much on discussion and interpretation as on actual topical reports or are you just filling a niche here on Slashdot?
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Christ, when he came, spent most of his time hanging around the people that no one else wanted to hang around with. And you know what else? Jesus Loves Geeks.
Some of the church's leaders are going to have some serious answering to do when Jesus returns.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Thanks for the reply. If more people feel the same please post to let your fellow Slashdotters know how you feel. Thanks.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
I think Jon does a great job as a writer.
My question: What motivates and interests you so much that you have such a great passion to write about geeks, nerds, techies, hackers, etc.?
I actually like Jon Katz' writing's. Am I the only one? Sure he may not be a "techie," but this is not a prerequisite for writing for a site like Slashdot. Jon is a journalist and writer. He's never made any claim to the contrary. As a matter of fact, he espouses the fact that he's not. He gives a certain insight into technical issues that many more techno-savy readers may not consider. Certainly, his writings are provocative and he often plays the "Devil's Advocate." This is what good writers do. The provoke the rest of us to thought. Perhaps in ways we had not previously considered. I think Jon catches an enormous amount of flack for being a good writer. Just because his views differ from yours or he may be taking a different approach toward a subject does not necessarily make them wrong.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Why do I never have moderator points when I need them most?
(Look here if this message is not yet moderated to visibility.)
Regards, Ralph.
(Why does the Parent link still not work for below-threshold postings?)
Regards, Ralph.
What could be as nice as seeing the Katz-filterer numbers (and percentages) would be to see the average karma value of the Katz-filterers compared to the slashdot "community" as a whole.
If there wasn't a positive relationship between good slashdot-citizenship and Katz-filtering I'd be moderately surprised.
Regards, Ralph.
Please moderators, do check out this message - it's polite, intelligent and very relevant. I'd like to see Katz answer it. Don't let it stagnate at Score:1.
Note: I am not the author and have no connections with the author. I am just feeling very guilty for having apparently blighted the chances of a very fine question. (Probably made it even worse now, but what can I do?)
Regards, Ralph.
I rarely read the Katz tripe, but did he ever actually get Linux installed? Last I remember, he came up with some unbelievable story about his computer getting torn apart in shipment and then being unable to get it to boot or something like that, then promptly ended the "Linux" series of articles without explanation.
Your KatzFilter didn't catch this article because it is properly catagorized as an interview, it just happens that the interviewee is Katz.
Asking slashdot to give you the means to filter any news which mentions Katz is asking for too much. That's your job. Be your own filter. If you don't like that answer, you could always filter roblimo because he subjected you to this story.
Mr Katz,
You have experienced the full fury of slashdot readership rage, and yet continue to post thoughtful and expressive articles. We are moving into a world of more online forums, so how do you feel these dialogs ought to be handled in this environment? How do you think they *will* be handled?
I have Katz articles turned off in my prefs so for all I know he's written tons of articles dealing with this -- but, what the hell, no one else is posting better questions...
When you first arrived here, you wrote a series of articles about how Linux was the most fantastic thing ever and would completely transform the world -- all this before ever using it, or even seeing it. Eventually you managed to get started. Now, a year or so later, what do you think? Do you still consider it as important an innovation as fire or democracy? Have you tried installing other distros or doing your own troubleshooting? GTK or Qt? Are you still using it at all? Would you admit to going back to MacOS and Office if you had?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
...I've been hearing good things about Zimbu the Monkey. Which one of you is Zimbu the Monkey?
**>>BELCH
But, on a serious note. I know i've got Katz filtered, an know large amounts of other people who have him filtered. Which raises the question, Jon, if so many "geeks" don't like you and the things you say, how can you go on writing as a representative of geeks? Doesn't your concious bother you? Making so much money off random writings about people who don't even like you is simply wrong, don't you think so?
** Martin
So a couple of stories a year that mention "Jon Katz" might appear, big deal. Do you complain when Rob posts a story that mentions Hemos? I think it's totally fair that Katzfilterers get to see an article about Jon, so that they might be able to take advantage of the unusual situation to review their opinion based on Jon's replies.
IMO, the slashdot crew should have priviliged posting status - say, karma fixed at 30 (or whatever is needed to get +1 bonus), and immunity to negative moderations. Jon especially needs this, as there enough Katz-hating moderators that I'm not surprised he never gets noticed.
When you are writing, do you claim to speak only for peopel you encounter in the US or abroad too?
I live in the UK and none of the geeks I've met seem to fit into your world view, despite them being, in my opinion, very much archetypal examples of whatever it means to be one.
Maybe this is just my experience but I'm quite well connected and it seems to me that peopel in teh US can't be that different to use over here. Do you ever stop and wonder whether you are believing your own hype?
What, if any, Universities/Colleges/Technical schools have you attended? What did you study?
This is one of those trolls who likes to slag other people by pretending to be them. Notice that little "." after his nick?
:)
Besides, if this *IS* Bruce Perens, then he's smoking crack.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Jeez, you think this guy is actually Bruce Perens? With that little period after his nick, you never can tell...
:(
Jesus, this is a whole new frontier in trolling. Not only do trolls have to talk about grits, natalie portman, and other BS like that, but they have to try to assume somebody else's name (and I'm just waiting now for somebody to come on as "Uruk." and start posting this shit)
The problem with the web is that there isn't a kick/ban function.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Hmm, you mean you didn't work it out? Katz stuff is posted this way because too many people ticked that little box! We ignored him, and he didn't go away; indeed, only got more insistent.
That's more or less the way I had it figured, but... I want to KNOW what the deal is. I think it is the most basic question here, and needs to be answered. However, it probably won't be. I can see all the goody-goody questions accumulating already -- "Please, Mr Katz Sir, can we ask you about `geeks' and `corporatism'? Huh? Can we, huh, huh?"
Uh-huh. So why is your e-mail address spam-proofed? You don't have to read it, you know. Same argument: advertising through unsolicited e-mail, advertising through posting fluff on /.: it's all advertising, and it all sucks.
Well, bully for you. But last time I looked, it didn't say "News for victims. Stuff that makes you cry." on the front page. Sorry for being brutal; but for Christ's sake, get over it. /. is a techie site, or it isn't at all, as far as I can see: the technical content, which is due 100% to the commentators, often anonymous, is what makes /. worth reading. Wade through all the "naked and pertrified" and "hot grits down my pants" and you'll find well-thought-out opinions on technical subjects from those who know enough to count. Anything that prejudices this is a bad thing. Turning /. into a self-help site for wounded "geeks" is an awful idea, for reasons that should be obvious. You need therapy? Go get therapy, with my sympathies. You don't? Then quit whining.
And he got a 4 for this drivel! Ye gods and little fishes!
> interacting with others in these threads?
JK couldn't have put it better himself. "Interacting" in "threads" indeed! What piffle!
> If there's a mark of a good writer/journalist, it's the ability to
> stir up the hornet's nest. Is that so now? I always thought the ability to communicate something worthwhile would be a more reliable guide.
All that said,
_ > rant and rave about how they want Katz to be roasted over an open pit > with hot Natalie Portman grits basted over him while being prodded by > sharpened edged of AOL CD's? This superb outburst reveals you for what you are -- a closet Katz-basher! Join us! Don't be afraid! It's society's crime, not ours!
Do you get paid to write for /.? If so, are you working freelance, or are you a member of And^H^H^HVA staff?
'nuf said - what motivates you to write for Slashdot? (You must answer without using the word "geek") :-)
----
--locust
jonKatz
Damn. You're right. But hardly anything of his ever gets moderated back up above 1. So surfing @ 2 as I do by default, I don't see it. I with draw the question.
--locust
Hello,
:)
This is my theory and my question.
Mr. Katz is an entity that keeps on writing relativly low tech stories to a bunch of people who arnt mainly interested in these stories, over time they got real frustrated and kept bringing their vengence upon him.
But, he didnt change his style, he just kept on writing in the same tone in the same form. He didnt even try to adjust to the form needed neither did he just give up... Which leads to the assertion that.. Katz might be an AI entity (maybe piped off from Everything ) with a little bit of hacked Mega Hal code.
Thus my question is. Katz, are you human?
Thank you.
Note: wrote that with a straight face
--
It is 100% nurture, 0% nature. If you doubt that, then please explain why the religion of the child is so closely related to its upbringing :-)
:-)
Therefore I suggest the onus is on religious people to explain the anomaly of having acquired religion, whether christian, buddhist, or atheist.
And there are alternatives to being EITHER religious OR an atheist. I am areligious. I simply have no religion. It is not a part of my life. I don't care what you believe for or against.
If there are no gods, then I have lost nothing.
If there are gods, then they are either good gods or bad gods.
Good gods won't punish me for being as they made me, so it does no harm to not bow down to them.
Bad gods -- well, fsck them anyway
--
Infuriate left and right
It's a rare person indeed that draws such an intense response from the geeks and slashdotters amongst us - I'd like to know why you keep posting and commenting even though so many people are outwardly hostile towards you...
What draws you towards this community?
Hi, Jon.
Have you read Lloyd Wood's critique of your writings? He compares you to Richard Stallman (at least in terms of the reactions you both seem to cause in people) and analyzes your research and conclusions through various essays and pieces.
I'm curious. What is your reaction to this piece?
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
Nothing personal, but I really get sick of people claiming that science is a faith.
*Good* science is a continually self-correcting way of looking at the world. Good science doesn't tell us "what happened", instead, it gives us a model that fits
observable data. It doesn't claim "truth".
Scientists who claim to tell you "how the watch works on the inside" (if you think of the universe as a watch that we can't open) are not practicing good science.
Good scientists would give you a model that fits the data (how the hands seem to move) as a plausible model, while understanding that the model itself could be
totally wrong. There could be little Elves in the watch that make it work--we will probably never know. But as long as the model accounts for any observable, and
the model is self consistent, the model works.
According to Webster's, faith is "unquestioning belief", exactly the opposite of good science. Good scientists constantly question their model. New ways of
thinking appear on the scene when some observable that either doesn't fit or isn't accounted for in the current model is found. And when the new model is
proposed, good scientists try their damnedest to shoot holes in it. *If* it survives the scrutiny of scientists, it may either be adopted or included in another
model.
Trying to understand "Truth" is outside the realm of science. Giving a *plausible* explanation that can be used to predict future events is the work of science.
The existence of a god or gods is outside that realm. Look at the hypothesis: There exists an entity, all knowing and all powerful, that is undetectable, and is
responsible for the events in everyday life by exerting invisible "force". It isn't testable. But that doesn't mean it isn't true, it means it is beyond
experiment, and thus beyond science.
Not only this, but the God hypothesis doesn't explain any observables that aren't explained in a more simple manner by other hypotheses. So most scientists don't
spend much time on it, unless they have a personal reason to believe it (in which case they are looking for facts to fit a hypothesis, rather than a hypothesis to
fit the data, and are practicing bad science).
To practice good science, keep an open mind to possibilities, understand that the explanations we use are plausible models only (so don't get attached to them),
and most importantly, demand hard *proof* for explanations. If it is untestable, it is outside of the power of science to support or refute.
Sorry, nothing personal, but such claims need to be answered. Please don't confuse good science with bad science and faith.
This sig is false.
There are numerous counterexamples from history (in accounts that are usually rejected as historical simply because they contain such counterexamples) and several in my personal experience. Rejecting data just because it doesn't fit the model is hardly scientific, but it happens all the time. This is another way in which science is treated as a religion.
Show me something repeatable that can't be explained without the god hypothesis.
Again, to stress, this doesn't make it untrue. I said that means most scientists won't spend much time with it.
This sig is false.
So, how is the Linux experiment going ? Have you given up, or are you quietly playing with it for an hour or so a day, learning a little more ?
This is a genuine question, not a flame !
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
jon, I've been both a fan and a critic. Your recent writing really seems an attempt to grab a motivation as powerful as the Hellmouth series.
/. for breaking tech stories?
my question then is,
Are you attempting to be the head of this beast for political guidance or are you attempting to be the tail to concisely package the actual news that does filter through this system and our opinions for the mainstream media readership that uses
Mike Ford
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
that the deal is quid pro quo. Though he doesn't directly work for them, they promote each other, in an odd way. You must remember that virtually every Katz post generates traffic, even if the majority of readers hate him. This traffic inturn generates revenues for slashdot. Though I think promoting a hack like Katz might ultimately harm slashdot in the long run, that is another story.
Katz profits from his slashdot articles, because it promotes his name amongst the internet crowd. Also other sites and journalists may very well quote him because of his recognition. In addition, when it comes time to sell his books he can steer hundreds of slashdot jr.'s and newage types with his influence. Not only does this help pad out his otherwise nominal sales, but i'm convinced it sends a signal of sorts to his publisher. Unlike most other hacks, he has found a way to create a significant amount of sales and interest the first couple days the book hits the shelves using slashdot and other forums. This likely prompts the publisher to promote the book, and make it more visible...prompting more sales.
In short, Katz is a hack that appeals to kiddies and long hairs. As much as I despise him, i must give him some credit for figuring out a way to set himself apart from his kind.
Actually, as a Christian, I find infidels.org to be a really well-done site. Read their essay on freethinkers -- while I don't agree with a lot of it, at least it's not written by bigots who assume that the fact they call themselves nontheists makes them superior to theists.
By definition, a religion is based on faith. What is faith? Unquestioning belief.
No, faith is not just unquestioning belief. The best definition I have heard is "belief put into action." We all have faith in something. For some it's their spouses. Do you really mean to say that scientists should not have faith in their spouses, if they are married? We all have faith in the laws of physics. How do you know they won't all change tomorrow? Faith is not exclusive to religion, but most religions involve faith.
I put my faith in Christ after a series of questions. When I was a teenager, I started asking them. Why does life seem empty to some of the most intelligent, insightful people who have ever lived? Why does our society tell us that money is a bad thing to live for and then look down upon those who abandon it for another pursuit? And so on...
What are your thoughts about the whole DeCSS fiasco? Do you believe it's a way for the MPAA control who has access to DVD data, rather than just a copyright control mechanism? Will you write a feature about it? :)
My OpenDVD artwork
æeee!
Look, saying that there's no anti-Christian sentiment in Katz' stuff is a bit ridiculous.
The difference between a mythology and a religion, is that the individual classifies it as such. At the same time, the vast majority of Christian people on this planet do not criticize other religions. Of course, it does happen, but those are the ones who are vocal.
Katz should have just a slight amount of respect for other religions. Respect is one step higher from tolerance, and tolerance is one step higher from holocaust. He exorcises tolerance from what I've read.
Scientists believe in God too.
"I want to know God's thoughts,..... the rest are details.." -- Albert Einstein.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use." -- Galileo Galilei
etc. The rules of Physics are the rules that God made. Rules are meant to be broken, but that doesn't mean that we, as humans, can break them. Just because someone may be scientific doesn't make them atheist, and just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're non-scientific.
Just something to think about.
Genius. Lets restate what I've stated:
The difference between a mythology and a religion, is that the individual classifies it as such.
Translation (for stupid people): The individual (you or me), has each his own definition of the difference between a religion and a mythology.
i.e. I believe generally in Catholicism, which I should descibe more specificly as the teachings of Christ (I personally believe that the Old Testiment was more of a rule book with stories than anything else). I believe that worshipping Zeus and the Greek gods is a mythology. That doesn't mean that it wasn't ever considered a religion or that you may still practice religiously.
As for your final statement.
i don't respect the KKK, and i definately don't respect christianity (in any form.)
This just announces your ignorance to the world. Do I have respect for the KKK? No, absolutely not. Do I have respect for the individuals in the KKK? Believe it or not, I actually do, and this is why: They're human-beings and I believe they are making a mistake. They've been taught to hate, and they've collapsed into a depressing abyss that they needs help from escaping. Nobody is inherently hateful, they must learn it.
Do I have respect for Christianity? Absolutely. Christianity stands 100% for dealing with people like you who are ignorant to how people work, love, hate, etc. Now the practice of Christianity has been flawed, but of course you should expect this because we are all human-beings. I highly suggest you go out and read, in detail the New Testament, not for religious reasons, but rather for insight on how people work. I also suggest you watch American History X. It may give you a little insight into the human psyche.
I honestly feel bad for you, because you're your own worst enemy with that attitude.
Hi Rob,
I like your site a lot. I check it out on a daily basis and if time permitting, I usually involve myself in the discussions. When I noticed that you had an option to filter postings by users, I chose to filter Jon Katz for the obvious reasons.
Today, however, You and Roblimo decided to post stuff about Katz. Now I ask you why? Why are you posting a clip from his book? Why is Roblimo asking people to ask questions? Why isn't Katz posting it? Is it to give a different perspective? Or is it to force people who have Katz filtered to join in on the conversation? I'd really like to know your reasons. Please get back to me.
~~Kevlar
If you agree with this, then moderate up.
Katz,
/.'ers moderate this down as flamebait, at least consider letting the minority speak.
I am a Christian. I am a geek. I am not alone. Though we ChristoGeeks (a new demograph I just coined which you may proceed to patronize) tend to be a quiet group here on Slashdot, I felt the need to voice this question.
You seemingly never fail to rail upon religion (more often than not, Christianity) in each of your posts here. I haven't read your book, but more than likely you will do it in there too. My question is... why? Obviously you are against relgion, and seem to view it as a form of mind control/censorship. Did you have a bad experience with Christianity as a young child? Do you think the vocal minority of Christians in the public eye are obnoxious? Or is this simply another way to pander to your audience, who at the time is mainly comprised of anti-Christian slashdot readers.
Thanks for your time. At least reading your articles lets me see just how far the extreme left-wingers would like to take things.
p.s. Before any Christian-brainwashed-sheep hating
----- if ($anyone_cares) {print "Just Another Perl Newbie"}
warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;
Hi. What's the status of the Brill's Content gig? I can't remember seeing any of your articles in there lately, but haven't seen anything from you or Content which says that you aren't writing for them anymore. Thanks.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I know that this is cyberspace, nobody knows you're a dog, and we should judge everyone by things other than apperance, and all that.
But I've often been reading these interviews (which, by the way, are far better than interviews most anywhere else - the questions are better and there is no time limit or sound byte requirement) and been curious about what the person interviewed looks like. I guess I'm kindof a visual person, and it's funny that while I've read things about John Katz, John Carmack, Mandrake, and a whole bunch of others, I'd at least like to see a picture.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I have the Katz filter on, but there are two Katz stories on the front page today. So I feel I must add my voice to the cacophony of shouts that this be fixed once and for all
Just to make that clear, here is the question I would like to ask Katz:
Jon Katz, why don't you just fuck off and die? Does it give you a great deal of pleasure annoying /. readers and doing your media whore routine in an unfriendly environment?
How do you think you would view the tech-head community if you had grown up after the PC revolution? Say you'd had an apple ][ when you where 8. Do you think you'd be a geek? Would you still be astonished by geeks or would you take them for granted?
--Shoeboy
Having said that, here's my question: You've said yourself that you are not a technical person. What makes you think that you can speak for those of us who are?
When I first came to slashdot, it was the "News for nerds" title that drew me. I'm a nerd. I'm a geek. And so forth.
Technical things are interesting. But there are other things that makes me pay attention too. For example - Jon Katz, when he is talking about the bullying of geeks.
I don't know about you, but I for one was the main "victim" of my school, from first to ninth grade. Only one slashdot poster has made me cry. And that is Jon Katz - because some of his articles hit too good.
Maybe his articles isn't interesting to you. They sure are to me. His articles are the best there is on slashdot - in my opinion.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
This same guy has made many posts using the accuont name Bruce Perens. (yes, the . is part of the username here). I thought someone at /. was going to clear out all of these bogus "Famous Person Name". accounts...
Eric
Well, since you seem to be a nonchristian, this kind of puts you in the odd position of asserting that a bigotry that you would not experience must not exist ...
Technically, the USA (and most of the West) would be today post-Christian societies. While American society at one time was formed by some sort of Christian consensus (or at least Deist -- I know perfectly well that not all of the founders were orthodox Christians), the dominant "orthodoxy" today is a secular liberalism with a hearty dose of new age/neopagan/neognostic spirituality.
For some good examples of the ejection of pretty much all religious tradition (not just the Judeo-Christian one) from the public square, I recommend reading Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief : How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion.
At the risk of igniting flamage, the whole school prayer issue illustrates exactly what I mean. Yes, a few decades ago, we did have established prayers in public schools, and I think the courts were right to find this an impermissible establishment of religion. But we've moved beyond that today, where courts are finding that to permit students to exercise religion on campus is to somehow "establish" it. This is hardly "predominance."
I know you read your email, since you've used email as a basis for a number of your essays, and you actually have answered whenever I've emailed you directly. However, I'm pretty sure I've never seen you participate in a Slashdot discussion itself, whether it was one about your own stories, or any other.
Do you actually read the feedback that gets posted as replies?
Notice, I didn't say "GIRLS FOR GEEKS", I said "Geek Girls". i.e. a girl like me...
I am in fact hoping that Jon will provide us with an enlightened response, as he hasn't yet.
Sexbots or no, it's possible that he'll produce more insight than some others here.
We know how hemos, CmdrTaco, and Roblimo feel about geek girls, but we haven't ever heard a related story from JonKatz. Given your traditional stance against all the western social problems one would think you'd have a few interesting things to say.
For being central to such a vocal part of the community, do you actually read, write, and communicate with the community? Do you use a nom de plume, and for what reasons?
It *seems* as if you can relate to us, but do you actually, as it were, live in the trenches? There's the JonKatz I see as an author, journalist, etc, but there's also the JonKatz I'd be interested in seeing as the person, with opinions, viewpoints, and responses that aren't so thought out or calculated, edited, refined, etc.
JonKatz raw, so to speak.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Given those things, how do you feel that the things you are learning on your "journey" and expressed in your written "voice" are applicable to the (sometimes ravening) hordes here at Slashdot?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
The answer is simple:
Every newspaper has its editorial section. Why not Slashdot?
Although, I will also agree that
1. Most newspapers run editorials from more than one person while Slashdot's editorials only come from Johnny Katz.
2. Most newspapers have a limit (500 words?) on guest editorials, while Slashdot lets Johnny ramble on+on+on...
Anyway, I don't filter him, but usually just ignore him because most of the time I don't care.
P.S. Usually, when I read the opinion pages of the paper, I look for the "Letters to the Editor" and especially the editorial cartoons. Slashdot could use the latter, but in a geek-oriented way.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Bah, that should read:
"... don't care about the topic he's ranting on."
Preview? We don't need no steenking preview!
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Jon:
I'm leaping in late, so I will probably get lost in the fray, but here goes:
I love the Katz postings and I really don't much like Katz. I love the postings because some very good and elightened discussions follow your blatantly slanted and singleminded posts. In other words, when you read between the flames that follow any Katz posting you see some of the best of what Slashdot has to offer.
None of this has anything to do with my question. My question is this:
Do you see any danger in two tendencies I see in your postings about youth alienation? Tendency 1: You tend to assume that all alienated young people fall into one category: geek, and that that category is uniquely characterized by intelligence, computer use, and gaming culture. Tendency 2: You tend to elevate, dare I say, normal adolescent angst into a cause decrying the whole of the adult world.
I think you oversimplify. There are alienated kids who do not obviously belong to a marketing demographic. There are geeks who are not alienated. You seem to have a tendency to absolve the young and alienated from any resposibility for their status or their actions. How would you defend what you do against these assertions?
If I'm a karma whore, Katz is my pimp!
Let me preface by saying that I actually like a lot of what you write. I think you're wrong sometimes, but such are the dangers of discourse. Does all of the criticism heaped on you by the /. comminity ever get to you? Does it make you want to take you writings elsewhere? Does it change the way you approach writing? Greg
And as a follow up, do you think there is a bigger prick on the internet than Bruce Perens?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I've got Katz-icles filtered out in my user pages, yet I notice that there is a book review AND interview on my front page. My question is:
How high up the VA Linux management hierarchy did you have to call to get the Slasdot crew to violate their few remaining shreds of integrity and force you once again down our throats?
--
Java banners:
Bad for users because Java kills Netscape
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
GoodPint
I'm somewhere between an agnostic and an athiest. I don't know whether there is a god, many gods or no gods, but the whole idea seems pretty far-fetched to me. However I don't think too much about god / gods because there aren't too many "supernatural" events in my life that get me wondering about them. I believe in science because it's a pretty decent set of rules to live by. It's convenient to think that gravity exists because every time I've let go of something it has dropped.
However nearly every day I'm assaulted by organized religion. The most recent annoyance was the Super Bowl. Religious players seemed to think that "God" wanted one team to win, and were intent on thanking "Him" for every point. (Strangely however nobody was evidently angry with "Him" for their team losing -- maybe they just accept he wanted the other team to win).
Organized religion, and religious doctrine in particular has been given as a reason for a lot of brutality in history. It has also been the way monarchs maintained power, and that a class system was maintained.
To answer the questions in the original post:
Because it is the easier and simpler belief.
None whatsoever. However, unlike organised religious study, athiesm doesn't require any study.
I don't, but I know I've never seen anything that would make me think there might be.
Admittedly a lot. My dad didn't believe in any gods, and although my mom is now back to her Catholic religion she wasn't practicing when I was younger.
I don't really care, whether there is or isn't a god the laws of physics are not likely to spontaneously turn off. Life will go on as normal. Maybe when I die I'll find out there was a god and I'll go to heaven/hell/purgatory, but I'm not going to live my life differently on the off chance that happens. I guess the main reason I want to be right is the Wizard Of Oz type of thing. It would be sort-of disappointing to see the current nice self-consistent world be ruined by the extra metaphysical baggage of a god.
I think the big misunderstanding comes from the belief that being an athiest is simply another set of religious beliefs like being a catholic. I think that's completely wrong.
The athiest takes the world as what it appears to be. A sum of what our senses and sensors tell us is there. A person who believes in gods adds to that world view yet another "item", a god.
I see no reason to use the more complicated world system. I don't believe in gods, however I'm not going to shove my views in people's faces and constantly decry "there are probably no such things as gods!". As long as other people don't shove their views in my face I don't really care what they believe.
Unfortunately most religious beliefs seem to require the believer to spend time in worship or in prayer. They also seem to encourage people to follow leaders and to spread the belief system. These are things that athiests and agnostics don't have. This last difference is the reason you see Christians, Muslims and Jews involved in religious wars but you rarely see an army of athiests trying to kill all the people who believe in gods.
Anyhow, I know this is probably going to upset people but it's not meant to do that -- it's just that I get so tired of having organized religion in my face so much I sometimes have to vent. I apologize for it being a rambling post, but I won't apologize for my beliefs.
Jon, I've read most of your articles. I will say that I think you do a great job of conveying your point to your intended audience. However, I'm curious what you think about your own writing/brainstorming ability:
Do you think that the stories you write or the ideas that you have about geek culture (or whatever) are very original? If so, don't you think that many Slashdot posters would be able to write articles just as well as you and argue strongly for them over and over, much the way that you do?
To explain where I'm coming from a bit, I'll point out that I think that many people get the feeling when they read your writings that you think you're some sort of geek saint who is enlightening us with your eternally insightful wisdom. I think that what you're saying probably is about as deep as the conversations most Slashdot readers have with their co-workers about Internet/geek culture or whatever.. but that's just me.
As many of the other question-posters, I have no intention of being hostile. We've all heard everyone's opinion of you, but I'd like to hear your opinion of you.
I'd have to agree with what I'd perceive to be the broad sentiment here.
I've met genuine atheists. But not many.
Seriously, there are plenty of people who, after thought and/or investigation, have conclueded that there is no deity. There are rather more who have simply decided that the whole thing sounds potentially iffy and like it might make their life harder, so don't bother really thinking about it.
This isn't unique to atheism - there are plenty of Christians whose faith is on a similar footing - but to call yourself an atheist when you're rather closer to a lazy agnostic isn't right.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
I'd agree with you, but...
There are plenty who practice bad science and treat it as if it were religion. They're who our original poster was referring to, I'd suspect.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
ISWYM, but I'd have difficulty classing someone you'd define as a 'weak atheist' as anything other than a lazy agnostic. And it's still not quite what I was referring to.
I suppose the point is that we're talking a big question here. I mean, how much bigger can you get than 'Why am I here?'. Now, if you've come to the conclusion that there are no gods, so be it. I disagree with you but you're welcome to your opinion.
If you've come to the conclusion that you haven't seen any evidence so far so you're going to assume there aren't, that's not something I could agree with. I'd prefer it if you looked a little harder. Now, if you then decide that there still aren't any gods, fine - but you've now got the information to make the decision.
Those I was particularly objecting to, though, are those who decide that they don't much care whether there are any gods and so will believe there aren't. This strikes me as a little head-in-the-sand, to be honest, and is what I was objecting to particularly.
Ultimately, if you want others to refer to you by a specific term, feel free. However, you may find that that term has connotations or baggage which force others not to use it in reference to you, though. And to say that you believe there are no gods when you actually mean that you haven't met one yet but you're not going to consider the possibility is a little odd.
Please note again, this criticism isn't just aimed at atheism - there are plenty of people in any religion who are there by default rather than conviction.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
By the "real" Bruce Perens no less. He posted about it, a while ago. I think in the Open Source Closed Words thread a few days ago. Bruce said that rob thought it would be 'unethical' to strip the account (I'm not sure I agree with that or not). Anyway, just keep an eye out for the dot, and hope no one registers Bruce Perens :)
:P
A while ago, someone registerd "Bruce Penis" I thought that was a lot funnier
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
HTML is today easier to copy, post, and download by at least an order of magnitude compared to MP3, especially over a modem. If I buy your book, would you have an objection if I scanned the book in and posted it on the web?
Yes, HTML is easier to copy then mp3s, but with music and movies, you already have a digital, or at least electronic signal. Converting to digital space is ether trivial, or already done for you.
With a book, you'd need to copy each page by hand, or scan each page individually and then OCR it, and then correct the mistakes of the OCR software.
Why would anyone want to do that to Katz's work? I read a copy of Neromancer online, that was probably worth OCRing. Anyway, if you want to read Katz without paying, you can just go to the library.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Times not infinite, eh? When does it end? Explain that. Same thing for space. Actually the data (the whole flat universe thing) seems to suggest that space IS infinite, i.e. there is always another horizon.
The only relation it bears to the real world in is its creation, this is a religion thread after all, eh?
+&x
If the universe turns out to be flat, then time will indeed be infinite, but not to any real-world frame of reference.
;)
By "real world" frame of reference, I assume you mean someone exterior to the whole thing observing it?
So yes, to "God" space and time are finite, but not for us. We can't get outside of reality.
Clear up that "real world" bit for me, and I can go further...
See, Katz threads *can* be interesting (if constantly rehashed
+&x
(sorry for all the idiots, I'd hope you've gotten use to it by now, but stupidity and immaturity can sometimes be difficult to ignore)
Two questions:
1) As a techno-author where do you think we're headed with this whole Internet thing? Give me 20 years down the road, society, commerce, privacy, entertainment, just pick an area and tell me what you think.
2) Given that a number of people here seem to think that they could do your job better than you with no hands, no eyes, and a pen with no ink, what does it take to get where you are? i.e. Where should aspiring writers (in this genre) start, where does the path begin (or where did it for you) and what are the right turns to take?
Thanks, now stop using the phrase "geeks, programmers, and nerds" so much, it gets annoying. I prefer the term "typer" but since I made it up last week not many people are using it...
+&x
Hey Rob. I know this is more than one questions - please pick whichever you believe is most relevant.
Mr Katz,
Rob Malda fairly correctly describes you as the most hated author on Slashdot. Whilst many of us seem to feel that you're simply looking at the issues you're writing about from an overblow point of view, seeing 'technical milestones of incredibly important significance', some of the posters on Slashdot have a particular peeve. Namely your qualifications.
Slashdot.org is a very technical forum - many of the posters on here simply read it because they feel it best sums up technical events in the Real World. However, your expertise seems to be rudimentary, at best. Linux, the prodigal child of the Slashdot community, proved to be quite a problem, as you struggled with it for quite a while, even writing articles about the difficulties you had. Many of us felt that you wrote those articles so you become more accepted by the crowd, and to show that you aren't just a Windows techie. Now, after quite an intro, here're the questions:
Thanks, and apologies for the length and number of questions. Just pick one.
Alex T-B
Why?
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Who knows whether Katz really believes his articles actually contribute anything by way of fresh opinion; my take on it is that that is not really important to him. He's using Slashdot for self publicity and helping to sell his books, and it's a symbiotic relationship since his articles usually attract huge numbers if readers/responses, which is what a commercial site wants/needs.
The reason I dislike Katz' articles myself isn't because of his flakey opinions, but rather because I don't think there's anything genuine about them. His goal is publicity, and he achieves this by picking what he knows are hot topics, and then taking hype-ridden extremist flamebaity positions/opinions on them that he knows most slashdotters will feel compelled to respond to.
Secondly: I find it decidedly ridiculous that anyone would dislike someone else simply based on what they've posted (or the stories they've written). I imagine that you [delmoi] must dislike me, based on your response to my "Bruce Perens." posts. I think people here take this forum a little too seriously. It's just not that important.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Not trying to spoil the book for anyone but, Jon, I gotta ask: What are Jesse and Eric up to now?
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
While the Jon Katz program usually spews out unintelligent garbage, it is by far leaps and bounds above similar programs written in the 80s. The opportunity for Slashdot readers to finally be able to ask interview questions to the Jon Katz AI program is pretty damn neat! I'm wondering how it will parse my question and what kind of response it will give.
So here goes. "Can we get the source to this program?" It'd be neat to code fork it and have everyones' rev get into a senseless argument with each other.
I'll probably be checking off the little "don't want to read any more of this author" stuff for Mr. Katz in the near future, just because I value my bandwidth.
Having said that, here's my question: You've said yourself that you are not a technical person. What makes you think that you can speak for those of us who are?
(That isn't necessarily a flame, although I realize it sounds hostile. I'm merely curious and asking for qualifications.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
What's your Karma?
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
Have you given thought to adapting your writings to the feedback that slashdot is implicitly giving you? In other words, have you thought about writing your editorials with the explicit purpose of doing nothing but starting a discussion on some topic? Not pretending to be knowledgable, or to hold some particular view as good/bad, or asserting questionable "facts", or with any sense of righteous indignation, etc, etc. Would you simplify your writings to this level and be something slashdot might appreciate more?
/. is that it appears that you simply are a reader of slashdot yourself, and that maybe once a week, you sit down and write an editorial that was inspired by having read a slashdot article of particular interest. For instance, with all the DeCSS stuff here on slashdot, it was very predictable that you were going to write an editorial about the MPAA and DeCSS, and that your comments were going to be a Katz summary of what had already been said on Slashdot.
/. community to come out and play. Yet, the way you write indicates you view your articles as having a grander place on slashdot than simply this. This gives offense and makes you a target of trolling, more so than you would be.
Now I'm going to ramble to explain my question....
I think what many people object to about your writings on
This annoys many because a)it gives you a greater voice than anyone else on slashdot and b)most feel you don't qualify for the position of slashdot summarizer because you're not a technical person (not that there's anything wrong with that!)
a) is the main point here, so let me go on - you don't research stories like a normal journalist. You write your impression and your opinion. There are times in many a slashdotter's life when they wish they could write up their opinion and submit it to slashdot, and get it automatically posted as a top-level article. But they can't. You can. Therefore, though in reality you're little more than an over-eager slashdot reader, you have this inside track that allows you to vent your views and get it published.
But, you're not informative, nor particularly insightful (ie you don't seem to offer anything more than that other slashdot reader who got worked up, wrote up an opinion piece, and submitted it to slashdot). You stir up trouble, which is probably the point. After all, I, unlike many outspoken slashdotters, enjoy you're articles - because of the discussion they provoke (and I don't mean the trolls!). Some of the best discussion are definitely provoked by your articles.
However, your article itself is of limited value in terms of insight offered, wit, or new facts uncovered. Your value is in soliciting the great varieties of opinions that exist in the
So, are you willing to change for the sake of the slashdot community?
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
Given the above definition, and given that you often state that the point of your articles is to trigger a reaction from the Slashdot community, which it often does in a predictable way, my question is: what do you think sets you apart from the common troll, aside from exposure and fame?
What criteria guides you in your choice of subjects for the articles
you write here on Slashdot? Which political and cultural views do you
find sympathetic on Slashdot, and which, if any, do you have problems
with?
The cake is a pie
Do you find being seen as a web journalist rather than a print journalist is a hinderance to the work?
Print journalists have the backing of a name and a press pass. Web journalists often are not seen as "real" writers. Have you ever had problems arranging an interview beacuse of this?
Do you ever bother to verify the technical points in your articles or do you just go with what you believe to be true without any supporting evidence?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
to those geeks that are going to argue that religion:
is the opiate of the masses
or
religion has caused more problems than anything else
or
religion requires no thought, and is therefore a blind faith
I suggest you look at your own beliefs, and ask yourself the following questions:
1. why am I an atheist?
2. how much actual study have I done on the subject of atheism (and the proofs therein)?
3. how do I know there isn't a God?
4. how much of my belief system comes from my parents?
what I'm trying to show you, is that science/atheism is a faith as well. We don't know what happened before the big bang (science can't answer that yet), and our basis of belief is pretty close to the possibility of a God (for He could have just started it all off with the big bang, and left us on our own.
Many religious people have thought long and hard about the existance of God...while they are the majority (religious people), I would hazard a guess that the same percentage of atheists blindly believe what they do as well...
why do you want to be right so badly?
-lev (an atheist)
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)
I'm trying to keep this from sounding like a flame but still ask what I mean here. I should note that I haven't read a lot of Katz. However the few times I have your opinion seems so simple and stark it would seem your almost parodying opinions that you don't believe in. I wonder sometimes if you really believe all the things you write, or if the intent is more to promote discussion?
I am quite interested how your writings can engender so much animosity and hatred about topics which are not the kind which the messenger should be killed over. Why do you think your writing has this effect?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
And frankly, Webster's has the definition of faith wrong. Faith is a method by which answers are sought that steps outside the bounds of formal systems to arrive at otherwise unreachable truths.
There are numerous counterexamples from history (in accounts that are usually rejected as historical simply because they contain such counterexamples) and several in my personal experience. Rejecting data just because it doesn't fit the model is hardly scientific, but it happens all the time. This is another way in which science is treated as a religion.And the brethren went away edified.
And the brethren went away edified.
If the universe turns out to be flat, then time will indeed be infinite, but not to any real-world frame of reference. That's because time had a beginning. To any real observer, a finite amount of time will have elapsed since it began. Space will always be finite (although arbitrarily large) for any real-world observer as well, for the same reason.
And the brethren went away edified.
Do you beleive that traditional media outlets are on their way out, and independant journalists on the internet will basically take over in the future? Or will corporate mega-mergers (like AOL/time warner) prevent this from occuring, even if people want it? And perhaps more importantly, will the average person ever come to accept the internet as a reliable news source, as opposed to the good looking news anchor on the television?
The internet gives us all the ability to become journalists in a way. That being said, I'd rather read articles on technical issues written by an engineer who has a bit of journalistic knowledge rather than a journalist who has a bit of technical knowledge.
Would you agree with that, even though you yourself fit into the second category? Does the internet make journalism degrees obsolete, especially if the internet became the world's primary news source, as opposed to TV, radio, and newspapers?
If all VA nee Andover nee Slashdot wants is more page views:
Why not post nude photos of Rob, Nate, and CowboyNeal?
Why not give an opinion column to the Ku Klux Klan?
Why not switch to Windows 2000 and promote its "superiority over Linux"?
I'M REALLY FUCKING PISSED OFF about this, and I'm just about sick of Slashdot. THIS IS BULLSHIT -- I checked the box to block stories from Katz, because I have NO INTEREST IN THIS JACKASS, but there he is... _twice_.
--
E2 IN2 IE?
You know, one could conceivably ask you a similar question. ;) It's not nearly as scary as asking why anyone would view comments with a -1 threshold, however.. *chuckle*
~ Kish
To Mr Katz...
How much of the opinion you state in your articles is really you, and how much of it is just a possible opinion that you think will give rise to a discussion of the current topic? It almost seems like you are just trying to provoke arguments sometimes, and that you write what you know will lead to angry flame wars between hordes of enraged /.ers. Also, how long do you spend on your articles - I've noticed that some of them are a little short on examples or factual detail to back them up, suggesting you're somewhat rushed for time (or don't care about these things - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt :) ).
When I was 14, my father told me, "If you want to be accepted, then conform. If you don't want to conform, then don't expect people to accept you. It's your choice. Nobody in this world owes you anything."
My question, then, is how do you react to this sort of thinking?
To wit, can an outisder be accepted and remain an outsider?
What matters more to you: Being accepted by the majority, or being right?
-cwk.
I think Katz knows who his audience is and that could be the whole point. Having a "non-techincal" person try to summarize the issues gives us a glimpse into how an "average" person is viewing the issues. We all are familiar with the idea of groupthink, and slashdot is not exempt from this. Most of the stories posted come from someone with a "techie" bias...why not have an outsider post some stories and get us thinking about what the real issues are what we really think? I believe that is what happens and why so many people dislike Jon but keep reading his writing and generating dialog.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Obviously almost everyone here seems to have a negative opinion of you. I have to say, I haven't read any of your stuff...I only cruise Slashdot for news now and then, so I couldn't speculate as to why this hatred is so abound. What I'm wondering though is, why do *you* think people dislike you so much? Do you have any idea, or do the comments just float by you, or go unread? Do any of the comments hit "home", and you find yourself saying, "Gee, maybe this guy is right"? Just wondering. Because I'm certain if I had such a large base of people who disliked me, I'd be at least minorly concerned and trying to figure out what all the fuss was about.
Just my 1.4 cents (after taxes)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
natalie portman joins the rest of the group at the fan-club headquarters. they are making arrangements for the upcoming final battle.
admiral katzbar: mae ling mak will lead a group to the open source code generator. there, they will deactivate the new sendmail daemon. this will allow us to communicate battle orders to the fan-club members attacking the open source development house and end esr's terrible reign!
the groups divide up and head out for battle. on the way out, matalie notices something is troubling natalie.
matalie: natalie what's wrong?
natalie: matalie... do you remember your mother? your real mother?
matalie: just a little bit. she died when i was very young.
natalie: i have no memory of my mother. i never knew her.
matalie: natalie, tell me, what's troubling you?
natalie: open source man is here, now, near this bunker.
matalie: how do you know?
natalie: i felt his presence. he's come for me. he can feel when i'm near. that's why i have to go. as long as i stay, i'm endagering the group and our mission here. i have to face him.
matalie: why?
natalie: he was the president of my fan club.
matalie: your fan club?!
natalie: there's more. it won't be easy for you to hear it, but you must. if i don't make it back, you're the only hope for the fan-club.
matalie: natalie, don't talk that way. you have a power i don't understand and could never have!
natalie: you're wrong, matalie. you have that power too. in time, you'll learn to use it as i have. being a hot young actress runs in my family. my mother had it. i have it. and... my sister has it.... yes. it's you matalie.
matalie: i know. somehow... i've always known.
they embrace before natalie portman leaves to surrender. mae ling mak approaches natalie portman.
mae ling mak: hey, what's goin' on?
matalie: i... i can't tell you.
mae ling mak: did you tell natalie? is that who you could tell?!
mae ling mak begins to leave, then hesitates.
mae ling mak: i'm sorry.
matalie: hold me!
mae ling mak and matalie embrace.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
two random open source developers enter the cat-walk holding natalie portman in chains.
random open source developer #1: this is the hot young actress who surrendered to us. although she denies it, i believe there may be more of them and i request permission to conduct a search of the area. she was armed only with this.
the random open source developer hands open source man a spray-can of mace.
open source man: good work coder. leave us. conduct your search and bring her companions to me.
the random open source developers leave.
open source man: esr has been expecting you.
natalie portman: i know, president.
open source man: so... you've accepted the truth!
natalie portman: i've accepted the truth that you were once anonymous coward... president of my fan club.
open source man: that name no longer holds any meaning for me!
natalie portman: it's the name of your true self. you've only forgotten. i know there is good in you! esr hasn't driven it from you fully! that was why you couldn't bludgeon me before. that's why you won't bring me to esr now.
open source man seems distracted by natalie's firm buttocks.
open source man: i see your figure has filled out. your development is complete. indeed you are alluring as esr has forseen.
natalie is unsure of what open source man plans on doing. she is a bit nervous.
natalie portman: come with me.
open source man: my girlfriend once thought as you do. you don't know the power of open source! i must obey esr!
natalie portman: i will not be open sourced. and you will be forced to bludgeon me with the open source gnu sausage.
open source man: if that is your destiny...
natalie portman: search your feelings, anonymous. you can't do this! i feel the conflict within you! let go of your lust!
open source man: it is too late for me, natalie.
open source man motions for an open source developer.
open source man: esr will show you the true nature of open source. he is your master now!
dissappointed, natalie nods her head.
natalie portman: then the president of my fan club is truly dead.
as the open source developer takes natalie away, open source man gazes longingly at her buttocks. he turns to look out the window, harkening back to his innocent youth, when he was president of the natalie portman fan-club. he sighs, deeply.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
back outside, mae ling mak, matalie portman, alan cox, c3-rms, linus-d2 and some natalie portman fan-club members are walking across the park, approaching the code generator. they run into a biker gang of lubricating midgets. they befriend the midgets and convince them to help in the attack. the midgets decide to wait in the bushes surrounding the bunker to ambush any unforseen open source developers which may show up.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
open source man and natalie portman enter esr's throne-room. esr is sitting in a chair at the top of a platform. open source man and natalie portman approach.
esr: welcome, hot young actress, i've been expecting you. you'll no longer need those.
esr waves a finger and natalie's hand-cuffs fall off.
esr: guards... leave us.
the gaurds leave.
esr: i am looking forward to completing your sexual development. in time, you will call me master.
natalie portman: you're gravely mistaken. you won't open source me.
esr: oh no, my hot young actress, you will find it is you who are mistaken... about a great many things.
open source man: her can of mace.
esr: ah yes. a hot young actresses weapon. much like the ones that have been used on me time and again. by now you must know your old fan-club president can never be turned from the open-source side. so will it be with you.
natalie portman: you're wrong. soon i'll be dead and you with me.
esr: laughs. perhaps you refer to the imminent attack of your fans. yes. i assure you, we are quite safe from your fans here.
natalie portman: your overconfidence is your weakness.
esr: your faith in your fans is yours.
open source man: it is pointless to resist, natalie.
esr: everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. your fans are walking into a trap. it was i who allowed the natalie portman fan club to know the location of the code generator. i assure you, it is quite safe from your pitiful little band. an entire legion of my best coders await them. oh... i'm afraid the sendmail daemon will be quite operational when your fans arrive!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
mae ling mak, matalie, alan cox and several natalie portman fans storm the code generator bunker, taking everyone prisoner.
mae ling mak: all right! up! move! come on! quickly! quickly, alan!
the natalie portman fans herd the generator programmers away from their panels. matalie glances at a display screen.
matalie: mae! hurry! the fan club will be here any moment!
mae ling mak: charges! come on! come on!
outside, c3-rms watches from the bushes. he sees several open source developers storm into the bunker.
c3-rms: oh, my! they'll be captured!
lubie chatters something as he takes off into the forest.
c3-rms: wait! come back! linus, stay with me...
back inside the bunker, mae ling mak looks up just as an open source developer enters.
open source developer: freeze! you groovy chick!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
the natalie portman fan club is storming down the highway, close to esr's palace.
natalie portman fan #1: sir! we still don't have email contact with headquarters!
fan club president: retreat! all fans retreat! the sendmail daemon is still operational!
the fans turn and try to escape. an enormous wave of open source developers attack from the side.
fan club president: it's a trap!
a vicious battle ensues.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
inside esr's throne room, a large window allows easy viewing of the battle going on outside.
esr: come, girl, see for yourself. from here you will witness the final destruction of your fan-club and the end of your insignificant chastity.
natalie is in torment. she glances at her can of mace sitting next to esr's hand.
esr: you want this, don't you? the lust is swelling in you now. take your hot young actress weapon. strike me down with it. give in to your sexuality. with each passing moment, you make yourself more my love-slave.
natalie portman: no!
esr: it is unavoidable. it is your destiny. you, like open source man, are now mine!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
back outside the open source code generator bunker, the open source developers have brought mae ling mak, matalie, alan cox and the natalie portman fans outside. c3-rms and linus-d2 appear from the bushes.
c3-rms: hello! i say, over there! were you looking for me?!
the open source developers look up. while they are distracted, a mass of lubricating midgets attacks. a massive battle breaks out. the lubricating midgets begin painting the open source developers with melted oleo. they slide over each other. they become so aroused that they begin a giant orgy. mae ling mak, matalie, alan cox and the natalie portman fans take advantage of the opportunity to return to the bunker and deactivate the sendmail daemon.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
esr: your fans have lost. and your friends at the open source code generator bunker will not survive. there is no escape, my young sex-slave. the natalie portman fan club will die... as will your friends.
natalie loses control and grabs her mace. open source man sheilds esr from the spray. natalie runs and hides.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
though outnumbered, the natalie portman fan club is winning the battle. the open source developers are so exhausted from overwork that they are practically useless in battle. not to mention that the natalie portman fans are energized at the thought of meeting natalie portman face-to-face once they take control of the building. the natalie portman fan club president suddenly gets a mail message from the fan club headquarters.
fan club president: i've got mail! the sendmail daemon is down! commence attack on the open source development house!
the natalie portman fans roar with excitement as they beat back the few remaining open source developers and head toward the building.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
natalie portman is hiding in esr's throne room. open source man is trying to locate her.
open source man: you cannot hide forever, natalie.
natalie portman: i will not be open sourced.
open source man: give yourself to the open source community. it is the only way you can save your friends.
natalie portman strains to contain her thoughts.
open source man: ah yes, your thoughts betray you. your feelings for them are strong. especially for... sister. so... you have a twin sister! now your feelings have betrayed her too. your parents were wise to hide her from me. now their failure is complete! if you will not be open sourced, then perhaps she will!
natalie portman jumps out from behind a mainframe, wielding a can of mace. she begins beating open source man back with it.
natalie portman: noooooooo!
natalie portman sprays open source man in the face with the self-protection spray. he crumples to the ground, holding his arm out to protect his face from another attack.
natalie portman is crazed with the power of open source.
esr cackles evilly as he steps down from his platform toward natalie.
esr: good. good! your open-sourcedness has made you powerful. now, release your sexuality and take open source man's place at my side.
natalie looks down at the fallen open source man, breathing heavily as his sinuses sting from the mace. she harkens back to her youthful obsession with a hot young actor.
natalie portman: never. i'll never turn to the open source side. you failed your highness. i am chaste, like open source man before me!
esr: so be it, closed-source girl. if you will not be open sourced, then you will be bludgeoned with the open source sausage!
esr grabs a giant sausage with a taxidermied gnu's head mounted on the end of it. he begins to beat natalie with it.
esr: hot young actress... only now, at the end, do you understand! you have paid the price for your lack of vision!
esr thrashes some more... open source man shakes off the mace.
esr: your hot young femininity is no match for the power of open source!
esr beats natalie again. open source man pulls himself to his feet and stands next to esr.
esr: and now, young portman, you will feel the full wrath of the gnu!
natalie portman screams in horror as esr thrashes her harder.
natalie portman: aaaargghghghghgh! open source man! please! help me!
open source man looks fondly upon natalie's firm young buttocks. he looks at esr. with a final surge of passion for the hot young actress, open source man lifts esr over his head and carries him to the window. open source man tosses esr into the blackness of night, but not before esr gets several good whacks in with the open source sausage.
open source man collapses to the floor. natalie portman crawls over to him and holds his head gently in her arms...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
outside, the fan club has beaten back the open source developers. the few remaining developers are rounded up and taken prisoner. the fan club members have penetrated the development house and have begun dismantling it. they are tearing it apart with their bare hands.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
natalie portman drags open source man through the development house. esr writings are flying around everywhere in the turmoil. the building is about to collapse from the attack of the natalie portman fan-club alliance. natalie is trying to reach a cart to drive her and open source man out to safety.
open source man: natalie, help me take these pants off.
natalie portman: but you'll make a mess all over the floor!
open source man: nothing can stop that now. just for once, let me love you with my own genitalia.
natalie nods in agreement. she removes open source man's pants. he smiles with relief. natalie gazes upon the pale, disfigured genitalia with pity.
open source man: now... go. leave me!
natalie portman: i'll not leave you. i've got to let you open source me!
open source man: you already have! you were hot! you were hot, natalie! tell your sister, you were ho...
with that, open source man slips away into a coma of bliss. filled with sorrow and pity, natalie takes one last look at the exposed genitalia. the development house begins to crumble. natalie quickly drags open source man's carcass onto the cart and escapes before the building collapses.
natalie reaches the street-corner. she spots her parents waiting to pick her up as designated. she dumps open source man onto the sidewalk, under a power line. she scribbles her phone number on a piece of paper and lays it on his chest. as she walks away, the tremors from the crumbling of the development house cause the power line to snap. it lands on open source man and ignites him. wistfully, natalie watches as he burns to a crisp.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
matalie and mae ling mak watch as the development house crumbles to the ground.
mae ling mak: i'm sure natalie wasn't in there when it blew.
matalie: she wasn't. i can feel it.
mae ling mak: you love her, don't you?
matalie: well... yes.
mae ling mak: fine. when she comes back... i won't get in the way.
matalie: it's not like that. she's my identical twin sister!
mae ling mak experiences a moment of confusion. then joy as she realizes matalie is all hers. they embrace and kiss.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
natalie portman is at a party with matalie and the members of the fan-club. she harkens back to the previous week when open source man saved her. she looks out the window... open source man's blue-auraed spirit is standing in the front lawn, naked and aroused, warmly smiling at her. standing on either side of him are betty davis and hedy lamar. natalie smiles back before rejoining her friends...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
the end.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
starring
open source man
anonymous coward
natalie portman
natalie portman
matalie (natalie portman's identical twin sister)
natalie portman
esr
esr
naked & petrified guy
anonymous coward
lacey chabert naked & petrified
lacey chabert naked & petrified
mae ling mak naked & petrified
mae ling mak naked & petrified
mae ling mak clothed & mobile
mae ling mak clothed & mobile
c3-rms
richard m. stallman
linus-d2
linus torvalds
open source gnu sausage
farmland national headquarters mascot sausage + taxidermied gnu's head
with special appearances by
tom christiansen (sweaty topless male dancer #1)
larry wall (sweaty topless male dancer #2)
produced by
anonymous coward
directed by
anonymous coward
written by
anonymous coward
special visual effects
anonymous coward
sound design
anonymous coward
music
anonymous coward
key grip
anonymous coward
sausage wrangler
anonymous coward
thank you.
One of the biggest and most valid criticisms you (regularly) receive on /. is directed to your writing style. Specifically, you write _long_ articles with _long_ (occasionally run-on) sentences containing questionable grammar. Given that you're a professional (paid!) journalist, do you feel that this affects how seriously your readers take your writing?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
With the current deCSS brouhaha, there are several Supreme Court - worthy aspects:
1: Jurisdiction questions on the Internet
2: Common carrier vs publisher aspect of ISPs
3: Defining the lines between copyright and fair use in the electronic/Internet age
IMHO these are all issues worth arguing there. But also IMHO, deCSS is not the case to take them there, because we have no/few friends on this one. We're too likely to lose, because money is often more important than justice in the legal system, and that sets some bad precedents.
What type of case would you like to see take these issues to the Supreme Court?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Jon,
I am, or was a online writer like yourself, I spent a great deal of time and energy writing for a publication which I will not name as I feel I have finally lived down the flame I recieved by aligning myself to it. Some Slashdot readers may recall my name from it, some may not. Regardless I've spent almost a year recovering from the hatred I received online, not for my writing but that I wrote *for* this online webzine. As a result, its lack of integrity has gone from flame to truth even in the eyes of the mainstream media. The result is I have seen first hand what flame can do, Almost to an exact opposite of what has happened with you and Slashdot. In my case, I was not hated for what I wrote, but for who I wrote it. In your case, Slashdot remains respected even with your detractors hating your writing. My question is how you deal with your detractors, and how you continue to write, do you ignore them as a whole? or as I've seen recently,(from the furnance series of articles) you've tried to understand them and their motives in a attempt that they might better understand you? My question is how you intend to recover from the damage done to you by your detractors, whether real or not - it continues to hound you and Slashdot and I for one would like to know if it is even possible to put such 'ghosts' to rest.
Rodney Caston