Slashdot Mirror
Interview: Jon Katz Answers
Truth or Parody (Score:5, Interesting)
by Duxup (pointandlaugh@hotmail.com)
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?
Katz:
I never write solely for the purpose of being provocative, or simply to push buttons. That would be dishonest. Parodying opinions would be worse, and I dont even know what that means (nor has "simple" or "stark" ever been used to describe my writing). The awful truth is that I believe everything I write quite sincerely, and often too passionately, when I write it. But I never write something with the feeling that it's 100 per cent true or right. I've learned otherwise.
And yes, my job is to promote discussion of issues, that's definitely my major purpose and intent. It's why I'm here. It sure isnt to beef up Freshmeat.
Writing online is challenging. The feedback is so intense, and comes in so many forms, that I often learn new things, change my mind, or alter my opinions, or see new aspects of an issue. It's a privilege for a writer to be here -- if you keep your eyes open, you never stop learning and growing. Or being humbled. And you can't get too lazy or arrogant, or you'll get eaten alive. And boy, do you get read. A lot of writers say this, and its true, but the only real insult for a writer is to be ignored.
When I wrote columns for Rolling Stone and New York Magazine, I got little feedback -- readers had no easy way to reach me -- and my ideas were rarely changed or stretched. Here, I grow and learn every day, about technical things and everything else. I never get or want or expect the last word, and never assume what I write is the only truth.
My columns are the best expression of what I hope is an interesting issue or idea at the time I write it. After that, it goes out into the hive and lives or dies on its own worth. My columns are beginnings of conversations, never the end. And I wish you all could see my e-mail, as I have some of the greatest conversations anybody interested in technology could possibly wish for.
And, as we all know ad nauseum, I get plenty of disagreement. I take responsibility for what I say. I read all criticism, even flames. I don't believe in many aspects of the moderation system. I set my prefs to everything. To me, steering software is the anti-thesis of community. I consider it self-censorship, a Balkanization of ideas, an effort to smother a human problem with software.
If somebody has a comment about my work, I owe them the courtesy of seeing it, however hostile or nice.
But remember that I express opinions more frequently than anybody on Slashdot. That means I will generate more intense feeling than most. The Net is a big place, and everybody has an opinion. Everything one writes in the nature of an opinion ticks somebody off. If you can't handle that, you can't express opinions on a forum like this and ought to go to a newspaper op-ed page, where nobody can ever reach you.
One difference on Slashdot is that disagreement tends to be intensely personalized, more than on other sites. People don't seem comfortable just disagreeing, some have to attack the source of the idea. They challenge motives, attack integrity, ridicule writing style, intelligence, sincerity, almost everything.
Notwithstanding that, writing on Slashdot has been the most successful experience of my media writing life. My columns are linked and distributed all over the world, I am quoted everyplace, asked to write for places, I get about 200 to 300 e-mails a day, and many more people are familiar with my work than at Hotwired or other sites I've written for on the Web. I don't mean this to be self-serving, just to respond to questions about why Im here, and to point out that there are different perspectives on my experience here.
You did ask.
The considerable criticism I get is obvious, and much of it is valuable, thoughtful and worthwhile. But I have never gotten more praise or worked with people I like and respect more. I think this community is the most extraordinary thing I've seen in my life as a media/technology writer, and I am very happy and quite proud to be a part of it.
Preaching to the choir (Score:5,
Interesting)
by Q*bert (Don'tSpamqweaver@vovida.com)
I would like to ask why you choose to air your articles on Slashdot. They are written from a non-technical point of view for a non-technical audience wholly unfamiliar with their subjects: Weblogs, the DVD controversy, the Linux revolution itself. Clearly, the Slashdot audience finds your articles insultingly simplistic. We are already familiar with these issues, often in more detail (technical and historical) than you, and by and large we are annoyed to have our opinions simplified and read back to us.
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?
Katz:
Ummmm... no, I don't agree with you. I think the subtext of this message isn't about how dumb I am, but how smart you think you are.
Come on, Q*Bert, think about this. Would I still be here if that was really the view of the "Slashdot audience", whatever that may be? Would you be bothering even to write this question?
I don't mean to be snarky, but I must have been away when you were elected mayor of Slashdot, and spokesperson for the community. How do you know how everyone views my writing? Are you really saying that I should never write about privacy, genetics, open source, culture, books, movies, corporatism, media coverage of technology because you know all there is to know about it, and couldn't possibly learn anything more from any discussion? Sounds like it.
You also are wantonly inaccurate about Slashdot's audience, which is considerably wider than you seem to grasp, with varying levels of technical expertise, and which neither one of us is qualified to speak for. Happily, all kinds of people come through here, from programmers to housewives, and find the site interesting.
I dont write for a lay audience on Slashdot, and I don't have one, so far as I know.
The people who read me are directly involved with technology -- administrators, programmers, developers, students, and many, many highly-technical Linux geeks and nerds. I get mail from programmers, people overseas, from CEO's, government officials, bio-ethicists, geneticists, NSA spooks, and all sorts of teenaged geeks from all kinds of schools, from high school to college.
I'm not here to break news or tell you things. Of course you know a lot about these issues -- that's what makes this community unique. I'm here to promote discussion of things we all -- sometimes even me -- know a lot about. You are dead wrong if you think many members of the "community" don't want to talk about these issues. They do.
Simply, I write here because I love Slashdot, love the audience and the feedback I get, and believe I have the potential of doing good work. I love the bottom-up nature of the site, the intensely participatory nature of the community (I read Freshmeat every day, and marvel at it, understanding hardly anything. It's one of the most interesting places to go on the Web).
I've never discussed it with him, but I believe Rob asked me to write for Slashdot BECAUSE I am clueless in many ways. I'm not a geek, not a technical person, and have no desire to be one. I don't carry a lot of Linux or other baggage ideologically. I'm a writer, a very different thing. I think there's room for one or two here. Operating systems per se are not important to me. I love writing about technology, media, culture and politics. And I believe my record is stong in spotting trends and patterns involving technology-related subjects.
The implications of things like DVD and Open Source aren't static -- they aren't fully grasped at one moment, and then unworthy of further discussion. They are organic, evolving, changing all the time, especially as they move beyond this community and go out and hit the world.
Rob has never told me what to write and what not to write, but we (and Jeff too) communicate all the time. Via Robs grumpy and cryptic e-mail, I've figured out the role he sees for me -- to try to put things in a non-technological context, to try and bring a fresh, non-technical perspective to the things you all are doing here. "Write what it means," he tells me all the time. I trust his instincts.
So I stay here because Im happy, stimulated and welcome. The notion of my being a hated figure is, to me, largely mythical, a Slashdot version of hype. I've made a ton of friends here, and value them very much. I have a Linux laptop which I work often, and while it remains a nightmare and a mystery, I love the fact that I have actually begun to learn more about how computing works.
Ive worked in different media, covered politics and government, studied the history of technology. (I've worked at the Washington Post, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, CBS News, Rolling Stone, Wired and Hotwired, and written 10 books), and have been obsessed with technology for years. I'm the sort of clown who will talk for hours about how cars changed the world, but have no interest in learning how the internal combustion engine works.
Whatever you think of me and my work, I have no apologies to make for it, but lots of improvements to work on. I don't think there can be a lot of doubt that people read what I write and talk about.
Ive also been here for nearly two years. I hate to break the news to you, but Im part of the Slashdot community too. So is anybody else who wants to join.
A -real- question (Score:5, Insightful)
by jd
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?
Katz:
Libertarianism is one of the most interesting political ideas on the Net, or anywhere else, and I would love to pin it down, though there are many different interpretations of it. In recent months, several Libertarians have been e-mailing me, guiding me to websites, and I've enjoyed that. My sense of it as a philosophy is that it values freedom and a minimal involvement of government in people's lives, and celebrates individuals, and their right to make their own choices.
Im skittish about labels and parties. I'm not a political person. I find both liberalism and conservatism suffocatingly narrow and inadequate, and I would never describe myself as being one or the other. I hate the whole idea of a two-party, two -ideology system. If there's a question I have about Libertarianism, it's in trying to define the role government should or shouldn't play in people's lives or social problems. For example, I believe government should have stopped Microsoft much sooner, and should definitely halt the AOL/Time-Warner merger. I think its a responsibility of government to keep the Net and the Web as free and non-commercial as is possible. I don't believe Libertarians would share that view.
But I have to say that my thinking about Libertarianism is a work-in-progress. Maybe the best response is to write about it a bit, and start some discussions.
Politics isn't a strength of mine. But the second part of your question was very interesting because Libertarianism could play an enormous role in the many legal, technological and cultural questions popping up around the new Corporate Internet springing up all around. If I understand them correctly, the Libertarians present a strong political rationale for keeping a space like the Net free from corporate or government interference. If I were a lawyer, Id be busting through walls to take up Net law.
Honest question (Score:5, Interesting)
by swordgeek (spamlist@um......go.com)
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?
Katz:
Well, I barely got through high school and didn't finish college. I'm sure my grammar needs work. But I've written 10 books, almost every one of which was very favorably reviewed by some very tough literary critics. Apart from the books, I've written for the New York Times, GQ, Rolling Stone, Wired, and have gotten very few complaints about my grammar.
Writing is a very personal thing, from the point of view and the writer and the reader. It's subjective. There is no single way to do it. I feel pretty good about my writing, though never satisfied. I dont think I want it to change too much. My Slashdot pieces should be shorter, crisper.
I wish I could change everything I ever wrote, long sentences and otherwise. But I feel even better now that Slashdot is hiring some professional copy editors, which every writer desperately needs. You've definitely had to put up with some raw stuff though. In my early months here, I had no time to proofread my stuff (Slashdot isn't my full-time job) and had all sorts of formatting problems. Some it was sloppy for sure, for which I apologize. Programmers are an especially tough audience, as precision means a lot to them, and they aren't forgiving of sloppiness or mistakes.
Im sure reading me can sometimes be a chore. But I can't say I care tons about grammar. Id rather swing (or not) for my ideas.
Community interest (Score:5, Interesting)
by Signal 11 (signal11@mediaone.net?Subject=Slashdot comment)
It's a rare person indeed who 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?
Katz:
I am very proud to be a rare person, and however you meant it, I thank you.
In some ways, I think I've answered this question in my previous responses. But again, I caution you against myopia, and the tunnel vision that sometimes comes from gauging the reality of the world by Threads there is no single response to me here. Some people are hostile, some people are not. Most people the great majority, I'm sure -- don't say either way, so I dont think either of us really knows for sure.
I'm drawn to the people running the site, the people posting on it, the people reading it, and the overall OS and free software idea, an idea I've been waiting for much of my work life. Also to the astounding often decidedly non-hostile -- response I get to my writing, a dream for any writer. As I've said elsewhere, if the response to my work was overwhelmingly hostile, I wouldn't have any desire to be here.
But I have to say one thing: If I permitted myself to be driven away by hostility toward my ideas, that would be a kind of cowardice I could never live with. It would be a horrible precedent for any writer, and a rebuke to the whole idea of free speech and open discussion.
I also don't buy these generalizations inherent in your very valid question. I don't believe most people on Slashdot hate me. I think it's a wildly exaggerated meme, stemming mostly from some loud and often (but not always) people who don't even have the courage to post under their own names, and for whom flaming is like a contact sport.
If you read through Threads, which I do, the most piercing comments are from smart people who criticize me under their own names. The most hostile comments are often from people who clearly havent read a word Ive written, but who are just rushing to get flames up first. The many interesting and thoughtful criticisms of me theres a whole sub-literature devoted to why I'm a jerk and don't belong here are almost always posted under names and ID's, which I respect and appreciate. And read.
There have been some eloquent, even powerful criticisms of me from people who do post under their own names (Hey, Rogers, Chris). They raise important questions, some of which I agree with and have learned from. People take seriously the idea that a writer is given so free and regular a forum to express himself here, and I take it as a compliment and a challenge.
But believe me, anybody who thinks Ill be chased off by criticism is really smoking something strange. I will never give in to the idea that I should leave because some of my ideas are unpopular among some people. You'd absolutely have to kill me first. In fact, I have just re-upped for at least another year, and plan to devote more of my writing to Slashdot, and reduce or eliminate the writing I do for other places. This is what I very much have wanted.
But to re-cap: I am first and foremost drawn to the open source idea, which I sincerely believe may possibly, though by no means definitely, salvage media and will transform society.
Secondly, I am attracted to and comfortable in this intensely interesting community of bright, idea-loving, idealistic, quarrelsome people -- I feel quite at home here. I respect what you have built, shared and believe in. I have been railing against Microsoftism before most of you were programming, and spent much of my life (unsucessfully) battling monopolistic corporations, even as I have depended on them for my livelihood. I wish I were more technically inclined, so I could participate more directly. But failing that, I am privileged to be writing about technology, media and society for one of the best media and technology sites in the world.
To me, the more rational question under those circumstances is why WOULDN'T I write here?
I also have a very powerful connection with Rob and Jeff, shaped in part by having worked for, (and at times been one) a series of media sleazebags. Rob and Jeff, and in recent months, Robin, are great editors. I trust them, and am grateful for the freedom they give me, the opportunity I have to learn, and the humor and ethics they bring to their and my work. You have to be my age and have my experience, perhaps, to appreciate how rare that is.
A More Civil Net (Score:5, Interesting)
by Skyshadow
Jon -- You seem like a fellow who might have some small amount of experience with the lack of civility which is rampant on the Net. Given that, I have a two-part question:
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 fourth 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 compromising anonymity and free speach? Or is every net medium which tries to provide these things doomed to go the way of Usenet?
Katz:
To me, this is a truly significant issue, vastly more important than me. The first part is complex. We all know who the culprits are, immature people who will grow up to be great and creative human beings but aren't yet. And ideologues who hate people for having ideas that are different from theirs.
Slashdot is pretty typical for a Web site when it comes to general level of disagreement. Disagreement is one of the great benefits of the Net people who didn't have a voice now do. But Slashdot is abnormal for the way in which discussions are personalized. It often reminds me of what's happened in Washington, where all politics has become ugly and personal, rather than simply bi-partisan or ideologically divergent.
I think a big problem here is the conspiratorial and rebellious roots of Linux (fighting the Death Star) and also the Anonymous Cowards login. AC's can be very valuable, sources of news from corporations and governmnent, etc. But unfortunately, the name is too literal, an abuse of Rob's original idea. The lethal combination of anonymity, adolescent hostility and cowardice destroys any discussion.
In my own case, a number of posters have raised legitimate concerns about my being here, about my occupying this rare pulpit, about my motivations, but even these complaints can't be discussed because AC's simply don't permit any legitimate conversations to take place. It is not possible to have a coherent running conversation in public on Slashdot on any issue, whether you're Jon Katz or anybody else. And I aint the only person who gets roasted here. Go on any topic. The inability to have a coherent or civil public discussion is a major crisis for any group of people who purport to be a community. And it works against promoting the very values many of the people who post here share.
Rob is viscerally unable to silence, censor or exclude anybody, so I don't see that changing. But he's also a programming whiz, so Im eager to see what he comes up with. But youre asking honest questions and you deserve honest answers, and the truth is, AC's have increasingly made Slashdot's Threads a laughingstock on the Web. I know some of you like to think you're laughing at me and people like me, but many of you would be mortified to know how many people come onto Slashdot to laugh at the nightmare that is Threads.
Rob's moderation systems have definitely made this better, and he thinks quite a bit about this issue.
The only way I can perceive civil discussions happening on sites like this is if topics were clearly identified, people were required to post under some form of recognizable ID, and experienced moderators with power kept the conversation on track and kicked out people who attacked ideas or posters personally or strayed off topic.
Personally, I'd offer people absolute freedom to comment on issues, but suspend people who assaulted other people verbally, and if they didn't stop, kick them off the site. There is no excuse or justification for the way they behave. People are responsible for their words as well as their actions.
I think the single biggest regret I have about being on Slashdot isn't that the flames or the silly name-calling, but that nobody but me gets to see some of the most amazing e-mail in the world, not just to me but everybody who writes here -- from bio-ethicists, geneticists, programmers, brilliant geeks and nerds, educators. I've shared much of this mail with Rob and others so they can see it. None of these posters would dream of posting on Threads, and if they did, Slashdot would have the best technology discussions on the planet.
There is a staggering amount of hostility on Slashdot, which transcends disagreement. I think it's embedded deeply in the culture here -- as is intelligence and creativity.
The real casualty of this is that there's nowhere for people to go to have rational and informative discussions about technology privacy, hacking, cracking, copyright, genetics, AI, nano-technology, supercomputing. The only discussions that are possible occur in the places where people know the least mainstream journalism and politics.
Almost all of you have something to contribute about these discussions, but many of you choose not to. Youd rather flame and attack. It's your choice, but it does have consequences, for the site, and for the issues you claim to care about.
These public conversations have to occur, as digital democracy spreads and the Net collides with politics, and computing becomes more universal. But Im afraid the precedent being set here is that they will only occur in restricted environments, because conversations arent really possible in un-restricted ones.
Anti-Katz (Score:5, Interesting)
by Simeon2000 (irSc_addict@PhotmAail.cMom)
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 religion, 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.
Katz:
I love the term ChristoGeeks. I have a great reverence for the Christianity as practiced and taught by Jesus Christ (see below). Were he alive today, I would be in his Church. And I hardly ever write about religion in any context. Its not a regular theme of mine at all.
If Jesus's teachings were followed today, we would live in a wonderful world. I have less affection and respect for contemporary organized religion of all faiths, which have, in my opinion, turned far away from such teaching. I do resent the so-called Christian Right, which intruded itself into American politics more than any other religion and often promotes censorship and a visceral distrust of technology. But I have also criticicized other religions when they do this.
I believe religion has no place in politics, education or technology.
Some -- in fact, almost all -- of the people closest to me in the world are devout Christians, and in the original and wonderful sense of the term. But it's a word that gets tossed around quite a bit by people who have no real right to use it, and who greatly distort the spirit and the teachings of Christ.
I hear from many people who identify themselves as Christians. When I think of Christianity, I think of a faith that at its core, promotes charity, tolerance, generosity, love and peace. Thats not what I see on Washington talk shows, where the so-called "Christian" agenda is often used to push for censorship, attack culture and technology, and force a certain kind of moral values on people who don't necessarily want them. Judaism and the Muslim Faith certainly do this as well, at times, but not nearly in so organized and vocal a way.
I also believe that religion, like all powerful institutions, needs watching and, occasionally, poking. It's not my purpose to give offense. But I have to say what I believe. Religion gets plenty of great press. It can handle a whack or two from me. (If you are interested, my last book, "Running To The Mountain," was inspired by the Trappist Monk and writer Thomas Merton. My ideas about religion are discussed there.) I don't mention it in my new book "Geeks", though.
That'd work well...
Features: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
[ Bullshit ] Posted by JonKatz on Monday February 14, @15:00
from the blah-blah-blah dept.
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah (repeat 3,000,000 times)
( Torture Brain... | Too Much in body | 267,79 9 of 267,79 9 comments )
How would this be any different than the current system? Right now, to register all I need to do is create a throwaway email address and ask for a nick.
Q*bert's tone (in the original question) was almost as sanctimonious as yours.
/. community" whether explicitly, or through the tone of their message, as Q*bert did, deserves a snide response.
/. moderator. I wouldn't rely on the /. moderation system as evidence of anything that even remotely resembles a consensus. It's just too ancedotal.
I was offended by it's presumptiousness. Anyone who claims to speak for "the
As for moderators? That is a crap shoot. Anyone can be a
hooha
I got it...
I would like to thank the Academy, and all of the people who made this moment possible. Thanks, and love to all of my fans.
yay
This article is fake!
Jon Katz was murdered!!!
See the Slashgrits article for more info.
YEAH BITCH
right on my brother. i will boil a special pot of grits just for you and your pants. thank you.
Discussions with my friends have been known to last a few hours on any given night. I'm a little puzzled by some /. members' dislike for lengthy articles and replies. Short discussions don't tend to flesh out the many sides of an issue. I don't always agree with Katz. However, I do appreciate the breadth of his articles and believe he attempts to bring out all the aspects of an issue. His replies to the questions were mostly respectful and well-considered. In the one instance where he was less than respectful, he told us he was about to be less than respectful. Katz might be limited with certian topics, but I don't think his integrity is even remotely questionable. Anonymous for now, but not forever.
I really can't quantify my dislike for his writing, but after I read one of his things I feel somewhat like I just ate a box of twinkies and a bag of corn chips.
THEY LOVE POP CULTURE!?!?!?!?!??????
THEY LOVE POP CULTURE!?!?!?!?!??????
I hope that's the only thing you respect about him...
I think if JonKatz starts posting in the discussion section more frequently I'll be inspired to move from casual troller to Professional Troller. I'll write a script that replies to all his posts with automatically generated KatzSpeak.
I wonder if Natalie Portman is Christian?
Katz deserves to defend him in a less than civil tone. There has been a vocal minority of arrogant 13-year olds viciously attacking him from day one. Q*bert doesn't speak for me; this is a chaotic group that has no spokesman. It is best that way, and I think that is What katz it getting at. It could also be that we moderated up the question just to hear what he had to say. I have been watching this whole katz discussion from the begining and I am sorry I haven't posted before.
John is smarter than all of you people. You're just jealous that you're not him. You can all kiss his ass.
Thank you,
Linda Katz.
Last I heard, /. was a news/discussion site, incapable of forming an opinion
Slashdot is probably one of the most opinionated places when it comes to arguments. News/Discussion groups/sites are notorious for highly opinionated people. None of these imply any possibility of a correct opinion.
Opinion is only relative to the person/people who agree or disagree with it. If I agree with someones opinion then it is therefore correct. If you disagree it is incorrect. It's all relative.
In summary the person whom you responded to is not at all dense, just stating his opinion which he believes to be true (correct).
I guess I'm just getting too old for this shit. Somebody tries to write articles taking a bigger-picture look at some of the implications of technology and all they get is personal abuse of the most idiotic kind.
I was grimly fascinated with some of the responses to the Jon Katz interview, and couldn't stop reading them (I should have). The only conclusion I can come to is that some people have just made up their minds that it's cool to hate JK, and they'll invent articles in their heads to respond to with hatred. That, and anything over 100 words taxes their shattered attention spans.
I don't care about games, and I don't care about Star Wars. I care about technology and how it affects our culture and future. Sort of what JK writes about. But I'm tired of the adolescent nonsense that has been exploding around here lately. I'm tired of grits and dead monkeys. So I'm out of here. In fact, I'm going to sign off as an AC, just to be done with it.
Have fun, carry on, and above all, keep yer grits warm!
- AC
Bullshit. "Libertarian Socialist" is as total an oxymoron as I can imagine.
I say this for the bazillonteenth time:
The only way to guarantee 'equality' (which is the stated "good goal" you use to disguise and/or justify your grab for power) is to have government intruded into EVERY aspect of EVERY moment of EVERY life...not worth it IMNSHO.
As for the dangers of corporations...I'd prefer to be hunted by a mindless, blind predator than...well, you and the other leftists in the kind of government you seem to want, which would be an all-seeing, malicious and semi-intelligent beast.
As for the BAD THINGS done by companies...violations and misuse of the market ideal do not invalidate it. Unless the brutality, intimidation and forced unanimity of thought that many unions/socialist parties have committed invalidate their ideas. hmmmm...
To summarize-you are not a Libertarian. you are not for freedom of the individual. you are a leftist fsck.
Dr.G
Gregorys' Law of Law: ALL law, regulation and judicial decision, while sometimes acheiving stated GOAL A (justice), ALWAYS produce unstated GOAL B (more money for the legal profession).
drink the blood and eat the body of christ...
you go be a vampire/cannibal.
ps. god could have stopped every horrible thing in the world ever.
you are pissing in the wind.
damn JonKatz ur old dude. that pic of you man, ur just friggin oLD
click here
Click Here
Fashion: Black is back
and so is the suit.
Watch more CNN VIDEO
Search
myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Free E-mail | Feedback
MAINPAGE
February 11, 2000 -- Updated 01:45 p.m. EST, 1845 GMT, @ 823 internet time
WORLD
U.S.
LOCAL
POLITICS
WEATHER
BUSINESS
SPORTS
TECHNOLOGY
SPACE
HEALTH
ENTERTAINMENT
BOOKS
TRAVEL
FOOD
ARTS & STYLE
NATURE
IN-DEPTH
ANALYSIS
myCNN
Headline News brief
news quiz
daily almanac
MULTIMEDIA:
video
video archive
audio
multimedia showcase
more services
CNN learns FBI zeroing on locations in
California, Oregon in hacking probe
CNN has learned the FBI is zeroing in on
undisclosed locations in California and Oregon as it
attempts to unravel a wide-scale hacking attack on
popular computer Web sites.
According to sources familiar with the
investigations, the FBI is hoping to obtain
computers that it believes were used in an attack on
CNN.com.
FULL STORY
Net execs to meet with Clinton
Web hacking underscores need for constant
monitoring
See how a denial of service attack works
In-Depth Special: Insurgency on the Internet
FEATURES:
X-ray Pics:
New space
observatory finds
the universe a really
hot place
Hoop it up at the
NBA All-Star
Game
In Other News:
Britain suspends N. Ireland power-sharing government
Endeavour roars into sky for monster mapping mission
Pre-dawn blast shatters windows on Wall Street
Alleged mastermind sentenced in '97 Pearl, Mississippi,
school shootings
Midwest Express cancels flights as strike deadline nears
FDA investigates gene experiment for possible AIDS
contamination
Another Israeli soldier killed in south Lebanon
Afghanistan sends chartered jet to bring back
ex-hostages
French film director Roger Vadim dies at age 72
Kashmir rocked by second bomb blast in a day
Retail sales taper off
TIME.com ANALYSIS:
Would British offer of troop withdrawal coax the IRA?
Fast-paced Diallo trial has not been kind to defense
Lance Morrow: A fish market of ideas
Can Britain afford to give hijackers asylum?
Top Sports News at
Top Business News at:
Weather:
Search
Reds get Griffey in 5-player trade with M's
Atlanta police: Lewis provided 'outright lies'
Woods 6 behind Love III at Buick
Louisville hands Syracuse second straight defeat
Wall Street retreats
FBI hacking probe focuses on 2 states
Don't gamble with taxes
NatWest's 'Royal' surrender
Market news and analysis
Visit the CNN.com weather
section:
Enter your U.S. Zip:
Click here for U.S. states or world
cities
NHL:
begins 7:00 pm ET
Ottawa Senators
0
Florida Panthers
0
Get all scores
MARKETS
1:50pm ET, 2/11
E-MAIL:
Subscribe to one of our news
e-mail lists.
Enter your address:
DISCUSSION:
message boards
chat
feedback
CNN WEB SITES:
AsiaNow
Spanish
Portuguese
Italian
Swedish
Norwegian
Danish
FASTER ACCESS:
europe
japan
TIME INC. SITES:
CNN NETWORKS:
more networks
transcripts
Turner distribution
SITE INFO:
help
contents
search
ad info
jobs
WEB SERVICES:
WORLD
U.S.
Rwanda resumes cooperation with U.N. genocide tribunal
Colombia urges farmers: Drop drug crops for cattle,
coffee, cotton
Indonesian army chief says Wiranto must go
Iraq spurns UN attempt to restart disarmament
inspections
In-Depth:
Kosovo: Prospects for peace
Still missing: Albanians seek relatives in Serbian jails
Report: Nuke bomb parts at Kentucky plant could pose
dangers
White supremacist appeals law license refusal to U.S.
Supreme Court
With strike, FAA suspends Boeing's certifying authority
Four Prairie View A&M track students killed in van crash
In-Depth:
America's Panama legacy
Ripped from the headlines: the Panama Canal debate
QUICK VOTE
Since OPEC cut production a year ago, oil prices have
risen. What should be done?
Nothing. Let the free market determine the price.
Use political pressure to get OPEC to boost oil
output
Wait it out. OPEC won't let prices get out of hand.
Buy a battery-powered car.
View Results
Presented by:
Photo Essay
The Russians have
captured Grozny, and
created a wasteland
Newsfile
Russia
TIME LIBRARY
TIME LIBRARY
Archive
Newsfile
Ireland
More at TIME.com
POLITICS
PERSONAL FINANCE
Basketball legend Jordan endorses Bradley
Ventura wants separation from national Reform Party
President urges congressional action on his agenda
McCain trying to balance message and money
Analysis:
A user's guide to New York Senate race
Learning to be a money-wise widow
Lock down your home office
Fire extinguisher recalled
Trim your property taxes
How to avoid penalties on early IRA withdrawals
Financial planning for fathers who stay home with the
kids
ENTERTAINMENT
HEALTH
'Ernest' comic Jim Varney dead of lung cancer
Review: 'The Beach' is a washout
From Madonna to Maurice Ravel, this William is in Orbit
Rosie O'Donnell gets her 'Millionaire' lifeline
Report: Dangers of strokes and mini-strokes
underestimated
FDA investigates gene experiment for possible AIDS
contamination
Studies indicate St. John's wort may interfere with
medications
Children adopted in Russia, China at risk for lead
poisoning
ON CNN
LOFTY ASPIRATIONS
Today on CNN
Bruce Willis on Larry King Live, 9 p.m. ET
Russell Verney on Crossfire, 7:30 p.m. ET
What's on:
Click here to listen to CNN Live.
Arts & Style Quick Vote:
Is loft-living for you?
Also: Featured photo gallery and message board
PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY
COMPUTING
Smart cards to contain biometric data
Snap photos with your Handspring
IBM to manage handhelds, reveal EON kit
U.S. judge acts against Canadian TV Web site
FBI focuses on university, business computers as
cyber-attack launch pads
Crusoe cruises ahead
Network storage vendors take to Linux
Intel previews Itanium, IA-64
In-Depth:
Timeline: The History of Y2K
Discuss: What is hacking?
&nb
if some politician votes his conscience instead of what the public good is, i'll just vote him out of office next time around. simple as that.
dominion raises some very important issues regarding the Libertarian Party. I'm currently unaffiliated politically, but have given Libertarianism a lot of consideration. However, I almost never heard the Libertarians talk about the issues dominion raised, but rather how they want a small gov't who doesn't tell it's citizens what to believe, how to think, etc. The fact that many influencial people (such as actors in Hollywood) claim to be Libertarian/have Libertarian beliefs doesn't affect how our current gov't will function.
Have you read Katz's articles? It's not just this interview.
I've been reading /. for about 6 months now, and have probably read a few dozen Katz articles. I think there have been maybe two or three where Katz doesn't end up talking about himself at some point.
Remember when Tom Snyder hosted "The Late Late Show" after Letterman? Snyder was a decent interviewer as long as he stuck to asking questions, but he would almost always end up turning the conversation to himself, telling an interminable story about his boyhood days in Philadelphia, or the amusing thing "Mother Snyder" did the other day.
Katz is like that.
(As for the question which many have asked--if you hate Katz so much, why do you read him?--I won't answer for others, but for me, Katz is the sort of person I love to hate. Sometimes I try to post rational responses to his articles, but other times I get so fed up with not knowing where to start in my response that I just go for the quick flame, rather than spending a long time composing a point-by-point refutation.)
(No I don't really hate Katz, I don't know him well enough to hate him. I just hate his writing.)
(Or I should say, I hate most of the writing he does on /. I have often enjoyed his works on freedomforum.org, which I also read regularly, so I was disappointed to read in his interview that he will be doing more writing for /. and less for other venues in the future. I don't recall ever seeing Katz talk about himself in his freedomforum.org writings.)
Um, then why have a Senator at all? Why not just have a direct democracy?
I see no problem with Senator Smith always voting however Religious Leader Jones tells him to, as long as he announced during his campaign that he would do that, so the voters knew what they were getting themselves into when they voted for Smith.
Consider the following hypothetical conversation, circa 1965:
Pol 1: Dr. King says we should end segragation, and he has the respect of a significant number of both blacks and whites.
Pol 2: Yes, but remember he's a Christian minister. We can't be influenced by religion.
actually it's a ( ¹ or ¹ ) (although in the source code it actually apears as the little one) I think the program he cut and pasted from mistakenly replaced all its fancy ( ’ or ’ ) with the little ones.
Jon makes the statement:
:) explicitly stated what Congress was not allowed to do.
"For example, I believe government should have stopped Microsoft much sooner, and should definitely halt the AOL/Time-Warner merger. I think its a responsibility of government to keep the Net and the Web as free and non-commercial as is possible."
In Jon's naivete, he thinks that the government will just do what is right because, well, it's the govenment. Unfortunately, every individual and group operates on self-interest. That is why the Constitution (U.S. here
In the case of the internet/web, it is in the government's interest to allow it to become exceedingly commercialized. Why? Revenue! Individuals in government advance based on their budgets and number of direct reports. Expanding the budget allows agencies, departments, etc. to expand the scope of their control.
Even without direct internet taxation, tax revenue increases with increased commercialization. And anyone even remotely involved with the government and its power structure wants those increases maximized.
I find it extraordinarily curious that much of the generation having the "Question Authority" / "Don't Trust Washington" mentality on the one hand (don't know if Jon is in that generation or not) continually demands government involvement / solutions on the other.
Donnie
Another curiousity, are there stats on which topics are most and least popular? Then does Rob and the gang use that information for anything?
It's not an open forum. I don't know offhand whether his writings are automatically posted or not. Although they certainly seem to be proofread, unless Katz somehow magically manages to understand grammar when writing for freedomforum.org.
You would would not believe that Muslims were less inclined to censor and force their opinions on people if you lived in Iran, Afghanistan, or Pakistan where buying alcohol and cigarettes is illegal. Visit your local university and talk to some of the students studying abroad from subcontinental Asia.
Hey, Slashgrits even has an article on Natalie Portman and shows her naked (sort of) at last. Natalie just isn't the kind of girl for me. I want someone who looks at least halfway decent.
yeah I wont type it :) fsck jon katz%@# FSCK THEM ALL! I hate the tick! Alfred sucks! News announcement: Jon katz retiring? Good!
I thing I thought was a little odd was in that how if G33ks are the new cultural elite, har, har, then why his last paragraph in the playboy article. Of course it's an audience with money... lots of money, according to him.
Hickory Dickory Dock, The mice ran up the clock, The clock struck one, The others escaped with minor injuries.
:)
The most interesting thing I read on the entire page.
P.S. the quote is from the random quotes at the bottom!
Katz is here to serve as a springboard, to start conversations, not to state conclusions. The hostility he seems to draw from faceless brats on here is entirely unwarranted; nobody is being forced to read his articles. Certainly, the man has to have a certain thick-skinned ability not to be cowed by all the immature taunting he receives.
That being said, a few of the criticisms do ring true. 1) Jon seems to frequently write about half-formed ideas, things he hasn't thought through all the way. While this might be good for starting conversations, it does leave him more open to criticism. 2) Brevity is not Jon's strong suite. 3) Jon should stop posing as criticising modern media corporatism from the outside; if he's had so many books published, I'd say he was criticising from the inside, wouldn't you?
On a side note, it has become painfully clear that allowing anonymous posts is no longer tenable. Anybody that wants to post should be forced to create an account, perhaps even with a 1 week waiting period before allowing posted. This does not stop /. from offering the option of not tagging each individual post with the username.
After reading the first page of comments and not seeing very much posts that appreciate your presence here i just wanted to drop a note in support of you. I do not agree with you on many topics but i always like to see things from a different viewpoint and you are actually pretty good at pointing out facts i did not know/think about before ... so i consider your editorials an enrichment of the community. Or to say it in the words of Voltaire (not sure if it was him):
... (which i consider A Sad Thing(tm))
"I may not agree with what you have to say but i will wholeheartedly defend your right to say it!"
Posted Anonymously because given the amount of Katz-haters this will surely be modded down as OffTopic
But it seems to me that all ethical/moral questions ultimately come down to one's choice of personal philosophy.
Perhaps I believe that killing innocent people is wrong because I believe in the non-religious philosophy of utilitarianism, which advocates "the greatest good for the greatest number," and killing innocents does not achieve that end.
Or perhaps I believe that killing innocent people is wrong because I am Christian, and Christianity teaches that killing innocent people is wrong.
(Disclaimer: This is just an example and is not meant to imply that Christianity and utilitarianism are mutually exclusive; they certainly are not.)
Why should the non-religious philosohpy enjoy greater privilege than the religious? One might argue that the non-religious philosophy is "rational", but I would reply that ultimately, it is not. Ask the person with the allegedly rational philosohpy why e holds that philosophy, and perhaps you will uncover a yet deeper philosophy. Given that deeper philosophy, the overlying beliefs might follow rationally, but that only begs the question--again, why the deeper philosophy? Eventually you reach a point for which there is no rational response, only "It's just the right way, that's all." Reason may tell us how best to achieve our goals, but it cannot tell us what our ultimate goals should be.
So given that one's moral/ethical philosophy is ultimately a personal, non-rational choice, why is a religious philosophy less valid than a non-religious philosophy?
Or, to use your example: "Cloning is morally wrong because [religion] says it is wrong" is likely to convince those who share the belief that [religion] is true. Those who do not share that belief remain unconvinced.
"Cloning is morally wrong because it decreases the genetic diversity of the species, relative to the alternative of sexual reproduction, which may eventually lead to the extinction of the species." This may sound more rational at first, but consider the underlying assumption: that the survival of the species is preferable to the extinction of the species. (Why is one preferable to the other? Perhaps you have some rational-sounding reason why the survival of the species is better than its extinction, but that too has some underlying assumption about what is better and what is worse. Ask why enough times and you eventually reach the nonrational axiom.) Like the argument from religion, this argument may convince those who share your ultimate assumption, but those who do not share that assumption will remain unconvinced.
So how is the nonreligious argument better than the religious one?
Slashdot is unique in that ACs are recognized as such. There are very few forums in the web in which anonymous posting doesn't exist and those that don't are generally shunned. Slashdot wouldn't exist without Anonymous Cowards. More than anything else they are what makes Slashdot.
that sums it up. The fact is Katz is well liked, and probably no one likes you. I know I don't.
He's missing the '.' after his name. Ignore him.
The point is, actions have consequences. Clicking on a link that has "Katz" in it brings up, suprisingly enough, a Katz article. If you don't like Katz articles, DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK!
I think slashdot would lose any journalistic integrity it might have if writers were also in the discussion. I watched 20/20 recently and it sickened me. I think the most objective reporting is that which remains objective. Editorials like Katz I could understand, but for those writing stories, just post 'em. They already have more influence over discussions than anybody simply by choosing what gets posted. If they jump right into the discussion, well, they exert even more control over it. It's their right to do this, but I will no longer consider it news for nerds - it would become editorials for nerds (as if it isn't already).
Nine years ago, the only proffessional writing that was going on on the internet was well.. ..well...HTML! And scribblings of physicists amongst each other.
script kiddie
-Anonymous Coward
hmmm. judging from your sig, i hope you were being sarcastic. or are you saying, i disagree and do not like it, and he must be silenced...or even better, bannished. grow the fuck up, hypocrite.
Er, no. He'd be a script kiddie if he took someone else's script and just rant it all the time without any idea how it worked. If he could write a convincing Katz-duplicator and have it auto-respond to every Katz post, that would at least be an interesting hack. Granted, you could probably do a reasonable Katz with markov chaining, but the auto responding would be interesting.
Oh god. I hate Jon Katz so much that I had to read this whole article of his answers to interview questions, then read through the 141 previous comments on the story so I could post a message complaining that I read too much Jon Katz and SLASHDOT WON'T STOP FORCING ME TO READ IT OH GOD THE AGONY THE SUFFERING I CAN'T STOP I CAN'T STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Katz is a loser. A loser with a steaming hot bowl of grits down his pants.
The great thing about John Katz is he lies in group number two, and he offers something that very few people on /. can...a journalistic opinion.
-------
The problem here is that there really isn't supposed to be a journalistic opinion...
Step 2. Katz answers the questions about himself.
Step 3.
Anyone see a problem here?
Not one, but three problems. With your logic.
1. /. is not an individual. When one poster says, "Microsoft is the antichrist", and another replies, "Yes, Microsoft is very evil but it's not the antichrist," one should hardly say that this is /. contradicting itself.
2. Many of the flames for Katz talking about himself are not for doing so in the interview only, but in virtually all of his /. articles.
3. Still other flames are flaming him not for answering, but for what he says in the answer.
Analogy:
1. Reporter asks Politician question about his views on women and minorities.
2. Politician replies that he thinks women and minorities should be slaves to white males.
3. Reporter replies that that is the most despicable thing she's ever heard.
Now, coaxial characterizes this as:
1. Reporter asks Politician a question.
2. Politician answers the question.
3. Reporter flames Politician for answering the question.
When in fact, the flame is not for the act of answering, but rather for how the politician answered.
damn cool
you're pretty slick, katz
keep writing
...pouring hot grits down her pants right into her tight petrified Christian ass.
:)
Mmm, she's probably a virgin, too. I wouldn't mind.... breaking... the news to her
Yes, except they don't have as much time to read threads as Mr. Signal 11 has... ;-)
I'd recommend upmoderating the good AC posts instead. If enough moderators did that, people could browse at +1 (except those who wanted to see the trolls) and not worry about missing the good AC posts.
The advantage of this method is that it works no matter how many times the trolls post to an article.
Of course, I may be a wee bit biased here as an AC myself. :)
Oh wait, that's because no one has EVER produced one iota of proof for God's existence that couldn't be produced by natural causes. Not to mention Jesus's status as the son of God, or the trinity.
Come on.
Nope... too bad it's not like the good ol' days, what with the children's crusade, the Spanish Inquisition, jailing Galileo for insisting the Earth revolved around the Sun... yep, those were the days!
Even if there exists a convincing proof this universe was created, there's no reason whatsoever to believe its creator is a vicious busybody who loves us so much as to torture us forever because He doesn't approve of who we sleep with.
I doubt u have many friends.Its sad you are so unwilling to tolerate others.
hey, take that back!
You dodged the question about doing non-technical writing to a technical audience. It was a good question. Btw... I respect you for answering all of this. But like the first question (I believe it was the first), I do wonder if your views are made to evoke a response by taking a contrarian point of view. You KNOW how much Slashdot readers like to tell someone they are wrong. You seem to always set yourself up as being the one who is wrong. Why?
I AM SO 31337 I CAN'T EVEN STAND THE STENCH!
Some people distinguish strong atheism (there is no god) from weak atheism (there's no evidence for god, so we assume there probably isn't one) or agnosticism (we don't and perhaps can't ever know whether there's a god). Absent a convincing disproof, the former is a religion while the latter are both rational viewpoints, depending on your degree of skepticism.
I have a hunch other inhabited planets exist in the universe. I can't call it a "belief" because there's no evidence, but it seems more plausible than our planet being so fundamentally unique. I suppose it's a sort of faith that I'm not committed to. I do doubt any human has ever seen one- the "evidence" doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny and the "aliens's" surprising behavior seems custom-fit to fuel paranoid fantasies.
Er... wasn't germany under Hitler still a Xian country? Didn't this make it a lot easier to justify exterminating Jews. Sort of like my best friend, who happens to be Jewish... this December, somebody left a note on his door reading "Why don't you Godless people put up some Christmas lights?"
If "proof denies faith" (what a great cop-out), what could you possibly have experienced that supports a belief? Have you seen any feedback whatsoever that you're on the right track?
Having read most of the Jon Katz writings on /., the /. interview has finally helped me better understand why I do (or don't) hate Jon Katz.
/. nick and password.)
When I read what Jon Katz writes, more often than not I get mad, angry, upset, torqued, spun up, enraged, and fit to be tied. The reasons for this are only now becoming clear.
1. Jon Katz doesn't give a damn about what I or anyone else thinks. He insists on spouting his own views, no matter how they may be perceived by others.
Of course, I do the same thing too. All the time. But hardly anyone ever pays attention to what I have to say. I'm pissed because I'm anonymous and he's not. As for other people's opinions, they only matter when they are SUPPORTED, not merely STATED.
2. Jon Katz is completely unable to edit himself. This isn't saying he does not consider what he is going to say before he says it, for I am certain he does lots of thinking before placing his hands on the keyboard. No, it seems to me that having written a word, Jon is pathologically unable to move, modify or replace it.
This makes me mad. I mean, I do the same thing, but I'm not some famous big-shot writer. The endless sentences strung into endless paragraphs of wandering prose closely resemble my own writing to an amazing degree. But I don't get paid for it.
3. Jon Katz needs an editor, but shouldn't have one.
Here's where I boil over. Where Jon has had an editor, in his books and other articles, his thoughts seem to flow more freely, and are generally delivered in a more balanced and considerate style. They are also more sterile. When I get mad at Jon's writing, I must also realize I wouldn't give a damn about it if it were "smooth" and "nice".
4. McLuhan was right.
The medium IS the message. The Internet seems to demand a less processed, less filtered approach to writing. If you can't say it in one paragraph, I'm not going to listen unless you grab me by the collar. Reading text on a screen is just too hard to do it for very long without a fairly immediate reward. Jon Katz not only has strong opinions, he writes about them in a very stream-of-consciousness manner that is just sloppy enough to trip my trigger. And keep me reading.
While I don't drink hard liquor, there is an analogy that fits this situation: The only difference between "rot-gut" whiskey and Chevas Regal is that even though they may have the same proof, Chevas Regal is filtered and aged to the point that all of the flavor has been removed. You can drink a shot of Chevas and it goes down easily - you hardly know you've had anything. But take a shot of the cheap stuff, and it will close down your airway if you try to gulp it. It fights back as it goes down, setting every inch of your throat aflame along the way.
Jon Katz is like cheap whiskey: You can critique his style, and disagree with his taste, but you can't just go through his writing and not notice it.
- Bob Cunningham
rcunning@acm.org
(an Anonymous Coward only because he can never remember his
Too bad we can't filter out you...
Many great scientists who have been able to relate to the media and unscientific minds have drawn a great deal of flak from thier fellow scientists. This is a phenomenon which Sagan describes in detail in "Billions and Billions".
It seems to me this is the only 'crime' Katz is guilty of. Its true his peices dont often shed new light on topics some are already aware of, but they are well writen and provide a good overview and open intressting threads here on slashdot. Simply because Katz isnt a techie, simply because he has the abilty to write about techies from an outsiders point of view to non-techies, doesnt mean his writing isnt good. I am constantly impressed by his additions to slashdot both in quality and in ingenuitive subject manner.
I dont read Katz to get a new techincal update of how DVD encryption was cracked, but i will read Katz to see how the rest of the world views the brewing contraversy.
Keep up the good work Katz!
That's what you think. Aquina's proof didn't distinguish the characteristics of God. Anslem's does, I suggest you take a look at it with an open mind. Its only a few pages, but you have to reread it couple times to really understand it. Even map out the statements to premises and conclusions. Its probably availble on the net, search for Proslogium.
Believe it or not, the typical member of the 'religious right' is an average person with christian beliefs who wants to make sure their beliefs are not trampled on by government
Mr katz used to work for the mainstream media and I am not surprised by this. CBS and the other networks have with bias and no regard for truth painted the religious right as people who want to shove their beliefs down your throat.
Of course, there are no checks or balances for the mainstream press.
Thank you, cowardly Jon Katz for taking a stand that will draw no angst from anyone other than me. I just hope all are not so lazy as to not find out the truth about the 'villians' Dan Rather paints on the evening news.
Perhaps next week, you'll take a 'courageous' stand against child pornographers. Ooh, I can see the persecution you'll get.
As far as your 'brilliant' analysis of the difference between the New Testemant church and the 20th century churches, all I have say is no fscking duh. Way to state the obvious Jon. I'm sure you got a lot of amens for that one.
In a way, Katz reminds me of usenet trolls I've seen in the past. I can't believe he's been elevated to being worth 550 comments. I probly shouldn't have even posted. -Jeramy B Smith jsmith@ixlmemphis.com
This is essentially Pascal's Wager, and it works when the only answers are Christianity and the formless void. Some Muslim visions of paradise are quite vengeful and feature graphic violence perpetrated against the rest of us, while the Buddhists see us as sort of stuck like broken records.
Aren't you obliged to give up certain attitudes like pride, and try as hard as you possibly can to convert everyone you meet, or risk endless torture?
Simeon2000 you are not alone. Fellow ChristoGeek speaks...
> I believe religion has no place in politics
> education or technology.
If by "religion" you mean the beast you described, which bears little or no resemblance to the truth that Jesus Christ taught, then I agree. But Christianity is a world-view; and as such it has a part to play in all aspects of life, including politics, education and technology. However that part played is probably not what is being played in the US -- Christian should be submitting to authorities and praying for them, for instance.
Real Christianity is indeed more radical than most people think, and even some practice. A belief and faith in a God who intervenes personally to save the world by enduring human nature... and access to Him only through this belief and faith,
this is bound to get people unstuck.
that sums it up.
Considering that Katz is a professional (at least in theory).....
How many books have you written? How often have you been published in Wired, Rolling Stone, GQ, and the New York Times? I'll bet it's a lot less than J. Katz.
There is no filter for avoiding your mindless drivel either! Why the fuck isn't this guy marked as flamebait? I would think that this kind of offtopic bashing would fall under the "Five strikes and you're out"-rule... Get a life.
If all users could score all comments however they wanted (*without wasting moderation points), then users could just choose to view comments that were appreciated by other people whom they usually agree with.
Collaborative filtering is a very cool technology, and it only makes sense that a site like slashdot should benefit from it...
Furthermore, all kinds of stats could be generated based on aggregate data which would allow unregistered users to view comments that some threshhold of users gave a particular rating.
I wish I had the time and/or knowledge to try to implement this kind of thing myself... I don't think it would to be too hard to create, either...
if you want to learn more about collaborative filtering, use it to your advantage at movie critic
In fact, the only place I ever excercise hostility on the net is towards Katz. Hmm. An interesting thought. Fuck you, Katz.
What a buffoon. I have all kinds of respect for all kinds of people, but why I want to read a non-technical illiterate mouth back the, er, wisdom of the ./ masses as a poorly written string of platitudes and non-thoughts is beyond me.
You are really a disgrace to slashdot and quite a troll...
If your self-esteem is so fragile that reading a Katz article hurts your feelings, you really need to get a life.
You are a mean-spirited whiner and I find it rediculous that your post was moderated to a 2.
please, find a different sandbox to play in.
Come on, Q*Bert, think about this. Would I still be here if that was really the view of the "Slashdot audience", whatever that may be? Would you be bothering even to write this question?
Katz, I'm going to be very blunt. Q*Bert's opinion is correct and no one wants you here. His opinion is the opinion of slashdot and I believe it's time you pack your bags and go elsewhere, perhaps where you're wanted. Thank you.
I wipe my ass with slashdot personally. feels good.
First of all I am neutral towards Katz.
It is disappointing that people who posts here are mainly concerned with flaming Katz. Now I can't even be bothered to continue reading (after 50 of them) all the remaining posts because it's filled with nothing constructive, just personal attacks, personal attacks and more damn fscking personal attacks. Where did all those interesting and insightful posts go?
- Kai
BTW I really like the questions some of the readers posted to Katz).
And flame me if you like.
People would realize while reading the post that it was him, but I think the point was that people flame away just by seeing the name, without reading the post. Having said that, it would be an interesting experiment, just to see how much of the "this sucks" comments stay. AC
If by that you mean "half-baked" Jon, I agree.
that's all
But on the serious side I do agree with what I believe that Jon meant, namely that jesus would be more peacefull, honest, loving, caring etc than the average christian is today, let alone has been some centuries ago. That doesn't mean christians suck, no way, at least not significantly more than ppl in general
twi
how many times do you people have to be told, the US was NOT FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS, it was founded by deists. there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE.
What I find amusing is how people who use evolution and physics as reasons for athiesm understand so little of the underlying science. In my opinion, there is no difference of a lay person who blindly believes in scientific theories s/he does not understand or someone who blindly believes in God. Both beliefs are blind.
I thought definitions were philosophically evil? :)
Perhaps you should check out the new 31337troll sid, which is just about jam packed with quality 31337 trolling for the connosieur.
Please note this is only for 31337 trolls.
Katz seems to know. I sure don't.
He could always submit a story as AC.
Dear Mr. Katz,
As you can see, it has become imperative that you keep your articles as long as possible, or perhaps even lengthen them in case this guy's definition of "brief" becomes a little broader, and his one vote breaks the tie and puts "Read My Lips" Junior into office.
As for you, WillAffleck, if you're REALLY all that afraid of what Katz has to say (or the *effort* of having to actually READ more text than will fit on one screen at a time), then DO NOT click the link that says "Read More...". Ever. If it just so happens that your morbid curiosity has gotten the better of you, then you've only yourself to blame.
While I've still got my gripe-mojo going, let me point out that most of the flames this article has received have, In My Anonymous and Therefore Not Worth Your Precious Time Opinion, directly proven some of the points Jon Katz was making in the first place.
I'm posting this in Cowardly Anonymity because the Karma Pool here at /. has been drying up lately (probably having less to do with the volume of trolls than the sheer number of high-traffic stories that get posted each day), so I feel no need to Karma-whore under some unrecognizable pseudonym.
(Excuse me if I'm ranting, but I'm on a roll right now)
Now, I, for one, *like* reading (and writing!) long-winded, opinionated articles, posts, etc. Despite being a geek (and proud!), I'm not afraid to actually *read*.
I'm an informatic junkie. With all of the information, news, opinions, stories, jokes, or anything that I could read on the Internet, for the moment I've chosen to read Mr. Katz's article, and the comments surrounding it. And, although you may not like to admit it, so have you.
I'm a 17-year-old, white male (are you listening, Jon?). For the past ten years I've had to deal with abusive comments and worse from my peers for being "different" from the rest of them. And so have many, many Slashdot readers. (Remember the Hellmouth trilogy, by you-know-who?)
And for this reason, it absolutely sickens me when I see others have to take so much crap like this. Jon Katz is different here. He's in a unique position, on Slashdot. And, like some high-school bullies resentful of the influence given to the nerdy kid who's trusted to run the school network, some angry posters despise Katz because he gets to be a Slashdot author, and they don't.
And, like the high-school bullies, they're just plain stupid. They accuse Katz of being "offensive" as they force their loud, vulgar flames down the throats of others. They accuse Katz of hypocrisy, while being blind to their own.
The reason Mr. Katz blames testosterone-crazed, "adolescent males" for the lower-quality posts to this forum, is because he can't believe that this sort of horse shit could come from any sane adult. And, frankly, I'd agree with him, except that, being in the last throes of high school, I have to deal with moronic adults on a daily basis, and have come to the depressing conclusion that age guarantees nothing.
What I can't believe is that this crap comes from grown geeks. I used to think one had to be smart to be a coder, a hacker, or a geek.
I hereby admit that I was dead wrong.
Now, ladies and gentlemen of Slashdot, please play nicely, and, although it may be a severe strain for some of you, try to make the effort to keep your bigotry to yourselves.
-Anonymous Coward
"And I don't give a damn if you don't like me, 'cuz I don't like you, 'cuz you're not like me..."
-Bloodhound Gang, "Shut Up"
I thought ... yup I have this guy on the "Exclude from the Home Page" list. He's there with 'television'.
So WTF Rob, is the Exclude broke or what?
CC
"Pray arm me further by your reply" Winston Churchill
Katz can't write just a few words to explain what he means. Give him a ten words question and you'll end up with two pages of purely boring stuff.
Gotta go uncheck that box now...
cheers
well, we're quite sorry that the katz filter hasn't worked as well as we promised. however, as an act of restitution, we have tied jon down to a table here at slashdot headquarters and we're pouring hot grits down his pants. you should hear him scream. natalie portman is on a charter flight to holland, mi to spank jon personally.
I'm hemos., aka Jeff. Bates.. I help run this site, along with Rob. Malda.. I handle books, and generally posting storie
Thank you Mr. Hemos sir. I love you and your spellchecker, and I aspire to pour hot grits down your pants. I find everything you post to be very "intesting". Is that a digestive process?
-hemos.
I'm hemos., aka Jeff. Bates.. I help run this site, along with Rob. Malda.. I handle books, and generally posting storie
Now this is just the clearest, simplest expression of faith as a life journey that I have ever read! Bravo!
--
Jon doesn't run Slashdot, and he posts much less frequently than Rob and Hemos. Granted, Jon does have a job--he's a writer--but he ought to be able to spare some time to skim through the responses to his articles and reply to some of the most salient criticisms.
--Phil (Heck, I have a regular job, and can take a few minutes here and there to read and post on Slashdot.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
"Rob has never told me what to write..."
"'Write what it means,' he tells me all the time."
OK, now I'm confused.
I too ran BBS' from 1991 - 1996. I have tremendous appreciation for the message-based community. Unfortunately, not everyone does: I still remember the days where you had to enforce a "one post per call" policy to keep away from the downloads section.
based on my anecdotal evidence, Slashdot's main problem in Threads is that
- There are some very _extreme_ opinions that don't make a lot of logical sense or are based on faulty premises.
- Many of those opinions get moderated up, depending on what portion of the Slashdot crowd happens to have moderators access at the time. This is not a good start to a discussion because it's rather pointless to argue against a zealot except for entertainment value.
- Don't you notice how some weeks the discussion is great, and then the next week all of the zealots really come out in full force?
Basically, the signal-to-noise ratio on Slashdot Threads is slowly approaching Usenet levels - depending on how active the moderators are on a particular day. I really think Rob should go back to the "300 people" moderator system, made up of a representative group of opinions to provide balance.
-Stu
That attitude may be irresponsible, but I think your post misses a deeper point. The religious right gets all the press, and as result they have become the face of religion in this country. I would dearly love to see the invisible minions come forward and assert a position contrary to the craziness that the far right continues to push, but as far as I can tell, that isn't something that's going to happen anytime soon.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
- The thing is, judging by the majority of *posts* that show up after a Katz article, it is true that most of the *posters* find the articles to be simplistic. As for people who email Katz and don't post, how are they participating in the slashdot community? If they have such wonderful things to say about Katz, why won't they post them, at least under AC if not (for some reason known only to them) under their own names?
Speaking for myself (and I don't necessarily have glowing things to say about Katz all the time). The reason I might not post a glowing message to the threads is simply because I'd rather have an intelligent exchange of ideas rather than what often passes for it in the threads.Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
In my eye...
Slashdot is a forum dedicated to discussion of technological advance in our society today and the reprocussions that technology has on our society as a whole.
Religion is an important part of society... yes. But seriously, since when did your God use an Athelon?
The Slashdot audience is a very broad based audience. We have people that are participating in an international forum that represent an enourmous amount of religions or lack of religion. To speak to one belief system would be wrong, to speak to all belief systems would be unreasonable.
Slashdot is here for technology, not religious belief. Cept when it comes to what OS is better... that is one religion that we can't be rid of.
- Xabbu
- Jimbob
Yeah, I've read him quite a bit and thought initially he was getting somewhere, but over time I've come to see him as more of another media parasite than anyone with genuine insight. Too bad. I guess the exclusion is only for his columns, because the SlashDot crew has started pumping up his books, movie plans and this "interview" ad nauseum, and I guess they think it qualifies as "news". Jeez, a guy they call the resident windbag needs an interview too?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I recently got tired enough of Mr. Katz to exclude him with my personal settings. After doing that, I've seen about 4 Katz things. WTF? Why have these settings if they're going to be ignored?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
The "Ask Jon Katz" idea was awesome, and something that was really needed.
But one thing it pointed out was how Katz is so completely unrepentent when his shortcomings are pointed out, and since we can all agree that he is lacking in so many areas, it is time for us to start demanding results from the areas we've been shortchanged:
1) Concise, insightful slashdot articles from a writer that doesn't have to show off "what a good writer i am by using methaphors"
2) Writing that doesn't insult our intelligence. I'm tired of Katz articles that begin, "for centuries government/religion/adults/BigBusiness has been used to oppress the intellectual elites/geek world." This relates to the next point:
3) true social insight without pandering to what he thinks is the "slashdot audience." The presmise of having a supposed "writer" outside the "geek community" write about technology is a good one. The problem is that Katz is so enamored with the community that he can't step outside of it.He feels that he has to do us a favor by becoming the "literate" advocate of our community.
So, what I want to see is if slashdot can explore other writers and see if some of them come across better than Katz.
-Dean
Is it just me or is there a little "1" everwhere there should be a "'" in Katz' reply's? I've seen other odd things from articles that were written with M$ products, but the small "1" is a new one to me.
That's the problem with using Microsoft HTML instead of hand coding it yourself.
... and shorter Katz articles.
Yep, VIM (or your favorite editior) is the best route...
Ah, I long for the days of XHTML compliance
I'll second shorter Katz articles!
Will in Seattle
rbf in Bellingham (about 90 miles north of Seattle).
There's a hard-to-verbalize distaste that people have about Katz. Here's a part of it: he raises the geek to Geek, and makes a living writing about it. Imagine if I decided that Bullies were an unsung minority, and started acting like the Prometheus of bullyhood, telling the world about the secret and unknown social structure of bullies.
;)
- -------
Don't get me wrong -- Hellmouth was a stroke of genius. But I think that many Slashdot folks find Katz offensive because he seems to be promoting himself by making "geekdom" newsworthy.
How many reporters got recognition for identifying and writing about the "Generation X"? How many of those same reporters are getting recognition for pieces about how "Generation X is leading the tech boom", when in fact they've just trained their sights on the hard-working subsegment of the <i>same generation</i>.
Katz is styling himself as the outsider who has an "in" to geek circles. By positioning himself as the outsider, he can avoid tackling serious technical issues, while simultaneously looking good for getting into the social structure of geeks.
My advice to Katz: write about geeks, but please expand beyond the social aspects. Write about the technical issues of CSS, as opposed to how some teenager felt oppressed by the big corporation. Stop capitalizing geek as though it were the latest journalistic buzzword, and learn enough about the tech to be respected by the community you write about.
Coppit
P.S. Geeks react the same way to ads for people who know "CORBA, DCOM, Java, Javascript and Pearl"
-----------------------------------------------
Which major western power promotes state sponsored revenge murder?
Instead, I get a 4742 word article. Come on. Even though I am at work, I dont have the patience nor the inclination to read something that long by someone I already dislike.
In my eyes, this was a total strikeout.
--
Four-digit slashdot ID. Recognize.
You, sir, have no idea about the history of free socialism. In other words (and if you had read the link I had provided you), Anarchism. A complete rejection of all forms of coercion and authority.
Please do your research and open your mind just a crack before you start spouting off like a twit.
Thank you.
Michael Chisari
Andrew Carnegie was able to use his Pinkertons and strike-breakers to crush the Homestead steel strike because he had government sanction
If you'd paid attention in history class instead of reading the cliff notes, you'd remember that the Pinkertons got their asses thoroughly kicked when the townspeople organized against them. It was only after the national guard was called in that the strike was broken. Same for the Ludlow massacre, they were holding out until the National Guard came in.
This is why governments exist, to *aid* large corporations. In order to oppose government, you have to oppose the whole reason that it exists, and that is capitalism (concentrated ownership of resources). As much as Libertarians think that removing government wouldn't topple capitalism, it would, and that is why no matter how much multinationals may bitch and moan about taxes and (diminishing) regulations, they realize that government is absolutely necessary in order to protect their own interests. Look at the WTO, it's all the multinationals doing their best to make sure governments are dwindled down to purely military and police operations, which will be orchestrated by the rich.
Contrary to the beliefs of Libertarians, welfare moms are *not* the reason that goverment exists.
I imagine the "indigenous people" of Mexico are, since those jobs are now theirs.
Okay, normally I wouldn't bother responding to such reactionary bullshit, but I have to clarify the lie that he's spouting...
Mexicans *DO NOT* want our factory jobs! They do not want to be pushed off their land and forced to work in factories, they view it as dehumanizing and unnatural (go figure!). Why do you think the Zapatistas in Chiapas were more willing to revolt against Mexico as opposed to accepting the neo-liberal policies of NAFTA?
Don't tell me that Mexicans are happy now. Their culture isn't as deeply rooted in materialism and superficiality as ours, and as such they don't find their happiness in buying a cheap television set after working 14 hours for less than living wage in an unsafe factory (Mexico has very few labor/environmental laws, remember, the reason that the companies move there).
Before you start going on about how Mexicans are *so* happy to be able to work for a living (as opposed to working for themselves), go down to the Yucatan and talk to some of the young girls who work in sweatshops, or to the indigenous Tzotzil speakign people who are being forced off their land and into poverty.
And don't even get me started on genetically modified crops. Aw what the hell. Science knows *very little* about the effects that GMO's will have, and as such, it doesn't matter if they can create billions of pounds of food if it all ends up being wiped out by some natural factor that nobody foresaw, or if it causes cancer. Instead of pushing this bastardized technology down their throats, give the people their land back and let them start growing *real* food.
Using carefully engineered acts of terrorism-for-profit as an indicator of market failure is about as accurate as proudly placing the word 'libertarian' next to the word 'socialist'.
Protecting your health and the health of your people isn't terrorism. Terminator seeds are terrorism.
And secondly, if you had taken the time to even click on the link that I had provided you, you'd know that Libertarian Socialism (aka, Anarchism) has a much longer and involved history than modern day Libertarianism will ever have.
Michael Chisari
Libertarianism is, for the most part, an Internet political party. It doesn't really exist outside the white, middle-to-upper class internet.
Why? Well, a lot of reasons, but for the most part, I can almost guarantee you than an out of work steelworker or logger in the pacific northwest isn't singing the praises of the free market. Neither are the students at the UNAM in mexico, or the indigenous peoples of Ecuador.
I totally agree with the idea of no government intervention, but for a much different reason than most American Libertarians. With no government intervention, corporations have little-to-no power against the people. Remember, Pepsi never bombed any cities because they've never had to do it themselves. That's what governments are for.
I speak for a lot of people when I say that corporate power is frightening as hell, so I don't think the Libertarians are going to gain many converts in the coming years by going on about how public services should be privatized or eliminated, all the while being conspicuously silent about corporate welfare. The free market has failed quite a few people, and people are starting to understand that, and take matters into their own hands (Yahoo Search: "Monsanto Karnataka").
Oh yeah, and here's a surefire way to stump a Libertarian: Ask them about labor issues. What happens if there's a general strike and workers halt production? What about factory occupations? What about sweatshops in a "free market?" Upon whose shoulders does the world *really* rest? Labor? Or CEO's?
And the labor issue to top them all: What about the Pinkerton Thugs, the Ludlow Massacre, and every other example of corporate aggression before the government started doing it's dirty work on a daily basis?
-- A Proud Libertarian Socialist --
Michael Chisari
...ever say anything in less than five paragraphs?
(or better yet, less than two...)
Kudos for recognising your shortcommings in a public forum.
As for whailing on Q*bert as not being an elected official of Slashdot, remember that of all the questions posted to Slashdot, these were the ones which were publically moderated as the most pressing.
Jon is less an elected official of Slashdot than Q*bert, yet he chose to all but disregard the criticism of his subject matter as the babbling of a vocal minority.
I agree with Q*bert, and I see nothing but annectodal evidence in Jon's reply that his or her premise is wrong. Am I part of this vocal minority which feels that Jon's articles are lengthy, simplistic and completely lack hard references?
Where were Jon's people when they could have moderated Q*bert's post as "overrated"?
All due respect to Jon, despite plugging his job experience to defend his position, outside of Slashdot, Jon seems to be either loved or ignored. I cannot deny he has a strong following... although outside of Slashdot, I would personally lean towards ignoring him.
I don't know about everyone else, but I *do* happen to know that several of my friends (who are otherwise intelligent codies) check out the lowest rated and AC threads first, because they are usually so funny (to them). To be honest, they also claim that +5's tend to be essentially "mainstream" or "regurgitated" ideas.
To me, that means that they've given up on using the threads/comments as a meaningful place to see what other think about the topic in question.
Whether people are starting to give up because AC's or because +4-5's tend to be mainstream isn't the problem, IMO. It's that they are giving up and, from what I see, so are others.
This isn't an epidemic, yet, but I encourage people to think before they slop some words onto Slashdot. Does it really need to be said?
Dammit, I need to fix my sig.
Exocet Industries - Taking over the world, one computer at a
I have to say that I am annoyed by this whole "Christianity is swell, it's just these right-wingers that have messed it up" bullshit that is popular to spout these days. That's the same mistake as not blaming the last 80 years of communism on Marx. Both are fundamentally flawed and it is dangerously naive not to expect them to lead people exactly to the coercion, oppression and disaster that we have seen. It's not a coincidence. They didn't take some unseen wrong turn. They are designed (unintentionally perhaps) to break exactly as the have.
Katz says, "When I think of Christianity, I think of a faith that at its core, promotes charity, tolerance, generosity, love and peace", and I think that is a decent characterization of the better aspects of the New Testament. But essentially, he is describing half of the teachings of a confused second revision of a very confused religion. I have often said that the Bible is a Rorschach test, and people will find whatever they want in it. If people find a rigid, angry god full of terrible philosophies soul-crushing edicts, he is in there just the same as the loving god Katz describes.
There is a lot of garbage in the Bible. And there is also a lot of moralizing that might have been helpful for a 2000 year old laborers, or for that matter, 5000 year old sheep herders, but does it have any bearing on our lives? Are these the sexual mores I should subscribe too? Is turning the other cheek the way to inspire good behavior? Should we strive toward being sheep? No to all of those I would have to say. Are there reasonable, useful, even beautiful ideas in the bible? To be sure. In fact the same could be said to a less or greater degree of just about every religion. Just don't be surprized that it became Organized Religion, and that became just another power structure. It is inevitable.
</RANT>
I think all the filter settings were removed recently, since I had to go back in and recheck the little checkbox. Very annoying.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
That is all. . .
** Martin
PS. If you agree, post here. Let's see how long of a thread we can get.
LOL!
You are actually the dumb ass who should actually read the article before slamming me:
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
Why is it that I found Katz's articles boorish 2 years ago and even more boorish now? Because they are written by a simpleton. Calling himself a 'rare' person is idiotic and shows the elevated ego to which someone of Katz's 'stature' has risen.
The more Katz posted on /., the more I think /. is becoming my local fish wrap.
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
Y'know, at first I was dissapointed that my question, which was moderated at +4, Interesting, wasn't sent along.
Then I saw how long his answers were.
Now, I'm thanking several deities that I don't even believe in that they only sent the +5 questions over to Jon.
1. I vote that Jon plays the part of Barry. For some reason, it just feels right.
2. No.
Now, what I'd like to see is Earthworm Jim cameos in the movie. Hehehehe... I'm getting images of Jim and Barry holding a cackling contest, and Peter and Arthur getting smashed out of their minds, moaning over their mutual problems in a bar somewhere. Musn't forget the catfight between American Maid and Princess Whatshername.
Judaism and the Muslim Faith certainly [attempt to suppress opinion and technology] this as well, at times, but not nearly in so organized and vocal a way.
I guess overthrowing governments and starting countries aren't terribly organized or vocal acts... Our Xian fundies are bad but they haven't stormed the capitol with machine guns blazing.... yet...
Your Working Boy,
I read the article.
I read the replies.
First and foremost, for those of you who dislike/hate/ignore Katz, thankfully, for everyone one of you increasingly narrowminded hatemongers, there's a good ten people who appreciate what it is Jon does. I'm happy you've found the courage to voice your opinion without hiding behind anonymity, but I question your objectivity.
For everyone of you who finds Katz's posts boring because they don't contain anything you don't already know, there's another ten to fifty people reading his works who DON'T fully grasp the concepts he's taking the time to learn himself and explain in a distilled form. Given the prevelance of loudmouthed technocrats blaring an unyielding attitude here in these forums, it's no wonder those learning don't pipe up to voice appreciation for what Katz does. As much as I respect your right your own opinion, as well as your right to voice it, I would ask the same of any of you, for those with questions.
I'm as guilty as the next person, when it comes to looking down on people I consider to be of lesser technical ability than myself. I know I have talents and skills, but I also know I'm not the greatest thing since sliced bread. I like to keep in mind that once upon a time, I was a less-than-clueful newbie, too.
You don't have to like Jon. You don't have to like me. This isn't a utopia, and I don't expect it to be one as long as it's populated by humans.
But.
Question the effects of your vociferous rantings. I don't post under the guise of an AC because I feel I have an open mind about things, that I can express my opinions well enough to sign my name to them.
The Internet, as a medium for the masses, has broken us out of one herd, and through human habit, put us into another. The downfall of this, is the human failure towards anger and resentment for things they don't understand. The ease and speed with which people can air their opinions taints forums such as this with an undercurrent of anger and hostility. Don't believe me? As soon as you're done foaming at the mouth because I dare to belittle you, flip back up the page and objectively read the vitriol posted here.
Personally, I don't read all of Jon's articles. I read the ones that cover topics that grab my eye, even though I may already be well versed in the matter. Jon typically does more than enough legwork to present a solid view of the subject, at a pace that ANY READER can read, and come away with a good understanding of the topic.
This, in my mind, equals a great contribution to Internet society in part, and raising the general awareness of the populace as a whole. What the hell have YOU contributed lately?
- billn
I, myself, am not a very good writer, nor can I really express my opinions or questions very well (just look at my VERY SHORT history of replies. I have never gotten more than a 1 on score on here, but I understand why taht is. :) ).
But my point is this. I am very happy sitting in the background, and listening to qualified people talk about technical issues, and perusing through the discussions. Never do I feel I have to join them unless I have a question, or a suggestion. But right now, I have to agree with the people that do not like Katz.
To me, Katz is a sensationalist. To me, (and thats all I can speak for) he comes across as an arrogant son of a bitch. Anytime someone criticizes him, he points out everything he has ever done in his writing career. (Rolling Stone, GQ, whatever else fish-wrap people read to masturbate mentally). Whenever someone questions his opinion, his first reaction is to point out all the 'important' people he talks with, and that if we knew of all of the discussions he has with all these technophiles, CEOs, etc, we would be floored!
He even talked about how much mail he gets from everywhere "including overseas". Yes, Katz.. great. overseas mail. I get that too from my pen-pal.
At any rate.... my suggestion is this:
Why dont we make USE of the Polls we have on Slashdot and conduct one about Katz. Very simple:
Do you want Katz out or in?
Check one:
() Yes
() No.
I would very much like to see the results of that. NOW, Katz, we will see if Q*bert is right or not. Put your money where your mouth is and put up the Poll. I would vote No, personally, because I am so sick of sensationalistic writings:
"BAN AMAZON BECAUSE THEY NOW HAVE ELECTRONIC STUFF!" is a great example of how sensationalistic you are. Uhh.. yeah Katz.. that helps me learn technical issues like how to keep my kernel in Linux tight, and how to run a distributed network. Amazon.. yes...
War LMCTF.
Oat.
++Om
Obviously, Katz knows more about us than we do.
It's safe to say Katz knows more about how 'we' feel about him than 'we' know because he sees the email he gets, 'we' don't. Q*Bert DID claim to speak for the Slashdot audience in general.
Clearly, the Slashdot audience finds your articles insultingly simplistic.
Katz was calling him on it. Like it or not, Katz is in a better position to take the pulse of the READERS (as opposed to readers/contributors) than Q*Bert or most any other of the vast majority of The Slashdot Audience. (Could this be another TLA? TSA - The Monolith)
It's well and good for Katz to tell us about all the wonderful glowing email he gets all the time, but that attitue is *not* reflected in the
comments. You can try and get around this by telling me that it's a vocal minority that posts, and the rest just lurk or keep quiet, but as in USENET, this argument doesn't hold water. If you're not going to be an active part of the community, you shouldn't be counted on either side.
The "Katz's mail says so" argument is admittedly weak but not groundless. Doesn't reading and participating through email count as participation?
It seems to me that the rabid anti-Katz faction is validating Katz's being here. If TSA unilaterally hated Katz or was even indifferent, he would not be here... guaranteed.
It seems so hard for people to grasp that the SURE-fire way to be rid of someone is to ignore them. It's been said too many times already, but... If Katz is so boring, so pompous, so insipid, so simplistic, why bother reading let alone ranting against how awful he is? It just doesn't add up.
btw, I don't believe the "Katz's email says so" argument just because he says so; in fact I take it with a grain of salt. But it does ring true with my experience in discussion forums and life in general.
/this/ got attention:
/they/ were the editors.....just curious.
<i> But I feel even better now that Slashdot
is hiring some professional editors</i>
since when? did anyone else hear the announcement? is this another example of VAndover's "non-influence" and most importantly what's going to happen to Rob and co then? I thought
I agree that Katz's articles can appear to actually suck insight from an issue, but even more embarrasing is the community's response to Katz.
Katz is something that all the antisocial geeks need. I agree that geeks have a high earning potential in the economy today. Many geeks even control indirectly where society is going.
Even if Katz is completely off-base on _everything_ he has ever said (I think that he can also be right on), he still gets technically minded people to view technology in a social context.
It is the people who understand society and its inner workings who ultimately control it. Many geeks get so preoccupied with the technology and the culture around geekdom, that they isolate them selves from a broader understanding of the world.
The mark of a good journalist is that he can insight people to think. Katz has never made any pretense that he could code. Sometimes he gets technical issues wrong, but that is where we set him straight. He does appear to be very open to criticism and reform. These are traits that are worth more than gold in the journalism profession today.
Give the guy a break. Turn off your computer. Go outside. It's a beautiful day.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
About a year ago Katz was on C-SPAN but made no mention of Slashdot. Neither did Slashdot make any mention of his appearance on C-SPAN. I found those ommissions very puzzling. If it weren't for the promotion of his "mountain" book in both venues I might well have been left wondering if there were two people named Jon Katz pontificating in public. For those who missed him on C-SPAN, he's sort of a reverse Cringely. Cringely is an irritating jerk on television but quite personable, interesting, and insightful in print. With Katz it's the other way around.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I hereby second the nomination of Q*bert for Mayor of /. (trumpets optional).
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
On second thought Cringely in print is probably too intelligent and mature to fit in around here.
Q*bert (whoever that is) for Mayor!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
ROTFLMAO That was a perfect summary.
Moderators, please moderate FascDot up!
I don't want to seem snarky, but I still think Katz belongs in a different forum. Thanks.
pronoblem
oh, what the hell...let's make it official.
/. (insert trumpets here.)
i hereby nominate Q*bert for the office of Mayor of
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
I don't know what snarky is, but that's the first time I've seen a Slashdot interviewee be so condescending and rude to someone posing a valid question.
To me, much of Katz' work is at a non-technical level, and is appropriate for the lay-person. And I'm sure I am not alone in thinking that Slashdot is not the typical haunt of such people.
So it it a shame that an attack was made on Q*Bert instead of acknowledging the curious contradiction in providing non-techy material to a techy audience.
Other than that, thanks for the answers Jon. I still don't know whether to hate you for being an over-the-top bandwagonist, or love you for the entertainment you provide, but it's nice to get the choice.
~Cederic
Yes, look at you flaming right back. Sort of a throw back to your comp sci days?
Maybe, just maybe, some of the people who dont like Katz have a point. Could it be that you "breezed through them, eyes open ONLY for inconsistency, and posted as quickly and as rudly as possible. "?
What i have seen in this whole Katz mess is one very clear thing. Readers of slashdot are, surprise surprise, prone to the fatal conciet that wrecks most thoughtfull conversations.
Unless you are posting from a stance of knowing you are most likely falling into the hell hole of that veru fatal conceit.
When you get on your moral high horse and forget you may have horseshit on your boots, you run the risk of stinking up the situation.
Check your boots.
"Slash dot is made of people, peeeeeeeooooople"
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Jon Katz, the patron saint of the DulledWitted and Blandness Brigade , has taken time to actualy respond to questions offered up by the people he is writting for.
What were jons great points of wisdom in this interaction?
1) Im jon katz, you dont matter.
2) I wrote for big magazines (name drop a few here) and you are just geeks
3) Its All Geek To Me...I dont understand you well enough to know what you are about but I misunderstand you enough to tell you what you should be. I can also write a book on the subject to educate the rest of the world about what you should be.
4) Anyone who is critical of me is either 14 years old, a christian, a nonGeek (see above) or part of a big corporation.
4a) I will talk down to anyone who has an issue with me because they evidently forgot point 1)
5) I am all for free expression, so long as it does not conflict too much with point 1)
6) If anything I say seems like a conflict of thought, a case of backpeddling, or simply shows I dont understand the meat of the matter, see point 1)
7) There is no point 7) but if there was it would remind you to go see point 1)
So there you have it. Jon Katz, your duly appointed spokesperson, has put it all down straight.
"do you ever get the feeling youve been cheated?"
Johnny Rotten on the last 70's Sex Pistols tour
-tom
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Welcome to the spread of the balnd sameness that will take the edge off of things.
Make it safe, dull the knife
dumb it down, save a life
A mind is a terrible thing to have to use.
Chant of the katzians
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Ha! What planet are you from, Jon? Or maybe if you've never seen a Jew or a Muslim, they don't exist, right? Show me a nation that is Christian like the Pakistan, Myanmar, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, etc. is Islamic. Show me a nation that is Christian like Israel is Jewish (though that is not as strong a case). There is none. This was a little different back in the heyday of the Roman Catholic church. But you are perfectly misinformed if you think that the abuse of Christianity is so much a greater problem than the abuse of Islam.
And did you also "accidently" reply?
----
"Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he hid Piglet's mangled corpse.
or you could get a life.
----
"Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he hid Piglet's mangled corpse.
Bite the hand.
If Jesuss teachings were followed today, we would live in a wonderful world.
true enough, but if eveyone were FORCED to do something, where's the People's right to choose?
I have less affection and respect for contemporary organized religion of all faiths, which have, in my opinion, turned far away from such teaching.
<sigh>Jon, there are many similarities in the teachings of the world's religions, but more of them never taught Christ's teachings to begin with. how can they stray?
I do resent the so-called Christian Right, which intruded itself into American politics more than any other religion and often promotes censorship and a visceral distrust of technology.
what's wrong with people voicing their opinions? just because i happen to be a Conservative Christian (and i AM!), should i stop trying to support people that share my beliefs? it's part of what makes America great, Jon. if you can't handle it, the border's over there.
But I have also criticicized other religions when they do this.
i will have to take your word on that one.
I believe religion has no place in politics, education or technology.
then you might like to know a little about what influence it's already had on your ability to speak your mind. go back and read the Declaration of Independance, Jon. how many references do you notice to God? i count four direct references and one indirect ("We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.")!! if we were to remove any/all religion from our government, you'd be forced to ditch the Declaration, too.
Some -- in fact, almost all -- of the people closest to me in the world are devout Christians, and in the original and wonderful sense of the term.
if you substituted a race for each reference to "Christian" here, you'd have done some serious insult to members of that race. i am Christian. do the math.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
I believe Rob asked me to write for Slashdot BECAUSE I am clueless in many ways. I'm not a geek, not a technical person, and have no desire to be one.
This quote caught my eye. I don't think it would be entirely unjustified to say that Katz is a sort of "geek opinion editor": a sympathetic voice, slightly distanced from most of the geek community, who tries to capture and distill the "geek mindset" (as best as he can). We then have the opportunity to examine what he's said, and use that (a) as a starting point for reflection on ourselves and (b) an indication of how we're viewed by the community at large.
Katz has more contact with the geek community than most non-geeks, and so his opinion may be a good barometer of what a well-informed non-geek population would think of the "geek point of view" was and interpret the "geek mindset" to be. If we don't like what he's saying (independently from how he says it), perhaps it's because we don't do as good a job in voicing what we really think and our real reasons for thinking it. Katz doesn't tell us who we are, he tells us who we appear to be. I think this distinction often tends to get lost.... He's not patronizing us, he's describing our appearance.
I've gone on long enough, and been as incoherent as Katz is accused of being. I'm not sure what this might mean to any of us, if anything at all. But it's a thought, and maybe someone else can elaborate on (or refute) it.
(excerpts from Q by Skyshadow, A by Katz)
/.) can be somewhat civil one day and full of trolls and flamers the next?
Q: Who do you suppose the main culprits are? Why do you suppose that certain forums (like
A: We all know who the culprits are, immature people who will grow up to be great and creative human beings but aren't yet.
Oh, come on! Give trolls a chance! Good trolls are great and creative human beings. I suspect the real complaint here is about spammers and flamers.
I'd separate trolls into two varieties: first, the classic troll. Posts articles with the intent of drawing hasty, strong responses (often flames) from those who can't take a step back and see the signs that show it up for what it really is. This sort of troll is a great equalizer: this troll brings the really self-righeous people down a little, this troll makes you read posts a little more carefully, and give some real thought to what's being said. 'Classic' trolls also often end up spawning some very interesting discussions.
The other sort of troll simply posts very funny, usually very offtopic, original material. I happen to like it. Some people hate this because it clutters up their screen. But that's fine, because that's what moderation's for, and I browse at -1.
Now, the important part: both types of trolling take creativity, intelligence, and hard work.
A 'classic' troll is a true balancing act: the author has to balance the cluelessness, the inflammatory nature, and the signs to the clued-in against the troll's need to be taken seriously enough to merit response by anyone hotheaded enough or thoughtless enough to respond in a troll-pleasing manner. It takes plenty of work and skill to craft a good one, especially given the need for the troll to be posted near the beginning of a story to get any visibility.
As for the 'just plain funny' variety, a great example is "Star (as in hot young actress) Wars." A true masterpiece. Opensourceman obviously put quite a lot of effort into writing this, and has a fair amount of skill at it. It also brightened my day -- I don't know about yours, but it would be a shame if you missed it. (Don't happen to have a link handy, sorry.)
Don't call the 'immature people' who you're referring to trolls. They're not. They're the mindless flamers and the spammers, always ready to fill page after page with "QQQQQQQQ" or "RobLimo ATE MY BALLS!!!!" Did this take creativity, hard work, insight? Probably not very much. The sole intent was to disrupt discussion, with no thought given to the humor value or to what the point was.
Trolls don't try to hinder discussion, trolls thrive on discussion. A 'classic' troll needs replies, and a funny troll needs to get read. Neither is going to happen if the article is so full of noise that no meaningful discussion can take place.
So, spammers -- you're not trolls. And trolls don't appreciate what you do, because it means that their work gets ignored. It would be nice if you tried trolling for once, though. It's fun, the reaction's much better, and the people responding negatively to you sometimes make themselves look stupid instead of you.
Somebody can probably rephrase this in a Star Wars metaphor with a light side and the dark side and all that, but I'm not feeling too inspired at the moment.
(Disclaimer: I'm a pretty poor troll myself, I'm just tired of all the bad press that trolls get.)
Concidering how much traffic Katz related articles generate, I want to address just a snippet of Jon's relpy to Q*bert's question:
...Perhaps not everyone on /. did, but enough moderators elected Q*bert one of the spokespersons for us. That's pretty snarky of you to forget about the moderators Jon.
I don't mean to be snarky, but I must have been away when you were elected mayor of Slashdot, and spokesperson for the community. How do you know how everyone views my writing?
signal, noise, to me it's all the same.
This article was posted by emmett, not Katz. Yes, I do have Katz's stories filtered out. This isn't one of them. slashdot looks like it could use some new options!
:)
No matter what you think, this is not a flame
signal, noise, to me it's all the same.
Then how come I see those little '1's with IE 5?
-BrentJust as you are forced to......
....Oh GOD NO!!!! It's a infinite loop!!
Finkployd
You talk about Judaism where believers would gather as a community. Note that they ALL believe in Judaism and if they all want to get together and enjoy their community then all the power to them.
a) preach their religion on a forum that is not specifically designed for their religious beliefs
If the topic comes up, why not?
I have yet to see the topic come up until someone throws it in. Meaning, theres a topic on slashdot about whatever, and someone says their religion says its wrong or whatnot....this is not "the topic came up" but more "i made the topic come up". There is a difference.
This brings me to my point. Religion should be brought up in a forum directed towards religion.
Also, when you say Christ instructed his followers to preach the Gospel to all nations, i don't see anything wrong with this as long as the preaching is given to someone who wants to know.
you have a good point when you say Sharing one's faith in a forum is very different from conducting a worship service in that same forum!....possibly I was lashing out from other things i've seen, like when *insert religion here* gets an ISP to shutdown a page and puts up their own page and such, that would be forcing people to not see what they want because it conflicts with *insert religion here*'s views. So for this, I apologize.
however, i have to say something about your posts. You seem to like quoting the bible alot, so I was wondering if you could just clarify one thing for me....
The following is not word for word (no bible handy), just a story i remember having to read from the bible, im sure you've heard it....:
has to do with a bunch of rich guys giving a lot of money for the poor, but an old poor lady gives her last 2 "pennies"? (or whatever currency)...and Jesus basically said that this lady gave more than any of those rich guys and was guaranteed a seat in heaven (or something to this effect)...
so my question is...if you believe so strongly in the bible and think its teachings apply to today, then why do you have a computer to post on slashdot when the teachings of the bible indicate you should have used that money for the poor?
food for thought
I like Jon's views on religion in politics, technology etc....
I would like to share an opinion of mine.
First off, i will not reveal which religion, if any, i follow for a simple reason: Religion is personal! It is a personal choice that a person makes for themselves. I don't see the need for people to:
a) preach their religion on a forum that is not specifically designed for their religious beliefs
b) put down other people religions
c) use religion in an argument ie. cloning is morally wrong because *insert religion here* says its wrong.
in conclusion, can we keep religion the way it was meant to be--personal.
As a follower of Christ myself, I realize I'm involved in something spiritual. Christ demonstrated, more than anyone else ever could, the concept of giving up your rights (God becoming human) for the sake of others. While my relationship with God is not a closet thing that I should carefully hide from everyone else, the way I share it should be in a way that frees others the most, not enslaves them.
Christ said himself, "I have come that you may have life, and have life to the fullest" and it was "For freedom that he has set us free." I hope, in every interaction with others, I might be able to free them to get just a little closer to God.
"It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
It might ba a problem with the site since these: '
are often turned into these: ?
I agree with Katz's response to a certain degree, but it seems that both he and the question's poster are making vast generalizations about religious communities in general. Yes, there are many vocal "anti-Christian" geeks out there, and yes there are plenty of vocal members of the Christian Right. Those certain individuals cannot be taken to represent the entire community. I know plenty of excellent Christians, and plenty of not-so-excellent ones.
So how can we discuss the Christian community? We can't. It is as simple as that.
I am not trying to knock on Christianity, or religion. I am quite confused about mass religion, and I don't know where to go with it. I do know, however, that any discussion trying to generalize the community won't get very far. Maybe that's the case for every community. Who knows.
My two cents
...That would mean that each denomonation, all 1400+ out there, have a different "package" of Jesus' teachings. And, since changing the Word (Revelations, last chapter) is a Bad Thing(tm), all but one of them is wrong. Or maybe all are wrong.
Are you suggesting we just pick one and hope for the best? Give up? Be like George Lucas and pretend "we're all worshipping the same God"?
I'm not shaken by your statement. So, are you going to offer some hope, give your ideal, or did you just want to rant?
----- if ($anyone_cares) {print "Just Another Perl Newbie"}
warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;
Jerry Fallwell! LOL
:|
:)
But seriously, Katz' response to my question was... well... a lot different than what I expected.
I actually sounded harsher in my letter than he did in his, and I'm the "Christian"
I still don't agree with him on 99.99, but I do agree that too many people take the title "Christian" without having clue 1 about what Jesus meant.
I was figuring on a much more condescending response. I was a little wrong about you, Katz.
And, yes, Katz should be allowed to post on Slashdot. You shouldn't have to be able to define a macro or create recursive functions to be in this commnity (although most of us can
--Me
----- if ($anyone_cares) {print "Just Another Perl Newbie"}
warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;
I think its great that you do not preach to those who do not wish to hear. The point I disagree with is your views on religion in politics and schools. Politics and schools are public forums with people from every walks of life. In such public forums, you will have people of different reglious convictions who will be offended by a bias towards any 'one' religion. In this case, christian's hold the majority of the population, but there are still those who are muslim, hindu, buddhist, pagan, atheist agnostic and etc... It is their RIGHT to be able to avoid having to attend and/or participate in religious ceremonies they do not believe in or practice. There are exceptions of course, for instance, student sponsor'd prayer groups at school. Since no-one is required to attend, its perfectly legitmate and allows those students who organized and attended to exercise their rights as (insert religion here)
You have a very valid point here. It does seem like a double standard exists on slashdot, and like you said, if they hate Katz as much as they say, why do they read his articles? (or perhaps they don't, but feel the need to flame him on it anyways).
If we as are to succeed in bringing those things that we strive for to the rest of the world, then we're going to have to act much more civilized than most of us currently do.
Julius X
-Julius X
remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
No, you're not alone at all. I think that Katz' response WAS a flame. But no, I don't think it was flameBAIT... that was Q*Bert's message. Frankly, I'm not surprised that questions like Q*Bert posted got moderated up so high; Katz-bashing is apparently a sport on /. as well.
Obviously, Katz knows more about us than we do.
Who's the "we" you're referring to? As Katz quite correctly pointed out, there are too many of us readers of Slashdot to easily categorize. Ergo, no one can claim to know us better or worse than any other.
Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it violates your sense of reason -- Buddha
How much of the crap that you have noticed has been due to ACs? Would it help if there were additonal filtration for AC comments, either filtering out all AC comments or AC comments scored below a certain level? If such filtration were enabled, the lack of an audience just might slow the growth of such posts. (yeah, right!)
Regarding Katz's net civility comment, the filtration of AC comments may allow the discussions to at least have the appearace of civility, if even viewing all comments were to show that not to be the case.
I don't want to eliminate all AC comments. I have even posted that way myself. However, it can easily get out of hand, and often does.
Luckily my work doesn't filter anything and the Katz article wasn't half bad. But this: Geeks just had the biggest IPO in history [Linux]??!!? I sure hope that was added by Playboy and not Katz. It continues to amaze me that people can't distinguish the many companies selling Linux from Linux. Seriously though, slashdot is getting to the point where moderation is just being used to keep the flames down, without much moderation up anymore. F.O.Dobbs
Thanks for writing Jon, the trolls that say we, don't speak for me.
Oh my lord...... that would be so cool. Dave Barry has written some of the funniest articles and books I have ever read in my life, yet you can tell he's a really smart guy. He gets things.
I think his contribution to slashdot would make the site have some sort of fresh new feeling it, something that would be very much welcome by me.
Joseph?
On-topic? Perhaps.
Redundant? definitely!!!!!!!!
You can be marked down for that, too... and that's applicable...
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
> ventually, they'll get bored and move back to Usenet or wherever else it is that they came from (under a rock?).
That's what they used to say in Usenet. Which is now for all purposes, dead.
That's what scares me about this place, more and more. I just hope they don't start trying to overwhelm the people who write real code. I mean, I really fear the day when we have to filter out "The Gimp." programs from Freshmeat which link to really good-looking fake sites at "www.thegimp.org" and contain programs purporting to be the Gimp, but are really trojan horses.
Bob's Fancy Clock Applet for GNOME is easy enough to read through the source code of to make sure it doesn't do anything naughty, but if the program is big enough...
*shudder*
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
The difference is that you can filter katz out, the flamers/lamers are a bit more difficult to weed out and only serve to decrease the S/N.
e to the i pi equals negative one
Because it would be incredibly difficult, and it would be antithetical to Slashdot's general form as it stands today.
Think about it; if you code rules for users with periods, then they'll use some other form of punctuation. Or maybe a dash. And then it will be misplaced characters. "Linuss Torvald".
By the time you're done, you might as well have developed a pattern recognizing artificial intelligence. =}
Besides of which, Slashdot hasn't in the past taken steps to deny access to its forums simply because someone is a complete and utter idiot.
Eventually, they'll get bored and move back to Usenet or wherever else it is that they came from (under a rock?).
- C.
Jon, I find your writing insightful, and mature. I may not always agree with you, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore what you have to say. You've opened my eyes to many viewpoints I hadn't though of, and this in itself is a wondrous thing.
Keep up the good work Jon, you are indeed a member of the community.
Yes, I do -- Robert X. Cringely. Sharp, precise writing -- his columns have been Slashdot fodder a few times, almost always in a postive light. Few have his in-depth knowledge of the computing experience, and even fewer use it intelligently, to calm irrational fears and point out non-obvious trends. A definte counterpoint to Katz (who I also read, but for different reasons.)
Here's the URL:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
you state that that the politician should not vote due to his beliefs but on the people's. That, in itself, is some sort of philosophical belief. Thus there's a paradox in that the politician has the belief that he should not vote according to his own belief! My point? Beliefs (whether philosphical or moral or ethical or lack of any of the above) play a huge role in every decision.
Anyhoo, I don't pure think democaracy works because it's often that people doesn't know what they really want or is what is good for them due to ignorance or just plain lack of mental accuity. Apparently, America's forefathers though so, too and made the system a republic, not a democaracy. I think a benevolent dictatorship would work pretty well in theory, except that there aren't any humans who are benevolent enough.
So how does one determine what is in the interest of the public? Doesn't that decision require some sort of philosophical viewpoint to even be quailified to approach it (I'd prefer a consistent, well-thought out set of philosophical viewpoints)?
Taking your example: let's suppose the public wants murder to be legal. Smith doesn't, due to some personal philosophical beliefs. Now what can Senator Smith do? Impose his intolerant "belongs-in-his-own-house" religion on others, or give the public what it wants? It's a hard question, and I'm not a political scientist, but I'd vote for the guy who follows his conscience and values in a non-hypocritial manner... as long as his values are consistent with mine in most respects.
on a side note: how does one decide what gives society the most overall utility? "Ignorance is bliss," but knowledge and education is pretty good too. I think it takes some philosophical pre-suppositions to make this decision.
Take the current state of popular American society: it is only acceptable to make public policy decisions without "bringing religion into it." What that does is effectively strike out any "values" (and I hope that most people do make their decisions based on their own values) that are not either atheist (which strikes a remarkable resemblence to some kind of "religion") or at the very least, diluted enough so it does not make any distinctive statement. It's a discrimination of non-status-quo values.
Now what do we do about it? I have no answer on that, but maybe it gives hints to us that perhaps a true freedom of religion in a heterogenously religious(including anti-religious) society is fundamentally impossible.
Does it still sound like nonsense? If so, perhaps I misunderstood your reply.
> I believe religion has no place in politics, education or technology.
Now, something here doesn't seem to bode well. While I can only speak from experience in the Christian faith, pure Christianity affects your whole being: your philosophy, your views on life, politics, friendships... EVERYTHING. It is what makes you you.
Now, I can see where Katz is coming from (people who use their religion as an excuse to push certain political agendas, possibly even those inconsistent with their religion -- such as good ol' christian white supremacy), but if one truly is to be a consistent person, religion has EVERY RIGHT to be in politics, education, and technology. It is DEMANDED... otherwise you're just a hypocrite. In this case, however, there is a clear distinction in sincerity of the motivation of the person.
The problem is is that there are always those of a vocal minority who give everyone a bad name...
"hackers are bad because look at what happened to yahoo and ebay!"
Yes, the correct word is crackers... but now those who are true hackers have to explain themselves...
We need a Katz. We need more people that can ramble on about the importance of the invention of the automobile without knowing anything about the engine. I'd wager that most Slashdot regulars are much more concerned with device drivers and programming languages than technological trends. We need someone to give us a view of the forest and not just the trees. Even if we disagree with his views we still get a chance to step back and argue with Katz! The important thing is to keep thinking about the big picture.
My only criticisms is his writing style. I find it too rambling and it has too many grammatical errors. Please edit your copy more, Jon! For example, talking about grammar Katz says, "Some it was sloppy for sure". My goodness!
-Nathan Whitehead
-Nathan Whitehead
A new proof that Jon Katz is a gasbag. Consider the sentence, "If this sentence is true, then Jon Katz is a gasbag." Is the sentence true or false? Suppose it was true. Then since the sentence is true, Jon Katz is a gasbag. Thus if the sentence is true, then Jon Katz is a gasbag. This proves the sentence.
Methinks many /.ers wish Jon Katz were Bob Cringely ... insight combined with enough technical know-how to make such insights.
1. The only way I can perceive civil discussions happening on sites like this is if... people were required to post under some form of recognizable ID, and... moderators with power kept the conversation on track and kicked out people who attacked ideas or posters personally or strayed off topic.
Sidestepping the undemocratic leanings of this rant, we get to ask ourselves one question. What could be more offtopic than a nontechnical, newbie hack preaching to hackers on the net's numero uno technical weblog?
2. But remember that I express opinions more frequently than anybody on Slashdot
And more verbosely. Must have skipped the pith and wit classes at that journalism school he so clearly (anti-thesis?) never went to.
3. I read all criticism, even flames. I don't believe in many aspects of the moderation system. I set my prefs to everything. To me, steering software is the anti-thesis of community. I consider it self-censorship, a Balkanization of ideas, an effort to smother a human problem with software.
You don't like it, why not hack the source, which is freely available, and remove this offending 'Ba lkanization'. Incidentally, if it wasn't for the filtering system, more people would be exposed to your low-content name-dropping, and you would no longer be able to sustain the impausible boast that you "read all criticism, even flames."
4. I read Freshmeat every day, and marvel at it, understanding hardly anything. It's one of the most interesting places to go on the Web.
If you're too thick to understand it (what's to understand?) why do you continue to read it? Who are you trying to impress?
5. For example, I believe government should have stopped Microsoft much sooner, and should definitely halt the AOL/Time-Warner merger.
Why? I'd be particularly interested to hear what legal basis you think there is for a suit against AOL/Time-Warner, as, I'm sure, would their lawyers. For someone who describes himself as "skittish about labels and parties" and "not a political person" you sure have a sweet tooth for Big Government.
6. But I have to say that my thinking about Libertarianism is a work-in-progress. Maybe the best response is to write about it a bit, and start some discussions.
Maybe if you thought about things before engaging MSWord you might be more esteemed as a writer than a pissweak cluebie.
7. I don't believe most people on Slashdot hate me.
Let's put it to a poll. It's gotta beat "What's your favourite number?" and "Who's your favourite Khan?" anyday.
8. I have been railing against Microsoftism before most of you were programming.
I started in 1981 (with the ZX81). You've been flaming Microsoft for 19 years? Clever boy. Care to post a URL?
9. ... many of you would be mortified to know how many people come onto Slashdot to laugh at the nightmare that is Threads. [Ha Ha. Thread Derision: The world's fastest growing spectator sport. I think not.] Rob's moderation systems have definitely made this better, and he thinks quite a bit about this issue.
Compare and contrast with point 3.
10. Slashdot is hiring some professional editors.
Why doesn't it hire a professional writer while it's at it, so you can be swiftly put out of our misery? All these criticisms become null and void if you'd take your talent (everyone has it: even you) outside of this essentially technical forum. CmdrTaco is too honourable and hippyish to bludgeon you to death like a baby seal. Why don't you do the right thing and resign? I see the katzdot domains are still available...
But don't lay the blame on UNIX boxes. On this unix box, the apostrophe's are superscript `1's, which is a refreshing change from the usual question marks, at least. It is most likely a faulty translation to HTML by a Microsoft product.
Jon knows about this problem. I have personally mailed him twice about it. I even sent him the URL for the de-moronizer.
Jon has known about this problem since at least fall 1998. I first mailed him about it last June. Yet he refuses to fix it.
Why Jon? Does the demoronizer not work for you? Too much trouble to use?
Given the widespread dislike of Katz, I'd be interested in seeing a count of just how many people are filtering out his articles. Additionally, it'd be interesting to look at how many people who use filtering *only* to screen out katz.
Now we just need regexp filtering in subjects so I can screen katz posts out that only indirectly concern him.....
I believe an author's idiocy, or lack thereof, is off-topic because it is argumentum ad hominem. The quality of the author's grammar is only on topic if it prevents someone making a good faith attempt to understand the author from doing so.
If the topic is justifying Katz' existence here, then his grammar and readability are on topic. If the topic is (say) the difficulties faced by oddballs in high school, then Katz' grammar and readability are offtopic.
Q: Are you aware that much (most?) of the Slashdot readership doesn't like you?
A: Yes. However, I've written a bunch of books that other people have liked.
Q: Does this mean you will be leaving soon?
A: No. By the way, did I mention that I recently came out with new book? You can get a copy here.
Q: What do you think you add to the Slashdot community?
A: I'd like to answer this question three ways:
1) Everyone can benefit from my munificent (yet down-to-earth--did you know I never went to college?), widely-scoped (yet ill-informed--did you know I don't know how to create an apostrophe in HTML?), Christ-like (you know, Christ and I--we're like THIS) wisdom.
2) Geeks geeks geeks geeks geeks.
3) Who says I'm here to benefit YOU? The real story is how much *I* making off my booksales.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Was there some mystical force that pulled your mouse to the "Read More" link and forced you to click on it?
Do you killfile everything you don't read and read everything you don't killfile?
The words "Jon Katz Interview" were in great big letters at the top.
Or are you in a backhanded way advocating censorship, so that no one should be forced to suffer through Katz?
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
How can he claim to get mail from (insert the list here)? You're comment is incoherent, and does not address the quote you extracted from the interview. It is clear that you have invested far too much emotion toward disliking Jon Katz.
Is JK repressing you with his position as a slashdot columnist? I guess it's now the cool thing to do to jump on the "I hate Jon Katz bandwagon" with your flamethrower lit.
If you could write a pearl script that could take his place, why don't you and submit the generated articles to slashdot yourself?
Very good. /. thing seems more like a soap opera. Chinese curse? -- May you live in interesting times.
I would add that, in a world of trees (whatever they are), Katz is looking for the forest.
The whole
Thanks. That made my day. /. would be poorer without him.
Personally, I think Katz adds a useful "outside but interested" perspective.
Well put. I would like to add that I think that much of _why_ Jon Katz is here is a twitching newsman's nose. Something is going on, and it is not as simplistic as geeks discovering Linux. Something of a second renaissance, I suspect. But what do I know? Even the historians a few hundred hears hence will get it mostly wrong.
it's pretty sad that Jon's post got marked down as off-topic in his thread. If that doesn't tell you moderation (in it's current incarnation) is a tired joke, I'll tell it to ya. Moderation (in it's current incarnation) is a tired joke.
+&x
I thought I had my preferences set to filter out Katz stuff. Is there a bug in the filter?
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
She's Jewish, last I checked. Not sure if she actively practices the religion, though.
So, I suppose I am the only person on Earth who thinks 90% of Dave Barry's writing is random hit-or-miss blather in search of a punch-line.
This is NOT hemos - notice the period after his name. It's just some troll impostor which appears identical right down to the .sig - see for yourself.
Someone mod that down, and maybe one day CmdrTaco will get arround to nuking the '.' accounts.
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
At this point in the year 1999, you can probably divide the readership of Slashdot into roughly two categories:
- those who have heard the message and accepted it ("Howdy, Jesus
.. come on into my life!")
- those who have heard the message and found it lacking ("Thanks anyway, Jesus
.. but not today.")
Have you ever considered that one of the reasons so many people are bitter towards Christianity (and, to some extent, Christians) is because they've heard "the message" many times, and yet are still repeatedly confronted with it? I don't mean this to be a flame, but believe it or not, there are plenty of people who have evaluated the case for Christianity and have decided to pass. If we change our minds at some point in the future, we know where to go. (Believe me, we know where to go.) But to be honest, for the time being, repeated (and unwelcome) attempts to "minister" do not further the cause of Christianity. In fact, they probably do it irreparable harm. And it doesn't help when disturbed fundamentalists insist that we ought to be teaching children that the entire universe is 6,000 years old or that dinosaurs and man coexisted. Y'all would do well to work on reigning those people in.That's how I see it, anyway.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
The only "problem" that I have with Jon's writing relates to the grammar and repetition of his articles. At the same time, I enjoy his opinions, and his articles on Columbine and the conversation that followed them were some of the most intense and insightful articles that I have read/participated in during the last year.
:-) ].
Jon, I recognize that you're very busy and Slashdot does not have an editor to assist you with the creation of your articles. The articles you write are powerful and insightful. I want to acknowledge your contribution to Slashdot. I also see that it would be possible for your articles to reach even more people if more care was given to the construction of the articles.
I would suggest "On Writing Well" by William Zinsser. Next to Strunk and White, I consider it the classic book on writing.
I admire the fact that you have had several books published. I want to challenge you that even though you have had success as a writer, that you can become an even better one. Besides, publishing success does not necessarily mean that something is well written [See any Stephen Covey book for proof
Finally, if you ever would like someone to review your articles prior to their posting to look for grammatical errors or repetition, I would be more than willing to do so.
Thanks for answering the questions.
>can you please justify pissing a good portion of
... diferent light.
... which I consider even worse than govt. censorship, since you at least SHOULD KNOW BETTER!
>your users off several times a week with the
>innane rantings of a crazed lunatic?
There are far more people who actually *like* Jon Katz than those who hate him. He sees things in a
Why don't you simply ignore him? Why do you want to stop me and others like me from listening to him?
What those who hate him are doing is simply censorship
...
Yes, I know I ramble and my spelling isn't quite up to scratch. If you wish to complain,
I think the double standard here exists because we have to deal with closemindedness and stupidity.
You spend some part of your day every day dealing with people who react with hostility, disinterest, stupidity, and closemindedness and you start expecting it from everybody. So we fall back on our communities of fellow geeks who we know will have interests at least sort of similar to ours, even if they come at the from the other end (the endless distro wars amongst the linux-entrenchd sections of our community for instance).
In that respect, slashdot is one of our little havens of geekfulness where we go after a long hard day of 'oh! i have to turn on the monitor too?!' to get in a little tech news and arguing with our peers. So while, as you said, nobody chains us down and Forces us to read Katz, the mere fact of his existence is like graffitti on my livingroom wall. Sure, i don't really Have to look at it, but it's there and i dont like it. Similarly with other non-techies. If i owe someone (either due to being paid directly, or just because they're a friend) i'll gladly be polite and help them through their technological ineptitude, but in my free time i don't want the hassle.
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
Nope, i only have about a half a dozen friends.. however they're actually my friends as opposed to the hordes of acquantances most people seem willing to make do with. :)
I act like myself with my friends, me as myself enjoys intelligent conversation and intellectually stimulating recreational activities.. thereby i don't hang out with stupid people. If it's a fault that i don't like having to explain jokes to my friends or that i like to be able to talk about things that interest me without their eyes glazing over.. then i guess i'm a faulty person
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
Katz posts a lot. Here's his user info: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?nick=jonkatz
Indeed, in the same paragraph that he claims he's "not a political person", he goes on to say I believe government should have stopped Microsoft much sooner, and should definitely halt the AOL/Time-Warner merger. I think its a responsibility of government to keep the Net and the Web as free and non-commercial as is possible.
That's a very clear political stance!
I think that what Jon means is that he doesn't want to be labelled to any particular ideology and doesn't support and particular party, but that's very different to not being "political".
The whole open source movement is throws up a number of political questions - copyright law, control of corporations, public ownership, etc.
If you believe the guys who hacked the DVD encryption and distributed the code were right to do so or that Microsoft should be broken up, even though it would be against the wishes of many MS supporters, then you're taking a political stance.
You might not want to go to party rallys and were "We love Clinton" badges, but it does't make sense to say that you are not "political".
I'm not kidding. I am sure I can write as well as he can. Maybe we should hold a contest and grant the winner a forum. If the /. honchos want a counterpoint i'm up for it. I must admit however that I don't often disagree with 100% but I can offer different insights.
War is necrophilia.
Read the damned answer you idiot. He did not say that muslims were less inclined he said they were less vocal (probably because they are less then 10% of the society here in the US).
Why do you bother posting if you never even read the article.
War is necrophilia.
Slashdot seems to be so (unintentially!) American-dominated, despite the international readership. For example, it seems like socialism and similar political topics are genetically incompatable with many Americans.
Someone to intelligently defend Windows would be nice as well to stimulate good debate. Hard as it might be to find this person.
Katz seems to get very offended about certain questions that challenge his motives. He claims that such individuals are in the minority. If this were so, then these paticular questions would not have been moderated up, and thus would not be given to Katz in the first place.
This articles sounds a lot like "dribble" to me. It is a defense of things that he stands for - even though it is obvious to a majority of the /. community that he is slightly off base. It is my opinion that his reply is merely Katz krap.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
>watch right now as I move Katz articles into my ignore list
> (along with Patent and DOJ articles.)
That's what they're there for. Slashdot is trying to cater to a vast group of people, many more than when it was first created. Without debating whether that's good or not, we are all free to select what we do and don't want to see, through article author/subject exclusion and comment moderation.
I don't mean to aim this as a personal flame, I mean this as a comment to all of Slashdot, should anyone read it. You're doing everyone a favor when you uncheck everything you're not interested in. That way the rest of us don't have to listen to whining and bitching about how some topic or author shouldn't be here.
After all, if we took everything that some number of people didn't like off slashdot, what would we have left?
-JuPo
(must resist troll... must resist troll... ahh, I give up)
Ditto.
Okay, even though this is a troll, it does make a point. I'm whining too. But I don't have a checkbox to exclude what I'm whining about from "my" Slashdot. I do apologize to anyone who seriously took offense at my post.
-JuPo
> So how does one determine what is in the interest of the public?
In my opinion, it's simple. The constitution. Specifically the bill of rights -- albeit generalized a bit.
Everyone has rights. A right to live. A right to speak what we want. A right to think what we want. A right to believe in what we want. A right to do what we want. Etc.
And because everyone has those rights, there is a point where one person's liberties can infringe upon someone else's. Even though you have the right to do what you want, you can't murder someone else because that violates their right to life.
This is how I see American government is *supposed* to work. (at least this part of it)
Even though as a Christian I think things like suicide or euthanasia are wrong, our government should not limit them. Neither should any Christian -- after all, we also believe we were given free agency. (ack! gotta try not to argue religion here.) Regardless, the government shouldn't limit our right to do what we want, when it does not interfere with others. In other words, we should have a right to die, even though that is against my religious beliefs.
Now, of course, there are some issues where personal beleifs will come into play. Abortion is one issue. Not so much whether it is legal, but when. For example, I think we are 'alive' as soon as we are concieved. Thus, I'm against abortion completely. Others may believe that life begins later (up to birth, for some people), so they may apply the same guideline of 'right to life' to mean you can only abort up to that point in time.
And, to be honest, that's about the only case I've been able to think of while I've been writing this where personal beliefs would come into play. In a perfect world, at least.
-JuPo
for a short story, brevity but multiple pages;
...For online it's far too early to tell...
ROTFL. You don't see yourself running into a certain amount of trouble using this classification system? Ever seen an essay? At least the typical absence of dialogue will stop you mistaking it for a play, I guess...
for a magazine it's 4 to 20 columns; for online it's two to four brief paragraphs unless you are a zine.
In answer to your questions, I was trying to boil this down to a simplistic level. My point being that online is defined by the average user's readable screen area. Although some fanatics insist on using 21 inch screens with 6 point fonts, most people basically can see 70 to 80 characters per line, for 24-32 lines of usable screen. Which means two to three paras is ideal.
I've been doing online for three decades now, and the format is much the same, although we now have some minor improvements. A writer who fails to adapt his craft to the requirments of the medium, is average at best, and mediocre more likely than not.
And essays don't pay the rent, lest one is already known for one's work and commands six figures per book. Which is less than 1 percent of all writers who have multiple publications to their credit.
Personally, I find writing database programs far more lucrative than writing, though less rewarding.
Will in Seattle
It already runs swell under snes9x under X11.
Didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I'll try to find my Win version and see if that works.
Will in Seattle
Dear AC,
/. events, I expect to see main thread posts from you in the near future, taking four printed pages to explain an idea that could have been posted in the space of three paras initially, thus stopping us from participating in an interactive discussion. Soon you can party with Jon Katz and bore many people in person. I long for that day ...
Didn't read your post. It was too long.
But, given recent
Will in Seattle
Remember that Katz wasn't always in the online media, the guy writes books for Pete's sake.
Hey, I've been a writer and I've even won awards for some things. Each medium is different - for a play, the dialogue is the thing; for a poem, a well crafted phrase; for a short story, brevity but multiple pages; for a magazine it's 4 to 20 columns; for online it's two to four brief paragraphs unless you are a zine.
Katz needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
If you can't hack the format, don't write in this medium!
Will in Seattle
1. Which Tick character will you play in the movie?
2. Have you ever posted a reply that was less than five paragraphs long in an online media where brevity is the source of wit?
Will in Seattle
That's the problem with using Microsoft HTML instead of hand coding it yourself.
... and shorter Katz articles.
Ah, I long for the days of XHTML compliance
Will in Seattle
Now, what I'd like to see is Earthworm Jim cameos in the movie.
...
Agreed! And then we can port Earthworm Jim from Windows to Linux!
Musn't forget the catfight between American Maid and Princess Whatshername.
Sorry, but that's not American Maid's style. The Princess, maybe, but not American Maid. Now a brief aside by Jon Katz's character in The Tick about a catfight between American Maid and Princess Whatshername, that I could believe. Or maybe, Jon going on four two minutes while The Tick and Arthur doze off - that would be the best in-joke
Will in Seattle
I am a shitty writer so when I read articles that are well articulated, like Katz's, I definately enjoy it.
/.
I'm 22 and not that far removed from high school. I went to school in Colorado at a high school similar to Columbine. I totally related to Katz's articles on his Hellmouth series. The mass media totally missed the boat of what is going on in high school (yeah, video games caused it). Katz's articles were the only ones that EVEN TOUCHED on the issues at hand (the jocks fucking with everyone who was different and not as yuppy as them.) It was probably the most responded to articles on
As far as flames, Katz mentioned in his article that he wants them to stop. I think that alot of times that they are funny, and I wouldn't take them personally. I am not for censorship of flames (which they are if you surf at,+2 or more).
Anyway, thanks for your response Jon. I won't uncheck my box, because your articles definately induce good discussion, which is why I am here (and the subject matter, of course).
I'm a mac-head musician, never used Linux (would like too if they had descent music software) so there are more people than technical Linux, Perl programmers here.
Peace, Sam
Also, How do you claim that you are read by highly technical linux geeks, when you rarely write about anything technical, much less a topic that can be highly technical.
Well for starters you are reading his work and commenting on it, and you claim to be a perl programmer and are probably a highly technical linux geek also. I'm a linux geek and I read Katz, I personally find him interesting and even though I don't always agree with him it's usually worth the 15 minutes it takes to read an article and some comments. You may want to re-read he post, he never claims to be a technocrat, more than once he says that he is just a writer, writing about stuff he's interested in and cares about.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
total freedom is chaos, and total control is death...but somewhere between (closer to chaos) is a point that maximizes a system's capability to evolve. :=)
i believe the suggestion is that we are flaming too close to chaos for truly emergent behavior to arise...and i agree
I believe religion has no place in politics, education or technology
:)
This is really a contridictory statment, if you really think about it. For me, being a christian encompasses my enitre walk of life. Including my politics, education, and how I choose to use technology. Mr. Katz just can not sit there and say that religion has no place in these things.
I think of a faith that at its core, promotes charity, tolerance, generousity, love and peace.
This is true to a point. But if you take into consideration the true meaning behind Jesus's teaching there is absolutely no way a Christian can be toerant. This doesn't meant we go around judjing everyone. Jesus was infact not tolerant of much. Take into account Revelation 19:11-16:
vs15 "From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty"
God is a jelous God. There is no point about it. He desires all to come and to know him. There is no way a God who wishes all to know him will be tolerent if one of his children seeks to know the evil one more than himself.
Sorry about the preaching thing, but hey what can I do?
have a great day and God Bless
oh and if you can tell what verse that song is you can really understand how you can't seperate religion and politics...
How do you know what country that AC lives in?
The 10 commandments aren't just ethical, they are part of a specific religion. You can't post the 10 Commandments without posting corresponding material from every other represented religion. IIRC, the 10 Commandments are not exclusively, or even originally Christian - they are Hebrew. So your suggestion that there are "people now who aren't Christian" suggesting such postings should impress exactly no one.
If you're referring to the USA, as I assume you are, please note also that it is a country founded on the bones of slaughtered American Indians and the sweat of enslaved Africans, and now we will pay, and pay, and pay for it. Some of us would like to rise above what our country was founded on.
Flame more carefully in the future.
If he posted them himself, there would be the assumption that he's engaged in shameless self-promotion.
And with such force that the article jumped on my screen without my clicking the link and burned into my eyeballs before I could look away.
Oh, wait, there is that whole free will/responsibility for own acts thing.
Never mind.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
There is a REASON that /. lets you turn off certain subjects so you don't see them.
But I continue to see the same people, time after time, replying to Katz's writings just to flame. You help make some of his points for him.
I just don't get it anymore. It's like any other Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder. But instead of washing your hands 5 times in a row, or constantly checking the rooms to make sure the lights are turned off, you're unable to resist reading the story and repeating the same old anti-Katz rhetoric. It almost seems like someone wrote a Katz-flame generator, the comments are so unoriginal.
Is there some purpose to the constant flaming? Can you give us some reason why it does anything other than annoy the rest of us?
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Obviously, Katz knows more about us than we do.
He probably doesn't know more about the group than any other member of the group (but he might. He probably has email discussions with more of us than you or I, or most anybody else in the group)
But I don't understand the "you're just an outsider, what could you know about us?" attitude that you (and others) have about Katz. He reads the same articles and comments you and I do. And he at least realizes that not every member is the exact same as he is. You seem to think that you know the group pretty well, or is that an imperial "we" your using there?
Intolerant people should be shot.
tsk. You're going to try to use *logic* to explain why your not a ridiculous twit?
Can you understand the difference between claiming to not want to read something, and then doing so anyway, and reading something because you want to?
Intolerant people should be shot.
I expect a Senator Smith to vote along the lines of what the public (especially those that voted him in) feel is appropriate. It is normal for one's religious beliefs to effect one's morality and philosophy, but the Senator should not be voting based on what the leader of his particular religion says. That's a major part of seperation of Church and State. It keeps the pope (or other religous leader) from controlling the state by making it clear how his followers are supposed to vote on issues.
Intolerant people should be shot.
OK, I'm just going to comment on some of the posts I see here, and then on what Katz had to say.
.sig's to the effect of "spelling and grammer mistakes left in for those without the ability to think about the message" Professional writers have editors. Catching spelling and glaring grammatical errors is what they're for. If the message is clear, the grammer's good enough.
Before blathering (semi)mindlesly about the actual article, I'm going to use what appears to be a Slashdot requirement. I'm going to bitch and moan about other posters. I see at least four top level posts that consist of someone bitching that they're being forced to read Katz related stuff. OK, so maybe the cookie's didn't work perfectly, and the articles are showing up on the main page. Guess Andover or Katz himself sent someone over to force the poster to read and then reply to the article. How evil! If you don't want to read it, then don't. Quit posting about how it shouldn't exist. Desipite what you believe, you are no more the voice of Slashdot than Katz. Inconceivable as it may be to you, some people don't share your views, opinions, or backgrounds. Let us read the article in peace.
Katz may not consider his writing "stark" but I would say it is somewhat dry. It does tend to be long, and his writing style can make it seem longer than it is, but their _is_ content there (contrary to what some readers seem to think). Katz' mention of writing for Rolling Stone and New York magazine was news to me (I've not been here from the start - so feel free to ignore my opinions too). I don't know why this seemed to iritate so many posters. He's making a point, not just screaming "I've been published! Worship me now!" (Maybe these posters feel that writers should pretend they've never been published?)
A lot of the posters seem to dislike Katz' response to Q*bert's question. Yes, he got defensive at first, and I don't blame him. He does a good job explaining why he writes the way he does here, even if he does go over ground he's covered before. (But for newcomers, it helps to find out who he is) He's right about Slashdot readers not all being tech-gods too. (I myself am running Win98 because I couldn't get the damned RedHat install that I dl'd and burned to work off either CD drive.)
jd's question, and Katz reply didn't much interest me. I'm a socialist, and pretty firm in my desire for government to keep control of corporations. Libertarians strike me the same as Anarchists: people who really haven't thought about all the consequences.
swordgeek's question came off kind of condescending to me. I've known a few people who have a similar "form is more important than content" attitude, and basically gave up on trying to have intelligent conversations with them. I've seen a couple
A poster said that Katz called himself "rare". Since it was actually Signal 11 who said Katz was rare, I wonder if there really are people who so need to abuse Katz as to skim for something they can act indignant about as quickly as possible...
Signal 11's question about the hostility is interesting. Since he's one of the few posters who insists on being loudly abusive every time something by, or about Katz gets posted, he probably doesn't realize that there are only a few posters who seem to have an unhealthy amount of hate for Jon.
Katz' response to the first part of Skyshadow's response seems to have drawn some more flames. What the hell else would you call someone who rants and raves and flames and swears at someone for little or no good reason except immature? I don't agree with Katz' desire for a more moderated medium, but at least the answer is interesting.
I'd have to say I'm one of the anti-Christian slashdot readers Simeon2000 mentioned. I've read about and seen too many horrible things come from Christianity, and especially Catholicism. While many of the people I know (especially those past 30) believe in the Christian god, and the more benevolent teachings therof, almost all of the people I know who are activly involved in a formal religion are not people I care to spend time near, and most are people that I can activly dislike for being similar to missionaries of old, pushing their beliefs down the throats of others. I don't like people telling me how to live my life, won't accept my government doing so, and will actively resist someone telling my government to do so.
There. Now who's first to bitch about my spelling, grammer, and the length of my post?
Intolerant people should be shot.
Why not just have a direct democracy? Well, obviously, because every person doesn't have the time to be remotely informed on every vote that takes place, nor is it feasable (yet) for such a system to be implementable. That's why candiates are supposed to have clear platforms. It allows the public to pick who they think will most accuratly represent their desires.
I see no problem with Senator Smith always voting however Religious Leader Jones tells him to, as long as he announced during his campaign that he would do that, so the voters knew what they were getting themselves into when they voted for Smith.
I wouldn't have a problem with this either. Of course, politicians don't announce much of anything as far as what their actual intentions are.
Your hypothetical fails to consider that Dr. King was not making his speeches as an agent of the church, but as a man who felt this was the right thing to do. Also, their is a difference between being convinced by the arguement of a religous leader, and doing what he says, merely because he says so.
Intolerant people should be shot.
Oh boy, does this Katz dude generate some heat. Even people with history of intelligent posting are losing their marples and posting some amazing personal attacks.
... well then you are wrong. Plain and simple wrong. Yes, I know, being wrong is not supposed to be possible today, there's just supposed to be many subjective truths and we can all have our own.
I do not agree with all that Katz says, I think my background in too much different from his, but he does speak about important issues. And he got one thing right; he knows that technology and science aren't the most important thing. They are the driving force behind todays economic and sociological changes but they still should be the tools and we (the people) should be the masters.
It may piss you of that ethical questions are more important then the technolocal issues which give rise to them, but that's ok. Feel free to pissed about it, but if you disagree with this
Sure Katz is wordy and gasbag and what-not, but at least he's got a clue about priorities. Of course, his priorities aren't exactly in accordance with the mainstream here. I guess that's why so many people just can't stand him.
--Flam
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
The last few times I have moderated, I spent 4 out of 5 points moderating down trolls. That is really annoying
Me too. Its frustrating, because when I read articles, I look primarily at 2+ articles (automatically expand them) and I'm sure I miss a lot of good (but not stellar) items that other people *don't* moderate up because they are busy dealing with obnoxious trolls. I think the moderation system is wonderful but something definitely could be done that would help the troll issue, and subsequently, make it more useful because GOOD articles would be moderated up, instead of ignored.
Spyky
The opinion Jon was trying to post, if I understood him correctly, was that most (if not all) organised religions have their flaws.
The original concepts of Chrstianity (and other religions)where kindness and love are the prime concerns have been reaplaced by institutionalised worship. This worship seems to have forgotten much of the original concepts, and focus instead on the "bad" things in life, like "sin", censorship, distrust and the like.
I agree with Jon's view here as I feel that these religions have often caused more problems - religious wars and the like - than they solve.
Oh, and Jon did say The Christian Right...
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
Finally, the voice of reason!
I think it is sad to get so many people who have such high regard for their own abilities and opinions that they have nothing better to do except flaming Katz.
While I may not alway agree with Jon, I repect his abilities as a writer, commentator and discussion generator.
I find his general attitude to be refreshing, even when I don't agree with what he says.
I hope flamers will try to express their opinions in a more mature fashion in future.
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
How amusing the trolls and flames for this particular article must be for Mr. Katz ... how many of these 13 year olds actually read Jon's responses? How many of them (after reading his erudite, controlled answers on the topic of their childish behaviour) still reveled in their ability to publically post such commentary as 'jonkatz is gay'?
- ---------------
How impressive we humans can really be when we think we're anonymous!
-----------------------------------------------
James C. Diggans
jdiggans@excelsior-web.com
This is a serious question, I am not being funny, but this seems the right place to ask it. I understand you can filter Jon Katz out of your Slashdot account. How do you do this?
Thanks,...really.
- I like pudding.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out your incredible vanity! The idea that you could understand even a small part of God's plan is preposterous! What makes you think that He doesn't plan for people to start cloning themselves? Evil is just a matter of degrees; we are all sinners. My sin is between me and my God, and I will thank you to concentrate on your own salvation and no one elses.
"There's one born every minute." - Steve Case
flame? come on! jon shut down qbert, and it's what any self-respecting guy would have done!
without going back to look at it, qbert's question was like this: why do you talk to us when we know so much more than you do? it's the stupidest question in the world.
i don't particularly like katz, and i know nothing about qbert, but i would say that katz handled this question perfectly.
cheers,
sh_
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
Now you did it. We're going to get another three part series about how someone told him to "accept the hatemail or die".
The cake is a pie
an unconditional script at that.
Jeez, the sharks around here must have smelled fresh blood or something.
:)
He guy admitted that he is not a techie, a lay-person. Somethimes he writes for the lay-person in a style you may find simplistic. He writes from his own point of view, which some may find annoying or simple. Writers should write what they know about, or at least what interests them. Maybe thats why he only picks certain topics?
Hell, I only post/respond to topics I like. That's what keeps writers from writing about everything. When did we lose the right to be incorrect once in awhile? Why can't he just say, "Here's my view, what do you think?".
Chorus: But he doesn't belong here! He's not one of us!
Here is a little secret: non-techies read slashdot. It's true. Some people don't even use Linux.
Chorus: (GASP!)
But some people are interested in tech news, they hear that slashdot is a good source. Some of this stuff may be over their heads. They may want to hear what that evil old Katz has to say. If they don't like it, they won't read me again. Humans have this noble way of avoiding things they don't like, but some forget how to do that and shreik loudly instead.
Chorus: He is wasting our time! We don't want to see his blurbs!
Life just sucks, eh?
Does some force make you read his views? Does not having checked the "ignore the infidel" box make the page load 100x slower?
Sometimes I read his stuff and think:
1. that was stupid
2. not bad
3. etc....
In no way has he wasted my time. He has no need to "validate his existance" to me. If the topic bores me, I don't read it. If I don't like his views, or think the essay was badly written, I make a firm resolution not to get my panties in a bunch.
Here's the secret, kids.....
You don't have to read everything here.
Chorus: But he has bad grammar!!!
Screw grammar, let's dance.
Think you can do better? Put up or shut up.
This is not his full-time job, I think we could handle a bit of sloppiness once in a while.
Chorus: We don't want to hear about his damn books!
I guess pride is a bad, bad thing.
And by the way, I modified some code someplace, and so, I shall be your God.
(all apologies to the Greeks)
Uh, no. Not 'all Christians' believe he is alive. Most that I know believe that yes, he died on the cross, and his soul arose. Because he was the 'son of God', he was able to take a physical form and speak with his disciples before ascending to heaven. To many (in my experience) Christ is in Heaven, not alive.
And yes, I realize some people do consider that alive... I'm just saying not all do. Be careful of sweeping generalizations...
Oh, and a minor disclaimer: I was raised Christian, but no longer follow the faith the way most consider. I agree with Katz on this one, many churches (and this is my direct experience) take views that go blatantly against Christ's teachings of peace and acceptance, yet still call themselves Christians. I no longer consider myself Christian because of the way the term has been perverted like this, and simply live by those teachings (plus a little Taoism) to try and live a good life.
____________________
Tension, apprehension
And dissension have begun
The bodily (not spiritual, bodily) resurrection of Jesus, the appearance of himself in his old body (remember Doubting Thomas) and the fact that he is alive today are basic qualifications for calling whatever it is you believe "Christianity".
Gerv Again, not all Christians believe the same as you (is there an echo in here?). I have personally spoken with people who do not believe he is 'alive' in the truest sense of the word. Yes, some of the Christians I have talked with look at it the way you do. But others do not. These people look at as, what need is there for a human physical body in heaven? So, I'm sorry, but I'll repeat myself one more time:
Not all Christians have the exact same belief as you. Thank you. Have a nice day.
____________________
Tension, apprehension
And dissension have begun
Personally, I'd like to see a user squelch list option that could parse stories for comments posted by specific users, and then hide them. As for the problem of ACs, set your threshold. Unfortunately, even many good AC posts don't get moderated up.
If you don't like reading posts from people who flame Katz, stop reading them, and don't waste hard drive space, bandwidth, and brain cells on reading those posts and criticizing them as it does nobody any good.
:-)
Thank you
Adam
He's just as forced to read and respond to Katz articles as you are forced to read and respond to his comments.
Adam
Hey, at least we both have a sense of humor about it
Adam
Actually, there is only a filter for articles posted *by* Katz, not articles posted *about* Katz.
Adam
Actually, there is only a filter for articles posted *by* Katz, not articles posted *about* Katz.
Adam
If the topic of discussion is a Jon Katz interview, then his idiocy (or lack thereof) and his bad grammar are certainly on-topic.
Adam
I don't read /. for general op-ed type pieces. Most of what Jon Katz writes here are of that type, oriented somewhat, sometimes somewhat loosely, around technological subjects. If we are going to do more general op-ed pieces that range over politics and economics and such then that literary space should not be monopolized by a single voice. But I don't believe that is what /. is about or should be about.
I do believe there should be spaces for talking about and opinioning on the implications and ramifications of technology and airing POVs concerning various aspects of the world in detailed pieces of writing. But is this a space for it? I don't think so. It isn't set up for such.
On the christo-geek thing, I have no beef with anyone's religous choices and views. I only have a beef when they assume others should kowtow to their views or that others are simply too damaged or moronic to understand. At one time I was extremely religious and seriously headed for ministry (even considered being a nun though of some non-Christian vintage). Over time I came to the position that religion of all kinds truly is an opiate. It is a drug that is very tempting and difficult to break from. But I am convinced it leads people away from reality, away from genuine involvment in life and the world and substitutes some fake [R]eality instead that is supposed to be oh so vastly superior. Bah humbug. Show me evidence for this other [R]eality or kindly leave the bandwidth to non-chimeras. The christo-geek does the normal insulting religious person thing and assumes those who see things differently have some kind of problem, some psychological scar or flaw that keeps them from seeing the light. Perhaps we simply see more clearly and see the false for false. Perhaps we have been blined by the light and learned to filter it until we could see what is and is not behind it.
Sorry for rambling on.
I just read most of the article here and I'm left to wonder why you don't jump in with both feet and post in the forums too?
Jon didn't do this on the earlier part of this interview, that would have been inappropriate. But in other articles I have seen him do just that. Occasionally I see some of the other authors posting individual comments, but jon is the only one I have ever seen wade into the comments on one of his articles and reply to every one he could; he doesn't have to, and I'm sure he knows it just invites more flame, but he does it, and I respect him for that.
Communication is only possible between equals
Andrew Carnegie was able to use his Pinkertons and strike-breakers to crush the Homestead steel strike because he had government sanction- not despite it. Only a statist would sanction violence against people peacably demonstrating. In a free state, he would have gone to jail- along with everyone else involved, for violating the rights of the people he attacked. Also, John Rockefeller used the state militia to kill striking Colorado miners in the Ludlow Massacre of 1914. That is tough to do if there is no state militia.
If you have any understanding of the concept of irony, you will see why I am smiling at you now.
Ask yourself why steelworkers go out of work. I am sure the 3000 employees of the motorola factory in NW Texas- the one that moved to Guadalajara last Nov. because of the interminable taxes in this country- would be singing the praises of a free market... if they had jobs today. I imagine the "indigenous people" of Mexico are, since those jobs are now theirs. I'm not going to pretend to sympathize with american loggers; this is the year 2000. If they want to make their living killing trees, they can move somewhere that has trees that need to be cut. The world has moved on. After all, they have every right to set up a smithery- but I have the right to buy my steel from a machine shop, where they use technology effectively to provide me with a better product cheaper. Last I looked, the local shop was hiring...
And please don't confuse the Libertarian concept of the corporation with the -"conservative republican whom cnn calls libertarian"-'s concept of a corporation. The fact that there would be no corporate welfare in a free state is readily identifiable in the very definition of corporate welfare... i.e. (anti-competitive) legislation passed to allow companies to continue operation in spite of financial inviability.
Do you really believe that we bomb cities for Pepsi's benefit? Please. Corporations don't bomb cities because 1) dead people don't buy pepsi, 2) many living people don't buy Pepsi from people they know are murderers, 3) private armies are hideously expensive. 4) private armies are therefore notoriously poorly equipped, and would be easily defeated by any dedicated resistance. It is difficult enough to get soldiers of a free country to fight a war of aggression under a banner of national bigotry; getting them to scream "for the Inc." as they charge a machine gun bunker filled with people fighting for their homeland would be impossible, impractical, and stupid.
The one specific incident of "market failure" you mentioned was the recent "cremate monsanto" fiasco. Combined with the European boycotts, there are terribly distressing phenomena in themselves. Basically what is happening is that a local charismatic leader is using the Karnatakan's fear of the unknown, in this case the science behind genetic engineering, to destroy what is a terrific boon for India and other countries with huge, poor populations. In cases like this, someone is getting rich off of watching Monsanto's fields burn; I guarantee you it isn't the poor dumb farmers who are doing the burning. Unfortunately, it is their children who will starve because the huge increase in crop yields available through genetic engineering won't be realized. Of course, local activist groups will then claim market failure...
Using carefully engineered acts of terrorism-for-profit as an indicator of market failure is about as accurate as proudly placing the word 'libertarian' next to the word 'socialist'.
Rev Neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
If the reason is not banner hits, then can you please justify pissing a good portion of your users off several times a week with the innane rantings of a crazed lunatic?
/. readers feel about Katz. How many people read /. regularly but never post in the threads? I don't know, and I guess you don't either. (I'd like to know though, any staffers reading?)
There is simply _no_ way you can assume to know how the majority of all
"How do you know the person doesn't want to hear the preaching unless you try? The topic must be brought up before you can know."
:D
...and once you realize that they don't want to hear the preaching you can have them tortured and killed. Oh, oops...wrong century there.
(or at least I hope so...)
I'll back up CT here (not to be confused with CmdrTaco) and suggest its just like preaching the option of Linux to a person. How do you know a person doesn't want to be a Linux user until you make 'em try? For all we know, they could be perfectly happy in a blissful state of ignorance using Macs(or MS/whatever) when they could be in one using Linux.
Of course, I'm one who's perfectly happy with my own beliefs and if there are any problems between Jesus and I, he can tell me in person. Kind of a crude reasoning, I know...but I figure he loves me enough that he'd take a little time out of his busy schedule to do it himself so it could be done right. And I'd assume it'd be more of a message than just "RTFM!!!"
-Vel
Disclaimer: Before you choose to moderate this as "Troll" or "Flamebait" please take an enlightening course in "Sarcasm, Biting."
"This makes the assumption that the religious or spiritual part of a person's life is (or can be) compartmentalized. If so, it would be a hollow and useless spirituality! My walk with Christ permeates my entire life, from the way I read the newspapers (yes, I handle dead trees) to the way I design software, from the time I awake to the time I go to sleep. A person's faith influences their fundamental view on reality. It's impossible for me to take my faith out of any involvement I have in politics, education, and technology!"
Then you would understand when I kindly ask you to keep your religion from permeating my life.
-Vel
Me mad/ticked? Hehehe, nope.
:)
:)
ChristTrekker knows how easy it is to get me mad. He was an awful college roommate! *poke*
;)
(for everyone who didn't catch that, I was being sarcastic on the 'awful' part)
I'm try to respond to the two replies I got here. Its good to see that people still read the Bible. And anyone who hasn't...I strongly reccommend it. At the very minimum, its a compilation of some very good stories.
Do I want to wait until I see him in person? Yep. Jesus (for me, at least) is someone worth waiting for. Even if he doesn't exist, I'll still wait.
That doesn't mean until then I'll take a Faustian lifestyle of wine, women and vice. Its tempting but that's it (for me).
But I'm not one to go "Oh Lord, look at how I worship you and brag how great you are and how I know you're the One True Path and how everyone who believes differently is foolish and misguided. I also know that you put science there to test our faith..."
(Ok, I'll admit...you're probably not like that either and I do like to exaggerate a little.
But the fact is, I do take to heart the fundamental teachings Jesus brought to the world and I do my best to adhere to them and the 10 commandments. If you want, you can consider that worship. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I do know that my definition of worship(for me) is not to be put on some high pedestal with people going "I'm not worthy!" but rather, that people genuinely listen to my advice when I give it and take it to heart....at least to the point of evaluation. I always guessed that Jesus would kinda be the same way.
Of course, it could be a twist of irony for Jesus to really be alive and then on judgement day wipe out everyone except for the ones that sat there kissin' his ass.
(Pardon the crudeness.)
The thing that I always enjoy is the fact that if the whole Christianity hoopla is real and not some reason to keep monarchial rule an unquestionable government, we get to see Jesus and all that good stuff. Even if he smiles and says, "I believe you're taking the escalator down, my son." Won't atheists feel dumb.
And if there is no afterlife? No one's gonna be laughing at you anyway...you'll be worm food.
Perhaps he's speaking to you through me...*knock knock*
And perhaps not. Who knows, I can't verify that I'm God's messenger. I just know that I'm speaking what I honestly believe to be my Truth. Its your privilege to take it for whatever you feel its worth and as long as you do think about it (instead of blindly disregarding/accepting it) you do me honor. Simple as that.
That goes for anyone reading this as well...sorry for the rant.
-Veldrane
It certainly wasn't a single poster, but the combined efforts from the "I hate Jon Katz" union have made me sick to my stomache. Its almost like being a comp sci student again. Every person needs to be the smartest in the room and the proof isn't in the pudding, its in their attacks upon their classmates.
I also noticed that the negative posters beat everyone else to the finish line. Did any of you stop and contemplate the responses? Maybe I'm wrong, but I bet you all breezed through them, eyes open ONLY for inconsistency, and posted as quickly and as rudly as possible.
It fits in with the evolving trend of the non-AC's being more rude (except for the random off-topic spam) than AC's. Almost like trying to make a name for yourself?
And look at me flaming right back...
-crb
I suppose I'm not too threatening, presently, but wait till I start Nautilus
Mr. Katz,
I can't speak for the silent majority, and I wouldn't want to.
I can however, speak for myself, and I would like to thank you for writing your columns here. Thanks are also due to the people who are responsible for you posting here, and those who help you.
The best compliment that I can think to give a person is that you seem to have an open mind. I think a part of "human nature" is to make decisions without thinking about a subject at all. This is a part of human nature I feel we could do without.
The best compliment I can think to give to a writer is that he/she makes _me_ think. My favorite writers have always been those that expand my horizons, make me see things in ways I never have before. Many of those authors have gone to where I can no longer thank them, so I thank the ones I can.
I may not agree with everything you have to say, but I get the feeling that you think about what you write, and are trying to make a positive influence. I appreciate this.
>>>>>>>>> Kvort the Duck
-Don't mind me, I'm personality-deficient and mentally-impaired.
I think they do, but they are often lost in the fray. I know hemos has posted at least twice in the last three days, that I have read. I saw a post from 'linus travolds' but i assume it was a hoax. Point: from the pedestal of the editorial the author's voice is heard above the foray.
If they tried to back up or amend their commentary in the threads, it would either be lost, or would hurt their credibility. I think it's fine the way it is.
I agree with you, the author and the poster are the same, just at different levels of volume. That's why they get to be authors. I think there is a way to apply to be a writer for Slashdot, check the FAQs if you're interested. How cool would it be if you could have authors that reviewed eachother, or held dialogues based on the comments they received on their articles.
There is the moderation aspect where posts are given/taken points in accordance with the moderators opinion of it.
Rob's moderation systems have definitely made this better, and he thinks quite a bit about this issue.
The other part is the users preferences setting where you can ignore all posts below a certain threshold.
To me, steering software is the anti-thesis of community. I consider it self-censorship...
I found this article interesting.
Jon Kats Discovers Slashdot
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
What the hell are you talking about? With the exception of the high school students and the NSA (best I ever did was ex-NSA) I have traded email or spoken with all the types of people he mentioned. It's not really all that unheard of or difficult to do. (I'll also bet you never realized the NSA has satellite offices all over the country.)
You seem to thing that you have an unlimited forum here.
So do you.
Everyone join me in going to your preferences and blocking everythign by Jon Katz. You are abusive of your rights on slashdot and posts things that are definitly not News For Nerds.
So you are a fan of censorship? I'll bet if you could, would have all of Jon's articles removed (perhaps burned?) and prevent him from ever submitting again. It looks like you would be more abusive if you had the rights. I happen to think his posts (not all) are interesting and entertaining.
Also, How do you claim that you are read by highly technical linux geeks, when you rarely write about anything technical, much less a topic that can be highly technical.
So you're stereotyping "highly technical linux geeks" into drones who only read highly technical stuff? Come back to reality.
You shouldn't abuse your position. Contrary to what world you have created in your mind, you sir are not a technocrat.
He's abusing his position? How? I find it hard to believe you are a technocrat (what the hell is a technocrat, except the buzzword of the day) except in _your_own mind.
You are not respected,
Yes he is, just not by you. There are people out there who respect him.
your opinions are not well founded or much less explained in any fashion.
And yours are even less founded. (support at least one of your assertions)
All you do is sum up stories, dumb them down, then post them on slashdot.
A valuable resource for people who don't have the time to read through x hundred posts.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
As in:
I'll bet that at the least Bruce Perens will have the opportunity for an interview sooner or later.
(kinder butcher grammar)
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Perhaps it is that not enough people have asked for an interview with any of the other members of slashdot. I'll be that at the least Bruce Perens will have the opportunity for an interview sooner or later.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
I think he's just solidified why it is that I have him on my /. blocklist. If he doesn't do OSS or Linux or Biotech or Nanotech or Direct Star Wars Films then what is he really offering? If I read Car & Driver, it's because almost every one of those writers does know how an internal combustion engine works and probably disassembled and reassembled 3 of them this week.
/. is because the people talking are also the people generally doing Now, why don't they get RMS or Bob Young or Linus or some other person in the trenches to do a regular column. That would be super swell. I suppose it's because they're too busy doing to write about it.
This is one of the main reasons I come to
I would like to ask why you choose to air your articles on Slashdot. They are written from a non-technical point of view for a non-technical audience wholly unfamiliar with their subjects: Weblogs, the DVD controversy, the Linux revolution itself. Clearly, the Slashdot audience finds your articles insultingly simplistic. We are already familiar with these issues, often in more detail (technical and historical) than you, and by and large we are annoyed to have our opinions simplified and read back to us.
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?
Katz:
Ummmm... no, I don't agree with you. I think the subtext of this message isn't about how dumb I am, but how smart you think you are.
From Trinsic:
Umm yea I have to agree with katz, alot of slashdot readers think since they know more than most that simple people shouldnt post here, Im not a programmer, but I am very intrested in what goes on in the open source community, I think that the propriatary systems will be the thing of the past once plp see the merit of open souce systems.
Come on, Q*Bert, think about this. Would I still be here if that was really the view of the "Slashdot audience", whatever that may be? Would you be bothering even to write this question?
I don't mean to be snarky, but I must have been away when you were elected mayor of Slashdot, and spokesperson for the community. How do you know how everyone views my writing? Are you really saying that I should never write about privacy, genetics, open source, culture, books, movies, corporatism, media coverage of technology because you know all there is to know about it, and couldn't possibly learn anything more from any discussion? Sounds like it.
You also are wantonly inaccurate about Slashdot's audience, which is considerably wider than you seem to grasp, with varying levels of technical expertise, and which neither one of us is qualified to speak for. Happily, all kinds of people come through here, from programmers to housewives, and find the site interesting.
From Trinsic:
Yep I know all kinds of plp the read slashdot, dont be fooled that everyone here is a programmer extrordnare.
Intentional?
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
Actually, in Win2k IE5, they look like superscript 1s as well...
Thank you. I thought I was going to have to write that post. Many of the original 13 colonies were settled by religious groups escaping a government that was controlled by the major religion. That same gov't forced the major religion down the people's throats. Now, those same religious groups are trying to control government choices and, through gov't and media, are trying to force their religion down the peoples throats again.
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
This is actually the most interesting Katz article I've read thus far. Most of them are bland musings of a person who seems to think of himself as an intellectual. They're usually very boring to me, so I just skip them (though I sometimes see what the replies to them are because the flames are funny more often than not). This one is fairly decent, though Katz has no sense of humor and has a hard time getting over himself and his perception of himself as a writer. The most annoying thing about the whole thing are the superscript ones. Even though I'm reading this using Internet Exploder I'm still seeing them. No matter how many times people get onto Katz about the non-standard characters he still insists on using them. You'd think he'd listen and smarten up, but he keeps posting the same drivel in the same format. Dammit! The whole rambling thing must be contagious. I'll try to keep it brief. F' Katz!
I don't often agree with they guy, but come on!This is an interview! He's a verbose guy and he's answering questions. The fact that they espouse his opinions should surprise nobody.
pontificating about how intellectual and insightful he is and how stupid various people are for disagreeing with his assertions
Did you read the article? He is praising those that take the time to disagree with him with rational explanations. The "stupid" (your words, not his) people are the adolescent bozos that flame him, obviously without even bothering to read what he says.
He even went back to his old, tired arguments about how since he's written a bunch of books and articles that means he's a better writer (and therefore person) than anyone who would say otherwise
Where the heck did you read that? He wrote books. People who aren't writers don't write books. He is claiming that (constructive) feedback from
Claiming that he's a bad writer is your particular right. I don't like his writing much either, but at least I don't make stuff up about what he's saying.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
sparkane, your statement is empty. It will remain empty until you point out to us where Porcupine acts like a teenager, and why you feel that his actions are those that could only be perpetrated by a teenager.
The fact remains that Katz has no basis whatsoever for painting the whole posting crowd at Slashdot with the same brush.
At several places in his interview he states that it's the fact that this is a "from the ground up" community and the fact that the posters challenge him and criticize him that makes Slashdot so interesting. It's seems pretty strange that he turns around and calls everyone who posts here a teenager if he does indeed appreciate *all* of our comments so much.
I don't care if he gets pissed off or hurt when he's flamed. I do take offense when he states that flames do not bother him, when he acts like they truly do. I get angry when I'm flamed, but you don't see me going around and glorying in the fact that I read every single flame I get.
As for the fact that he made such a broad generalization about the readership, where does he get off? He strongly criticized one of the posters who made his own generalized assumptions about the readership.
Katz has much more than his share of hypocrisy for my taste.
The thing is, judging by the majority of *posts* that show up after a Katz article, it is true that most of the *posters* find the articles to be simplistic. As for people who email Katz and don't post, how are they participating in the slashdot community? If they have such wonderful things to say about Katz, why won't they post them, at least under AC if not (for some reason known only to them) under their own names?
It's well and good for Katz to tell us about all the wonderful glowing email he gets all the time, but that attitue is *not* reflected in the comments. You can try and get around this by telling me that it's a vocal minority that posts, and the rest just lurk or keep quiet, but as in USENET, this argument doesn't hold water. If you're not going to be an active part of the community, you shouldn't be counted on either side. I'm sure there's a lot of people who loathe Katz that don't bother to post *or* email, but you don't see any anti-Katz people bringing them in as some type of "take my word for it, they're on my side" support.
...is that you push your own religious ideals onto others. senator joe smith may be a devout christian and feel that christian ideals should be promoted in his politics. senator bob jones may be a devout hindu and believe that hindu ideals should be promoted in his politics. etc, ad infinitum. this will only lead to religious conflicts (which is a touchy subject to many people). america was founded on the ideals of utilitarianism and fairness. there was a reason that jefferson and others strongly believed in the separation of church and state. after all, state religion is the original reason the puritans moved to america in the first place. the day there is a state religion in the usa is the day (if i haven't already) that i'm moving ANYWHERE there isn't.
obviously some politicians will be religious. there is no reason to think otherwise and no reason for politicians to not be religious. however, when making public policy, it is the duty of public officials to not let their philosophical viewpoints influence their decisions! when making a law that makes murder illegal (for example), senator smith should not vote yes on that law because the bible says so; he should vote yes because it is the interest of the public that murder should be illegal. this utilitarian sort of approach allows religion to exist in the private lives of public people without infringing on the rights of anyone.
you say that there are many religions in UK schools. i don't think you would enjoy this very much if one day your precious young one came home a convert of the very anti-thesis of your religion (you say you are christian, so let's say junior picked satanism). if they are allowed to teach many religions, how can you keep your children from deciding to be one you don't like?
I'm sorry, but that's it.
This guy really does qualify as a gas bag.
Did he REALLY have to write a 10 page response to each question?
And did he REALLY have to take such a demeaning attitude?
I've had enough, watch right now as I move Katz articles into my ignore list (along with Patent and DOJ articles.) I just want the geek stuff man!).
It looked to me like Katz was calling it like he sees it.
To be honest, I was also somewhat insulted by the tone of Q*bert's question because while I consider myself a reasonably intelligent college grad from a good school with a major focusing on computer science, half of the stuff on slashdot goes WAAAY over my head, partly due to me spending my time as a fighter pilot not a programmer. In any case, it's refreshing to hear commentary on "...but what does it MEAN?" instead of mere description. From my limited perspective, most of the flames directed against Katz are entirely opinion and style based, which seems about right for a writer with his stated objectives.
But that's just me, I could be wrong.
Actually, you can tell from the suerscript-one's that Jon doesn't use a Unix box either. He in fact typed the text on a Mac.
The oldest Mac-charset to ISO-charset converters will turn Macintosh curly-quotes into ISO-8859-1 superscript-one characters, because the ISO encoding doesn't contain curly-quote entities. (For more information, read these Guidelines to use 8-bit character codes.)
As for speculation about which product might be doint this to his writing: I have Microsoft Office 98 for Macintosh, and Word does not do this when I save curly-quotes either as text or as html. This is a guess, but a more likely culprit is the Fetch FTP application, which has a setting that controls whether Fetch does ISO-charset to Macintosh-charset conversion of data in text file transfers. The default setting of this option is "on", which would lead to the corruption in Jon's posted answers.
For more reading, see
There are entirely too many comments regarding how Katz spouts off about things he is obviously clueless (relative to the majority of /.) about. Personally, I believe this is the purpose of Katz writing here in the first place.
/. for the discussion, for the disagreement. That's the beauty of being technically orientated. You learn very quickly to deal with disagreement, and hopefully to learn/grow from it.
/. will turn into a breeding ground for the corporate teflon warrior mentality. Someone please disagree with me :)
Sure, Katz's articles don't fit well into "News for Nerds", but I believe that they do fit into "Stuff that matters." Most technical people have a tendency (gift?) to be extremely focused, this is afterall how we're able to deal with the complexity of what we do. But due to this focus we also have a great deal less flexibility in understanding the impact of the things we do. Katz is here to give us his panoramic view.
I don't know about everyone else here, but I personally read
Katz's opinions should be valued as much as purely technical nit-picking (peer review). If for no other reason than perhaps he sees something that we don't, due to our focus.
Maybe if we can all logically understand the need for varying viewpoints we can use our unique abilities to create a better place for everyone. We are the ones building the information infrastructure. We need to ensure it's stable. With the additional insight, maybe we can nip things like the DVD fiasco in the bud. Or maybe I'll get flamed to hell and
News for Nerds >and< Stuff that matters. Keep that in mind.
You hardly ever seem to contribute to the threads that arise in response to your writings -- probably you're too busy
How often have you veer seen Rob or Jeff comment in the threads? Although it would be nice, I am sure they are busy enough choosing form the 100's of articles submitted / hour.
is why Katz considers himself to be the voice of all us geeks. Aside from the fact that many of use here at /. resent him and/or his work, I'd like to know how he thinks he actually relates to geek culture. I'm not talking about the tech issue again, though that is evident too. I'm just wondering how a middle aged married man who has a college aged kid and grew up way before computers, the internet and modern geek culture became prevelant feels he can relate and understand the issues of a community which he seems to think is composed mainly of young people in the teens and 20's.
I'm sure that when he writes for real magazines they cut him down. You only have limited space for magazine articles and this forces you to be a little less wordy.I wish he would keep it to 5,000 bytes or less.
Would slashdot be better off without him? Probably not, who else would we have to kick around?
But there should be some other writers to balance him. Here is an idea, have Slashdot hold a open audition for columnists. Create a new thread for it and take posts from everyone as if they were feature articles. By that I mean they should be long enough to be a feature and can be on any topic. Out of these take the best ten and pay them to do it again. Then just keep the writers that cause the best discussion.
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
I may not be the first to notice this, but I think is *certainly* bears noting that recently there have been many 200+ message news articles, and among these I have not seen a single post moderated to score 4 or 5. Maybe I'm paranoid, or maybe the posts have been remarkably devoid of content as of late... (this is entirely possible. :), but I think that this is unusual enough to bear noting.
> What gives you a reason to attack me?
I didn't mean to attack you, and I apologize if it sounded that way. I'm not his lap dog or pet hedgehog though.
I do think that one of Jon's most (or only?) outstanding features is that he is willing to see the world from two or three different perspectives and analyze each as if they were his own. While I do agree that he has trouble making his points clear, I do not think that he's contradicting himself (as in "his real opinion") all that much.
Maybe the thing that causes all the misunderstandings is the fact that you never know where in the text he's changing the viewpoint.
In his eyes, moderation software might make an otherwise disgusting forum look much more useful to the average dude. A few paragraphs later he complains that discussion boards shouldn't employ that kind of software anyway, because it might prevent a few valuable posts from being seen. Still later, he sees it as the devil, although I still have to find out exactly what's his reasoning behind that.
To me, these are three valid opinions, expressed by the same person. This "multi-view" kind of style he has obviously leads to a lot of confusion, since he lacks the skills to communicate these ideas properly. This might also be the reason for the length of some of his stuff - he's just trying to explain as well as he can.
I really think he's on to something here. Presenting multiple opinions in such a chaotic way simply makes people think, or it just makes them angry as hell. Maybe they'll still think things through while they're upset though.
Not even all of his texts are written that way, I just thought I had seen some of that in this interview. When he's in "undercover reporter" mode interviewing other people, his columns read like the average magazine article. The Geeks excerpt sounded much more relaxed than the regular Katz, there was less rush, less chaos. I think it's astounding that one single person can have so many ways of writing without having formal education on the subject.
You're free to say that Katz doesn't belong here, and that he should keep his hypocritical ramblings to himself. I for one think that the diverse stuff he writes and _how_ he writes it offer quite a lot of insight into how Joe Average perceives the tech world. And Joe Average might love the moderation system, while Jon Katz will always hate it. At least he's trying to tell both sides of the story.
**Actually it depends on the standards. People complain when they aren't "picked". This is natural. People also complain when a (in their opinion) useless windbag doesn't have to be picked because he is both the writer and editor of his pieces. **
/. editors choose what to post, and we tell them what we think of their choices so they can serve us better. One part of this arrangement only neccessitates the other, it doesn't eliminate it. **
/. is a hobby by someone that has gotten out of hand, tho not in a bad way, and is now viewed as a RIGHT by some people.
Okay.. now, we ALL know, from reading the editorial pages, that people who agree usually dont pick up pen and paper, but people who DO disagree write vociferously against what they disagree with. Taking the standard response to a Katz column, of @300 posts, you can hack at LEAST half of them off as A.C. crap, first posts, and outright flames, so that leaves us with @150 posts.. now.. out of that 150.. what, probably 25% are dupes or the same person responding back.. so you figure slightly over 100 posts are ACTUAL people posting ACTUAL comments.
Now.. I have a hard time believing that the ENTIRE slashdot community is represented by those 100 posts, nor that ALL of them disagree with katz. (certainly over 50%.. but not all).
So.. here we find out, that due to what is almost certainly a minority opinion, (katz sucks) he should not get posted at all, or someone (rob, nate, someone) should be forced to edit his writing?
I disagree.. I think Katz has a right to say what he wants, freely and unedited.
I saw someone say "why he continues to write longwindedly in a medium that requires brevity".. I disagree heartily. I suspect if you dont want to actually READ the entire piece, you shouldnt be reading.. wait.. that sounds too harsh.. lets just say if you want New York Daily News style headlines with no substance, READ the Daily News.. I would rather read the comparatively verbose Wall Stree Journal and LEARN the facts, not just a 30 second blurb on the news.
**And, yes, the
"serve us better"? "serve" insinuates a paid relationship.. now.. i see people whining about the single add I see at the top of Slashdot.. it has never bothered me.. but the fact that some people expect to be "served" by something they put 0 dollars into, and, basically, 0 work into, seems ludicrous to me.
Im more than happy to skip articles I dont want to read, and dont feel the need to read them, knowing I dont like the subject matter, then post stating the obvious, that I dont like the subject matter.
I would rather spend my time, energy, and bandwidth reading and supporting things I like.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
I gotta say.. I have more respect for Katz than I did before.
/. to pick and choose our stories for us. What strikes me as funny is the number of people who WANT the editors to censor Katz, to the point of removing him entirely, yet complain bitterly when their post gets moderated down, or when an article they submit does not make it on the page. *tsk tsk* Guess it depends on whose bull is getting gored.
My take is: this dude is just voicing his opinion, as you, or I do on a daily basis. I find myself speaking to my knowledgeless co-workers about topics they dont understand, and he does the same, granted to a wider audience. THe difference, I suspect, is that HE gets published, while WE do not. sure.. his message wont hit EVERYONE square on, but it does make me think about things, even if I dont necessarily agree 100%.
As far as the avenue goes.. hey.. its a free country, you are not FORCED to read something.. and I still think its up to the people who run
As for the "religion" portion.. RIGHT ON JOHN! YOu hit it SQUARELY on the head IMHO.. a LOT of people band together under the flag of "Xianity" who dont belong there, which is why I choose to call myself pagan.. I dont follow the catholic church, or the baptist, etc etc, I follow the bible, as best I can. But taking ANY dogmatic approach decided by some dude in a pointy white hat in Rome and decreeing it as the final word of god seems silly, stupid, and kind of ridiculous to me, so YES.. keep the "church" *(read organization, NOT read "morals") OUT of technology, school, and etc. Any time you PRESCRIBE a faith, you exclude.. give people the right to make moral decisions based on the laws and stop brow beating them, and the world WILL be a better place.
Anyway, keep up the good work, Katz.. I, for one, actually LIKE you pieces.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
I was halfway through my right-click procedure to open this up when I froze. What was I doing? Almost gave the Firewall boys something interesting to do today. They just love catching pr0n surfers.
I would have to agree with most of Jon's thoughts on organized religion. I think I can probably sum my point pretty easily.
1. Any group which pressures you to think and act like the group, and is completely intolerant to criticism of their ideals, is BAD.
2. Any group which preaches intolerance of a persecuted minority because "they're evil in God's eyes" is BAD. To give a very specific example, I have a Christian friend who believes that being gay is akin to worshipping the devil, only because "Being gay goes against God's plan" or some other nonsense.
3. Give me a reason why organized religion is good. This is not a joke, I'm serious. Why set rules for yourself if you don't have to? I'm sure God is perfectly happy to have you pray to Him/Her in the privacy of your own home. Why make it a chore?
If you feel like having a conversation about the topic, I can be reached by email.
--
pdubroy AT yahoo DOT com
But here it is again, the next pundit talking about geeks this and geeks that and power this and alienation that. But take a good look at the definitions of "geek" that, for example, ESR wrote up (and that ring true to me): "geek" was and is a term of derision and hostility, and you shouldn't use it on someone unless you'd be proud to identify as one yourself. Well, look above what Katz thinks.
Katz is basically writing about us, peddling another book about us, getting exposure and income from us, over our backs and years of isolation to the culture we have become, and as a sublime example of the calloussness with which he approaches his next cash-cow, he keeps calling his subjects by epithets of very complex usage like 'niggers' and 'fags'. Any heterosexual who calls me a fag can be sure to met qith quite a lot of suspicion. Same goes for non-technical people randomly talking 'bout geeks.
And to top it off, he just doesn't get the revolution in communications and technology that well. Just witness his problems with the moderation system and what he thinks it does to civil discourse - eventhough the moderation system, the creation of individual trust-based networks of vetos and fiats, is what saving civil discourse in a marketing-numbed over-connected world in which every channel eventually descends into insipid anchorperson hawking of tooth-paste grins.
I think geek culture desrves geek journalism, and not to be examined like some odd out-there tribe by yet another uberculture "journalist" who grew up professionally among such publications awash in cynical marketing and demographics peddling like Rolling Stone. We all know he is waiting for the next best thing to come along.
I think many readers of Slashdot sense on some level that he isn't "one of us". And as misused and dangerous the "one of us" sentiment is and has been in groups, as much as it has been misused againts geeks themselves and we should be wary of it, we have good reasons to be suspicious of other people bearing gifts; all too often, they ended up just wanting us to do their homework all over again.
Just hardcode a protection preventing ppl from creating users such as hemos. or whatever...?
Daniel
Carpe Diem
rofl :-P Daniel
Carpe Diem
Isn't it funny? This comment, which I felt fairly satisfied with, at least one other person thought was great, and several thought interesting enough to write substantial responses to, didn't move a bit. However, this article, which was just a random-thought-in-passing, got bumped to a 3.
Sorry, I was just amused and had to say something. :-)
Constitutionally Correct
How are trillions upon trillions of random chances (Big Bang + Evolution) a simpler solution than creation by God? I'll take one event with purpose rather than a google purposeless events any day.
Constitutionally Correct
As if the handle weren't enough to tell you. :)
You're correct. Religion has no place in politics. The U.S. gov't lives by the idea of separation of church and state. Note that it is church and state. Church, as in the organized institutions run by mankind. It's not a separation of God and state.
In defense of the Christian right, they are by and large are just people trying to do what they think is right - like anyone else. Many Christians see gov't today as drifting away from the moral foundation it was based on. For Christians, morality derives only from God. (If it derived from man, it ends up being "whatever I feel like today" and not a constant. Moral relativism is doomed to failure.) The abusive interpretation of church/state separation as God/state separation in recent years is what's wrong, which the Christian right wants to rectify.
Jesus taught us to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Paul, in 1 Timothy, encourages us to pray for our leaders. The bible makes it pretty clear that people in position of human authority are there because it is part of God's plan, but it is also clear that the human authorities are under God's authority. Modern gov't seems to have forgotten that. That's what concerns the Christian right the most, IMO. There's a higher authority than the president, Senate, or Supreme Court. Thinking otherwise is hubris, and a sin. We need to remember God as a part of our lives as individuals, and we can't just leave Him out of our corporate (group) lives either. You can't say, "It's fine to have God at home, but leave Him behind when you come to Washington." It doesn't work that way. He must be the Lord of all, or He isn't Lord at all.
As far as censorship... There are some things that are not godly. They don't promote a godly lifestyle. Christians honestly believe that the world would be a better place without them. So while Christians believe in and defend free speech because it is a "good", we also detest pornography because it is an "evil".
As far as technology... People are scared of what they don't understand. Christogeeks aren't scared of the 'Net, but then, we understand it. Christians are concerned (rightly, IMO) about the ease of access to illicit materials on the 'Net. It's one more avenue to ungodly things to watch out for, as if it weren't already hard enough to watch out for muggers, rapists, kidnappers, and drug pushers. Most communities don't want adult bookstores to move in next door, yet that's almost what the 'Net does. However, most people (not just Christians) don't know enough about it to realize that saying "the 'Net is evil and should be stopped!" is akin to saying "adult bookstores owners should be shot!" You don't shoot the messenger because of the message he carries. Some of what it/he does is bad, but that's not the way to remedy the problem.
As far as bio and bio-tech issues, I think Christians are (again, rightly) concerned about human cloning, etc. Human life is a sacred thing. That's why murder is a sin! God also makes marriage a sacred thing. He realizes that two people coming together is a very special thing, and within that marriage is the only place He considers right for creating new life. This is why human cloning is a concern. It's not God's idea for how things are to be.
OK, so maybe I'm rambling a bit now, so I'll stop. I just wanted to try to explain why the Christian right do the things they do. I don't believe it is to "push for censorship, attack culture and technology, and force a certain kind of moral values on people who don't necessarily want them" just for the sake of doing it. Christians genuinely believe that some things aren't godly and thus shouldn't be seen; that some parts of culture promote ungodly things; that some technology could be misused for the above and thus should be regulated. They believe God's way is the best way, the only way, and want the world to a better place. God's way defines moral values. Not following Him is called sin, and we're all guilty. Fortunately, His love is supreme, and He's given us an "out" through His Son.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him would not die, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
To sum up, I think it would be wrong for the Christians not to be involved in politics. Politics affects us all, and who's to say, "Because we don't like your views, you can't participate." We want to make a stand for what God says is right. Isn't that a worthwhile goal? We may not always get it right, but who does? We're all imperfect. We'll keep on trying to "promote charity, tolerance, generousity, love and peace." The one thing we cannot tolerate or love, because God does not, is sin. Jesus did not just tolerate people, he loved them. He never once told a sinner, "I accept the sin you are doing as OK," but he always said, "I accept you as you are, now go and sin no more."
When I started, this was the third post.
Constitutionally Correct
If you're saying there's no "cause and effect" in Christianity, you've obviously never met anyone who's been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. I've seen amazing transformations in people's lives that can be attributed to nothing else. Something radical happened to those people. That something was an encounter with God.
I won't even go into the miracles I alone have seen, or the many others that are reported and documented, that defy natural cause and effect explanations. God is real. I've seen the effects, He is the cause.
Constitutionally Correct
See, I'm not sure that we do "all know who the culprits are". I think you're assuming that they're mostly adolescents who will grow out of their hostility over time.
But I think the question raises the interesting possibility that these may well be college students or graduates as well. Perhaps their hostility is ingrained, and will not be washed out with time. Perhaps the anonymity of this forum has provided them their opportunity to show their true colors.
So, a fair enough answer, but I think the question itself deserves more thought than the "Oh, I think we all know who they are" answer gives it.
Charles
AAaaahhhh my eyes. I read Katz's name in your
post and it forced me to read the rest of the article.
My IQ has dropped two points and it's your fault Slashdot!
DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
Wow, people... cut the guy some slack! If every writer out there would take a stand for what (s)he believes in and write about the issues as (s)he sees it, the media and the world would be a better place. We should appreciate that our community is diverse enough to entertain all sorts of opinions; why have a community if it were not so?
And I wish some people would _read_ the article before posting their anti-Katz rhetoric. All the reflex-flaming just strengthens some of the old boy's points.
wooo, time for class.
Tetris rules.
I'm not a big fan of Katz, nor do I loathe him. Here are a couple of reasons why Katz shouldn't be writing for slashdot.
I'm not going to attack Mr Katz or anything. But something must be said for his writing and Slashdot's tenacious cling to his name. I haven't read all that much Katz but I've seriously read enough to notice he makes sweeping generalization after sweeping, ignorant generalization. His articles are too long and way too full of fluff to be considered useful.
We all know why generalizations are bad, and probably all of the Slashdot community knows how it produces bad writing. The community knows the lives of it's members, it knows that while we all like to spend time using our computers, our time is very limited and long, dramatic articles with very little factual value are useless and contribute to the amount of noise (yes, i do realize that I am doing just that now, but I am not a feature writier, I am keeping my opinion where it belongs, in a slashdot reply).
I'm not going to sit here on my lazy, biligerent troll butt telling you why I think John Katz is a terrible writer, but I am going to tell you that his style of writing and the content with which he fills his articles doesn't belong here at slashdot. I'm going to speak for the community at large here, we don't need his types of opinions, opinions that we all already form as first reactions, or opinions that we all dismiss in the first ten or 15 seconds after reading a bit of news.
Slashdot should stick to producing articles that are short and contain well, i'd say %85 fact. Let all the opinions breed and mutate in the replies. Users who wish to filter out noise never find themselves in the replies section browsing opinions, they form their own from the articles themselves. I'm not saying opinions are useless (they can be more useful than the actual facts they're based on) but they certainly should be segregated as much as possible from fact in a publication such as this.
A good example is voices from the hellmouth. While I think that Katz really has his finger on the pulse of each and every one of us geek readers here in his articles, I strongly believe that hellmouth has no business here on slashdot (as is the case with many other katz articles). His writings belong in magazines like rolling stone, like playboy, his appearances belong on TV shows like good morning america, like oprah. He is so obvious and non informative to geeks that his articles and opinions tend to be extremely redundant. They are still very valuable, but should target an audience that needs "dumbing down" when it comes to explaniations of geek lifestyle and mindset.
Above all else, above my utterly insignificant and meaningless opinion, there is the opinion of the slashdot community at large. This opinion, bottom line, states that slashdot readers do not want to read any more Katz. While this magazine is the property of all our well known, furry slashdot editors, I think they have an obligation to their readers. They too were once voiceless geeks, that's probably why they created slashdot in the first place.
I tried to keep this as rant free and focused as possible, but if I digressed, I want you to know my main point was to show how Katz's articles really don't belong here and how slashdot's editors really need to start reading the replies at the end of his article posts.
-------
She came in through the bathroom window...
-AC
Or more like a flame bot piped through the enCheferizer (bork bork bork!)
Slashdot is news for nerds. That means games, Star Wars, and technology.
BTW, I sure hate to see another AC go, I'm going to miss all the ASCII art.
"When I think of Christianity, I think of a faith that at its core, promotes charity, tolerance, generousity, love and peace."
Yeah, but...
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." [John 3:16-18 NIV]
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." [John 14:6]
Jesus himself says he's it. If you don't believe in him dying for your sins, you're out. That's what a Christian is. Christians who just try to live out a moral life skip over these important verses. Leave his resurrection out, you're a Christian no longer.
I've been going back and forth on the whether-I-like-Katz issue lately. The big problem is that the articles are so very long. I mean 28k and only answered 7 questions. Thats a long interview.
The big problem I see is that Slashdot in general has very little tolerance for long anythings. The internet is a community more for sound bites than long discourse and Katz doesn't quite fit that. An average Katz article is repetitive and doesn't concisely say what he means. You know the article's thesis, but it just keeps hammering on it for paragraph after paragraph. Perhaps if there were more time to write and condense, but topics on Slashdot tend to get old fast too. Such is the nature of the medium. Often Katz's topics have already been beaten to death in the threads by the time his article comes out as well. That's one reason why people seem so annoyed. After all, why is his opinion worth so much more than ours?
As for grammar and such, thats an excuse. Frankly the grammar around here, mine included, is attrocious. Grammar is what works. If its understandable, its good. Why stand on ceremony and specifics?
I liked Katz work at Hotwired. He sat up and said that geeks were taking over the world. We couldn't be held down and here's stuff we need to do as we climb the ladder. His current articles just don't seem to capture that spirit. They're more reactionary than proactive.
IMHO, what slashdot really needs is a voice for the under-represented. There are too many posts in threads that languish because they get drowned out or are not popular with moderators. Its sad because slashdot has an increasing mob mentality that is killing real discussion on many levels. Most of the good counter opinion posts have conspicous "MODERATE UPS" in their replies. We are badly in need of a community conscience and a devils advocate.
Wow, I start out critizing Katz for long windedness and then I write this monster of a post. I guess I'm a hypocrit. Oh well. Probably be stuck at 1 anyway.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
The real difference between atheists and theists is that atheists know how to apply Occam's Razor.
If this were really that simple, then it would seem Occam wasn't very good at using his own razor, since he was a Franciscan monk and theologian! If you think it ought to be so obvious, why didn't he notice or something?
There's three kinds of people who post here on /.:
/. can...a journalistic opinion. Sure, he can say things about DeCSS that we already know, but the thing that's great is he offers not an overview, but an opinion, and a professional one at that. Granted, I usually don't agree with him either, but I'd rather see a different perspective on an issue than my own pig-headed one!
...or something to that effect.
1) The hard-core computer users, mainly those who specialize deeply in some area of computers, like programming, Linux, BSD, BeOS, applications, etc.
2) Thosw who aren't too in-depth about computers but enjoy working with them and love to learn more about them from the Group #1 users.
3) Those who are here to flame.
The great thing about John Katz is he lies in group number two, and he offers something that very few people on
JK, if you're reading this comment (even though there are probably going to be at least 500 by the day's end), a few things popped into my head while reading your interview...
About Anonymous Cowards...
But youre asking honest questions and you deserve honest answers, and the truth is, AC's have increasingly made Slashdot's Threads a laughingstock on the Web.
How bout this...create a moderation post for Anonymous Cowards. Have them write a message and post it as just "Anonymous," then before it's posted, either get it listed as "Anonymous Flame," "Anonymous Coward," or "Intelligent Anonymous Coward."
And then, something short and sweet to add to your comments about religion...
I believe religion has no place in politics, education or technology.
I agree with you, because religion can often be a scapegoat for lobbyists, protestors, parents, and so many other political groups, but here's what I believe...
I believe that religion has no place in politics, education, or technology, but the moral ethics taught by Christianity should be present everywhere.
No, you give me a break. I have no problem whatsoever if you're not a Christian. But the etchical practices are hardly bizzare. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Sound bizzare? Not by the least bit.
And what about the 10 Commandments? We have people now who aren't Christian but say that they think that they should be posted in schools across the country! Why? Because it's ethical, and it's something that people should understand and reflect upon!
Guess what? You're living in a country that was founded on Christian Ethics!
Well said, if a bit long-winded. I guess the paid-by-the-line habit is difficult to break.
.
The stab at Q*bert was pointed and right on target.
The only way I can perceive civil discussions happening on sites like this is if topics were clearly identified, people were required to post under some form of recognizable ID. .
There is a long Katz-like essay waiting to be written about the relationship between anonymity and the notion of *free-speech* prevalent on the 'net. The anonymity of the 'net is akin to the anonymity of the mob and enables the same sort of unregulated animal behaviour. The self-regulation imposed by the knowledge that ones utterance is being weighed by ones interlocutors carries little weight here, much less than in a true public forum where the shock/horror/outrage of ones listeners is immediately registered on their faces.
While it is true that the many-to-many relationships engendered by the new media shatter the incipient facism Bertolt Brecht and others have identified in radio and other broadcast media, it conversly enables the kind of brutishness formerly the exclusive domain of mob-psychology.
Care to take a stab at it, Jon?
anonymity != privacy; anonymity != free speech
illegitimii non ingravare
I was especaially interested to read Jon's comments on Christianity. I am a committed Christian, and couldn't agree more with his criticisms of the contemporary Church. When people say to me 'what denomination are you' I say 'I'm Christian' for exactly the reasons Jon gave.
I think the whole censorship/education debate is a difficult one. It's dificult because althought the Christians are very extreme, it's normal to be as loud and extreme as possible when campaigning for an issue (although I'm not saying that I agree with any or all of these campaigns). Schools are not non-religious. Increasingly in the UK schools are poly-religious, and in the US, as I understand it, many schools would consider themselves athiest. Athiesm is in fact a religion in the sense that it is a standpoint of faith: you cannot prove that God exists any more than you can prove that He doesn't. One can only look at the available evidence and make a leap of faith: Christians make a leap in one direction; athiests in the other.
Despite this, I think that Christians should be campaigning for variety of teaching rather than oppressions: the truth should speak for itself.
Anyway, that was my 2c worth (I'm British to perhaps I should say 2p); thanks for listening!
A couple weeks ago I emailed Jon and asked him if he would consider being more present in the discussion threads. My main point was that I thought the /. discussions would benefit a lot more if he took part in them occationally. We had quite an exchange of emails, some misunderstandings, but in the end it was a great thing to have happened. I was impressed how he responed to every email I sent, sometimes more than once. Jon cares deeply about his writing and about his interaction with people. I think he wants to post a lot more often than time permits; he is a very busy guy as you could imagine. At the same time, he doesn't want to interfere with the natural discussion of his article. He posted a brief explaination of this here
I don't mean to speak for Jon (sorry!) so please don't take it that way...I only wanted to share my story and maybe give a glipse into whats going on.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Your own post proves you wrong, have you no ability for comprehension?
Signal 11 says: It's a rare person indeed who draws such an intense response from the geeks and slashdotters amongst us
So, here we have Signal 11 calling Katz rare. Are you so intent on Katz bashing that you can't see that yourself? I could (and should) stop here, but I'll move on and comment on this:
Katz responds: I am very proud to be a rare person, and however you meant it, I thank you
For those of you who cannot pick up on subtly, Katz is playing off the word "rare" and choosing to take it as a compliment. If Signal 11 hadn't called him a rare person, Katz would have never had reason to say such a thing. It was an excellent way to deflect a slightly negative question.
In case you didn't notice, this was a flame, and a very well deserved one.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
That last remark was dumb. He had, imo, a valid point to make there. He could have made it without coming off like a jackass.
Well....religion in school is VERY touchy..i dont want my kids [none yet] to be forced to practice [insert religion]. But like in school, we should learn about each......taught in an objective view, not a bias view [very tough], sticking to the 'facts' and seeing miricales as 'possabilities'. To each his own....but God has saved me by His son. D~y
Wacked-Support NT
[regaurding religion posting] Ok, I am not very familiar w/ the guy......but, he sounds decently bright. I am a 'ChristoGeek", Christ belongs in Life [lifestyle/everyday] and not just in polotics/school. I am not a closet Christian....I share my faith, I am a BibleThumper..but I do not speak to those who do not wish to hear. I agree that the whole 'christian' religion has changed, and alot is not 'bible centric'. This needs to change. Anyways, before I get off topic, all people should have an open mind, most 'true' Christians do. :) Rock on.... www.collectivethoughts.org
Wacked-Support NT
Hi- I am a Christogeek as Simeon2000 calls us. And I agree with John Katyz when he talks about most "Christians" today. But I must say that most religions and non-religious beliefs are affected by people saying they believe a certain thing when in fact they pick and choose the parts they want to agree with and ignore the rest. I am hurt and bothered every time I see some one you Christ to raise money for themselves, to belittle someone who doesn't believe as they do, and all the other horrible things that so called Christians do. But it bothers me how people will jump on any person who says something bad about the so called Christians and call them anti-religion. Kevin
----- When it is dark enough, men see stars.
That said, your critique of him was, IMHO, completely unjustified: "...each one pontificating about how intellectual and insightful he is and how stupid various people are for disagreeing with his assertions."
Where did you see that? He said (repeatedly :-) that he had no problem with anybody disagreeing with his assertions, that he reads the points, thinks about it, changes his mind occasionally based on the exchange of these ideas, etc. What he objects to is the personal attacks, and I agree with him 100%.
"He even went back to his old, tired arguments about how since he's written a bunch of books and articles that means he's a better writer..."
Where does he say that? He clearly admits to his shortcomings as a writer, explains some of them, hopes to do better, and apologizes for the shoddiness in some of his past work!
"...(and therefore person) than anyone who would say otherwise."
You are way out of line here. He never gives a hint of implying this. Not to get personal (heh), but you seem to be one of those with a Katz obsession. At least, you seem to be responding to something you invented in order to hate it.
"Yeah, I know, "You don't have to read it."
Damn right! His stuff is pretty clearly labelled.
"Yes, and I'd rather not waste the bandwidth on downloading his blurbs or on the aggrivation that I get from accidentally reading them.)"
Accidentally reading them? Give me a break! Besides, what about those of us who enjoy reading about something a little thought provoking with regard to technology? Or is the future of /. going to be all about grits down the pants and dead monkeys?
Totally agree. A second opinion would do two good things:
1) force Katz to respond to another high visibility opinion, and thus increase quality
2) give anti-Katz folks someone else to rail on (2 scapegoats are better than one...)
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
After reading Katz' reply to q*bert, I totaly lost any respect I may have had for him.
/. community then reads it back to us (which I agree is offensive).
/.").
/. poll on wether /.'ers feel katz belongs here on /. or on ZDnet.
/. readers combined.
Q*Bert was totaly correct in stating that Katz dumbs down the opinions of the
An example is Katz standard form trolls of "computers and technology are good, censorship bad"... no kidding Jon.
His outright arogance in responding to that question is astounding! He starts right off demeaning Q*bert in an attempt to discredit him ("mayor of
I'd like to see a
NH
Disclaimer: I don't know who Q*bert is, so I'm not defending him in a personal way, I'm merely offended at how katz responded. Also, I'm not a member of the anti katz jihad, I just think he is often out of line, misinformed, and more of an ass then any given handful of
(set threshold -5 to read this comment)
Why, we'd see even more people flaming away. First of all, no one would be fooled. Katz has a certain style that, if his writings were jumbled in with another dozen anonymous Slashdot article writers, would be easily identifiable. Slashdot readers would get mad that Rob tried to deceive them, and they'd flame away even more. }:P
A solution I thought of:
Give all Anonymous Cowards a number (and some kind of password) that they could reuse if they wanted.
You could always get a new AC # any time you wanted, but it would also allow ACs to have somewhat meaningfull conversations, without the danger of trolls jumping in and making it impossible for moderators or anyone else to tell who is who. Call it meta-anonymity? ;-)
Steve
If I had any moderator points left, I'd bump you up myself!
JimD
It<sup>1</sup>s not exactly on topic, but I couldn<sup>1</sup>t help but notice this annoyance, too.
Ok, guys: What<sup>1</sup>s the answer?
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
nt
.oO0Oo.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Anonymous Flame
.oO0Oo.
Anonymous At Work
Anonymous 1-800 You Suck
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I will try to remember that in the future.
P.S. Oddly enough, My nick is also my real name. As an occasional artist, writer, actor, and haunted house does-a-lot-of-stuff-including-the-airbrushed-makeu p-guy, I've gotten paid under my nick on a regular basis.
-----
No Zen is good zen
I think you have hit on the basis for a subject that has come up recently with all these DDoS attacks: a new social contract. If some of these people posting useless information could sit back, and follow some of the things you brought up, they might learn and even contribute something. Everyone might be better for it.
This forum can be powerful, and it is a shame that the people most qualified on certain subjects are unwilling or unable to shed light on certain subjects. These discussions could be greatly enriched by some of these views and information.
As well, the issue of AC's. I hope that Rob or someone can come up with a code that allows valid users to post anonymously without the "coward" stigma. This might allow these people to post without us knowing who they are, but still knowing that the source is reliable or qualified.
I read your articles here (can't say I've read them elsewhere though...) and I must say that at times I have almost believed some of the flaming that has gone on; but I thank you for always promoting an interesting discussion. Now that I know your motivations and views on why you do what you do, I cannot be swayed by flames or AC's.
One thing I'd like to point out - I don't know you personally, you don't know me; but isn't it interesting how any of us can refer to each other on a first name basis and feel comfortable with it? :-)
To flamers: Now that I have shown respect and admiration for your mortal enemy: I know it's coming, and I'm not concerned.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Katz is obviously a major player in our community, and I can understand and even agree with a lot of what he says... but damn, why doesn't he ever shut up?
In what he could say in a paragraph, he says in volumes.
Devilled Eggs - A disturbing little creation of mine.
Congrats Jon, never read anything by you before. You appear to be a very intelligent guy, and i liked your answers. I think I'll go buy one of your books.
Okay, I've been reading Slashdot for about two years now, and I don't post very often, mainly because I'm too busy. But this time, this is going way too far.
/. I must admit that, myself, I find a lot of his articles to be half-baked ideas and opinions. There's not even any doubt about it : they are! Katz said it himself, he's not a geek. Most of /.'s readers are techies, programmers and so on. As such, we are very focused on logic, we tend to focus on the actual hard facts about something. John doesn't. He always exagerate what he has to say. Actually, he would probably be quite good to whip up a mob into frenzy, throwing his ideas at it. Maybe he should start a cult or something ;) .
John Katz is obviously the most controversed writer here on
The point I'm trying to make is that you have to take his articles with a grain of salt. Once you've gotten over his hot propaganda, you see that there are often a few concepts of his that are worth talking about. I'm getting sick of seeing each of his articles getting bashed... You know, the "Here's my rant, Katz... Your style blahblah... Your ideas inacurate blahblah..." posts. Hey, remember, this guy's not a geek, he won't write entirely logical and precise articles. Instead, he lets his opinions flame him up. Stop looking at his style and look at what he actually has to say, under all these decorations. You'll find that he has some great things to say, from his point of view.
Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
Actually it depends on the standards. People complain when they aren't "picked". This is natural. People also complain when a (in their opinion) useless windbag doesn't have to be picked because he is both the writer and editor of his pieces. This is also completely natural. To imply any hypocrisy is rediculous. Of course a person who had worked on a submission and had it rejected would be more annoyed that a writer of doubious merit isn't simply being picked ahead of them, but given carte blanch to pick his own pieces, no matter how useless.
Katz does not serve the same purpose as the other editors. He just posts his own opinions and does not contribute to the group otherwise. My suggestion would be that if /. needs editorials, they should have an editor to review those subbmissions same as any other. Then Katz, or anyone else could submitt his opinions to be considered in the mix and sometimes chosen, sometimes not. Actually let him prove his worth instead of being given an un-edited podium.
And, yes, the /. editors choose what to post, and we tell them what we think of their choices so they can serve us better. One part of this arrangement only neccessitates the other, it doesn't eliminate it.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
In the spirit of scientific inquiry, do you know if Katz's writings on that forum are automaticly posted as they are here or are they chosen by the moderators of the group? Or, a third option I suppose, it it a full open forum where everyone has the same posting privileges? Just Curious.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
ARGHHH... Why do people insist of talking about this in terms of censorship, or being "allowed to post"?
Look, I'm "Allowed" to post on /. That is to say I can submit stories. One even got chosen, while another didn't. Katz, however, it not merely allowed to submit, he is allowed to approve his own stories, no matter how long or (IMHO) useless. It is this ability which I think drives most of the anger (rather than simple contempt) that Katz is subjected to.
I've said it before, and I'll most likely say it again (thats the way memes are spread after all.) If /. needs editorials, have an editor assigned to them and let everyone compete for publication equally. Unless Katz is (unknown to us) the publisher or founder of /. his privileged status without any other "collumists" is a speech aberation, not a normal freedom of speech which must be defended against censorship.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
The "vocal minority" is simply the flip side of the "silent majority". Its another way of claiming the apathetic by saying that every single person who doesn't actively denounce you is strongly favoring you. Orignal use : who knows? Most famous use : denigrating opposition to the vietnam war. (recently admited to be based on flat out lies). Dishonest uses : pretty much all of them.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Huh? Every writing manual I've ever seen stresses the rule of brevity. Long-windedness is supposed to be a sign of inexperience - a sign that the writer is too much in love with his/her words to cut out the redundant bits.
He would be a more effective writer if he took this to heart.
Doesn't it bother any of you that there are at least a couple hundred people every katz-article (is that a valid time unit?) who publicly call the man a moron? I realize there are some people who give reasons for disagreeing with the man. Myself I can't agree or disagree cause I'm too busy being confused... But does anyone feel bad about insulting the man over and over again? Tickle him does he not laugh? Prick him does he not bleed? He doesn't use a filter from what I read...
Well, I dunno about you, but I certainly feel maybe not a better person, but I definitely feel better about myself for reading slashdot and staying much better informed by some of my peers who call themselves geeks but don't stay up on techno news. I like to think that my fellow geeks are more civil than this...
Eh, I'll shut up now
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
AOL IM: jeanlucpikachu
[o]_O
The more I thought about it the more I realized just how silly this all is. I mean who cares what Jon Katz thinks or what NatePWIII thinks anyhow. We are all slashdotters with our own opinions and beliefs. What makes Jon Katz so special as compared to every other Slashdotter. Maybe we should have 5 highly moderated questions mailed to me and then I can give my little blurb for all of Slashdot. I'm sure you would all love that. /. is all about. Who cares about the opinions of a guy that thinks he's all special, I could care less.
Your right this doesn't accomplish anything. Besides making a fool out of Slashdot. Lets get to the real news, you know "techi news". Thats what
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
No, its not a nitpick. Occam's Razor can't really be applied because there is no real way to subjectively quanitfy which of the two possible outcomes are simpler. Everyone had the idea of 'nothing', but it wasn't till an arab explicitly brought it over (from the hindus) that 0 was really understood. The same can be said for Occam's Razor.
Actually, I think (sp) proof of God's existance is pretty compelling (logical proof). My hardcore athiest philosophy proffesor thoroughly dismantled the attempted proofs of Actually I think Saint Anslem's proof of God's existnace is logically compelling. My hardcore athiest philosophy proffessor thoroughly dismanteled the attempted proofs of God's existance by Palay and Saint Aquinas, however his arguments against Anslem's proof were _really_ weak.
after I think, is suppose to be Saint Anslem.
I don't know if this help, but usually by possiblity (in the philosophical sense), logical possibility is meant. My philosophy professor gave this example which I think is pretty helpful: If We have three Sets: A: World Facts B: Laws of Physics C: Logic A is a subset of B. B is a subset of C. Therfore, all 'possible' worlds must be elements of C. So for example, the laws of physics do not permit me to travel faster than the speed of light, but no logical contradiction occurs if I travel faster than the speed of light, so it is 'possible' that a world can exist where they can travel faster than the speed of light. If we define bachelor as an unmarried man. Then it is not possible for a world to exist where bachelors are married since this creates a contradiction and thus is not logically possible. Saint Anslem's Proslogium (sp) gives a pretty good argument (imo) of the reason why God has to logically exist. Since the non-existance of god is logically impossible, then he has to exist in this world since this world is an element of C.
Do you like licking male ass in general, or is it just a thing you have for Katz?
Deconstructing Katz
Since when is talking about your own personal experiences not a legitimate way to demonstrate an idea, and ethic, etc? Its an accepted practice to establish the ground from which you are stating your views. If anything, its one of the most legitimate. Thats why people read things like autobiographies. Thats why people who have been through a lot of stuff are hired to speak at graduations, weddings, funerals, technical speechs, etc.
/. for about 6 months now," /. I have often enjoyed his works on freedomforum.org, which I also read regularly, so I was disappointed to read in his interview that he will be doing more writing for /. and less for other venues in the future. I don't recall ever seeing Katz talk about himself in his freedomforum.org writings"
begin sarcasm
In fact, lets examine your specific post.
"I've been reading
"Sometimes I"
"Or I should say, I hate most of the writing he does on
Look! You are talking about your own experiences! Gasp! Get offa slashdot till you have something to talk about beside yourself!
end sarcasm
So anyway, seriously, think before you speak.
-Tony
---
"What is that sound its making?"
---
"What is that sound its making?"
"It thinks it has a virus, but its actually just linux."
What's the simpler solution? That there's this supernatural, all-knowing being making all these decisions about what happens and mystically causing it, or that there's just cause and effect? We see cause and effect every day. I push a ball, and it rolls. There is empirical evidence for cause and effect. Cause and effect is reasonable. These are not trillions of random chances, they are the logical progression of physics. What is the simpler solution, then? If you really think the simpler solution is the strange supernatural being over simple logic, I think you have some rethinking to do.
The real difference between atheists and theists is that atheists know how to apply Occam's Razor.
Oh, come on. You are nitpicking. That's like saying "Gravity does not exist because Newton did not understand it." I'm talking about the idea. The idea happens to have a name. Whether or not its namesake was a mindless zealot is irrelevant.
If I am looking for water, I don't make up water in my head to make myself feel less thirsty; rather, I deduce where the water is most likely to be by following animals, etc.
Maybe our goals are different; I am only looking for truth, not comfort.
Untrue. I could show in the same way that god doesn't exist by showing how quickly he'd have to move and how much energy he'd have to have to be omnipresent and omnipotent or whatever. But you'd just say that god can do anything, he's god. Well, the same applies to Santa Claus. He might defy the laws of physics. He might be "magical." But you know what? It's unlikely. It's more likely that parents bring presents to kids. Just like it's more likely that there is no supernatural being sitting in the clouds making decisions about people. My point was with Occam's razor that you go with the simplest, most reasonable explanation, not the most far-fetched one. The existence of a bizarre, unprovable, unevidenced being is the far-fetched one.
However, you are entitled to your beliefs. I won't try to stop you. I was only taking issue with the concept that "atheism is a religion" -- atheism is NOT a religion; it is based on logic and reason; religion is based on faith and presumption.
Jon does tend to get a tad bit long-winded, but its probably due to the fact that he's a professional writer. Many of the "geeks" doing posts in places like Slashdot tend to speak their piece in a hyper-efficient way. After all, when you are used to interfacing with a machine, and are very comfortable doing that, you woulnd't have much need for flowery language. Katz is used to writing stuff for people to read instead of writing code, and its to be expected that he'll write in more expressive ways than much of what you see here. I think the problem here is that his writing style clashes so harshly with the more hardcore geek writers. This causes people here to comment, when in many mass media publications, nobody would notice or care. Just my $0.02
If you want to try the censorship road, perhaps Slashdot should start requiring registered posting, with a real email address. Seems that ACs in here are the ones making the most noise. You don't see this much trolling and shit at Ars Technica (the only other truly cool forum).
What exactly don't you like about the moral ethics tought by Christianity? Christian ethics are no more "bizzare" than the ethics of any other religion. The world might actually be a cool place if we didn't kill, steal, covet, and if we tried to show a little compassion and love for our fellow human beings. People with attitudes such as yours are the ones who are "bizzare" and "masochistic." Why don't you sit down and truly learn about Christianity before you speak, rather than spout off some typical response to widespread "Religioustianity" which is no more Christian than Adolph Hitler.
At least we have Katz, who has some semblence of technical knowledge. Could be worse: at least he isn't a technophobic moron like Walter Mossberg (sp?) who writes "tech" articles for the NY Times (or is it the Wall Street Journal?) Doesn't matter, his articles are still luddite dribble. "Boo, hoo...why can't computers fix themselves instead of making me get off my butt..." You get the idea.
You make good points, and I'll concede that agnosticism or weak atheism aren't religions, but rather an absence of belief. It all fundamentally boils down to what one chooses to consider as "overwhelming" evidence, and what other evidence one chooses to discard from one's belief system. When I look around me at this wonder we call Earth, it doesn't make sense to me that it just "happened" this way, and that the wonderful ballet of order and chaos around us is all coincidental. I guess that more than anything guides what evidence I accept and what I discard. Of course, I don't dismiss evolution and the Big Bang offhand, simply because I choose to believe in God. To do so is foolish, and is akin to saying that I know the mind of God, and have shoved God into a box that fits my world view. If God is God, then I suppose he/she/it could do anything, even use evolution and the Big Bang to create the world as it is. But as long as I believe, my faith says I'll be getting a pretty handsome return on my investment. And if that isn't the case, then I'm not any worse off than anyone else. After all, if there isn't a God, then the same thing (whatever that is) will happen to us all when we die. And the only thing I trade for my beliefs are actions that I won't or can't do within my faith, but of which most are illegal anyway, or would seriously hurt my family. So I guess I don't look at it like most people. A lot of people have the idea that being Christian means you have to do this, and not do that, and its all rules and regulations. But it isn't really. All it is is professing a belief, and living my life in a way I believe is right, and occasionally taking crap from my peers for being "weak minded." A fair price to pay in my mind, if what I believe all turns out to be true. And if not, I'll be dead, so what'll I care?
Lol! You'd think with all the whiners finding their way in here and complaining about the filters that /. has come with some sort of new "magnetic" link that sucks your mouse pointer to the story link and forces your hand to go into spasms, causing you to click the link. Kinda funny the lengths some people will go to just to bitch about how mad they are. To those people I say; go drink a case of beer. At least that way if you get mad, you'll probably pick a real life fight and get your ass kicked. Pretty convenient that so many people can sit here and talk trash without anyone physically there and ready to defend themselves. I tell you, this place is getting way too middle school for my tastes anymore.
As far as I can ascertain, evolution and the big bang are still considered theories, and as such, one must have some sort fo faith to choose to believe that the afforementioned theories explain the origin of the universe and life. This is no more "scientific" than Christianity. Atheism is most certainly a religion. I find it odd that so many reject the idea of a god outright, but many of those same people (sci-fi/hacker/science types) have no problem believing in the existence of extraterrestrial life, even though it is no easier to prove that aliens exist than it is to prove God exists. I'm not saying that I reject the idea of aliens, just that at present time, many who claim that God is impossible have no trouble with the notion of beings whose only proof of existence is anecdotal evidence that has about as much weight as the anecdotal evidence for miracles, and Noah's Flood, and a whole host of things that the Bible claims to have happened. It seems like many in the scientific community are being a tad bit hypocritical. "ring...ring" Hello? Pot? This is Kettle - You're Black!
"This is essentially Pascal's Wager, and it works when the only answers are Christianity and the formless void. Some Muslim visions of paradise are quite vengeful and feature graphic violence perpetrated against the rest of us, while the Buddhists see us as sort of stuck like broken records."
And you explain precisely why I don't place my faith in Islam or Buddhism. If their "religion" turns out to be the "correct" religion, then so be it. I cannot believe in a god that promotes fanaticism and zealotry as in Islam. Nor can I believe in a god as impersonal and indifferent as Buddha. The God I believe is a God that promotes forgiveness and devotion. To believe in any other god to me would be to place myself in a form of hell while living on this earth. The reason I believe what I do is because I want to avoid hell, whether in this life (by believing in the aforementioned Buddha or Allah), and the next (by not accepting Christ and thereby being condemned to the "classical" hell.)
"Aren't you obliged to give up certain attitudes like pride, and try as hard as you possibly can to convert everyone you meet, or risk endless torture?"
If I were to believe that the Pope's (or any other "spiritual leader's") interpretation of the Bible is "correct" then, yes. If were to place my faith in my "religion" rather than God, again, yes. However, I believe that each man or woman is to make of the Bible what they will, and to live their life according to what they find there. The Bible is a book that is several thousand years old. While I believe that it is the "inspired" word of God, I also have no doubt that portions may have been added or omitted, or simply changed to fit the attitude of the person writing the latest copy of it. I also realize that the traslation of the original texts can at times be imperfect, and due to these facts, I treat the Bible not as a literal manual for Christian faith, but as a guidebook. The ideals and spirit of what was written are what I base my life on, not literal interpretation. While this goes against most "religious" versions of the Christian faith, I believe that the person who reads the Bible and is capable of thinking for themselves will find that the meaning of the Bible is clear, even if the literal wording isn't. I also haven't found anyplace in the Bible which states that I'm not allowed to be proud of myself or those I love. Nor have I found any passage that simply states that I'll go to hell if I don't act like a missionary and tell everyone in the world about God. I'm not comfortable with the idea that every Christian is responsible for converting everyone else to our faith. I feel there are some who feel a calling to do this, and that is fine for them. But it is my feeling the our responsibility is not to convert, but to inform. you see, I can tell you what I believe and why I believe it without hitting over the head with it and trying to make you believe what I believe. If you make a decision not to share my faith, I believe that is good enough for both myself and God. But people who don't know anything about Christ are the ones that we are supposed share information with. If you read the Bible, you'll find that the idea of "conversion" is a rarely mentioned, yet God commands us all to "share" the faith. I believe this simply means to tell people that we are Christians and why, but not to "convert" anyone. If you listen to what I tell you (or what any other Christian tells you) and you decide to reject our faith, then you've decided, and that is that. I believe we no longer have any sort of "duty" to tell you anything, unless you decide later that you want to know more.
"This is essentially Pascal's Wager, and it works when the only answers are Christianity and the formless void."
Let me add something to this that I left of of my previous post. We are only talking about two options. In electrical terms, lets say that what my faith says will happen when I die is a transistor. The transistor con only have two states: on or off. When I die, my faith will be right, or it will be wrong. If my faith is the "correct" faith, then it will be that way for everyone. If it isn't, again, it will be that way for everyone. If the first state is true, then I will be rewarded for my faith. And if the second state is true, then it will be true for every person, and I'll be no better or worse off than anyone else. Unless someone else is rewarded for their faith. In that case, good for them. I prefer not to have an easter egg hunt for my beliefs, trying to find the "most true truth," rather I believe what I do because logically, in my mind there is no other option except for no belief at all, and I'll take my chances.Mr. Katz,
Thank you for taking the time to write thought provoking and inciteful stories for Slashdot.
As you briefly point out in one of your answers, not everyone here in the Slashdot Community(tm) hates you, or your writing (I'm particularly curious about the dept. heading which refers to you as a gasbag..but..i digress).
In fact, as tends to be true in most communities subscribing to a common ideological principle, the most vocal and reactionary members tend to be the least representative of the majority. I submit that that is much the case with Slashdot as well.
In keeping with the general gist of some writings by you and others on flaming in general, I imagine that the ferocity and venom with which this "Vocal Minority" attack you ultimately discourages the majority of people from posting positive comments. I believe to that the amount of upword moderation that such comments receive also contributes to their hesitance (not to mention the contribution such moderation must make to the impression that you are, on the whole, disliked).
Finally, I would like to say this:
I have appreciated the fact that every time I have taken the liberty of e-mailing you, you have always responded promptly and thoughtfully. This to me clearly demonstrates your sincerity and passion for the subjects about which you write.
I appreciate this level of honesty and transparency in a social context usually littered with the intellectual pissing matches and pretense.
-FP
I can't say for sure, but I'll have a guess. It's because there is so much argument (whoops! Excuse me. Discussion) going on that to respond intelligently and in a manner that they can be proud of would require not only time but so much writing energy (whatever that thing is that allows one to write well) that it would not be worthwhile. If all I did was read and write on Slashdot, then I would have very little time left over each day for thinking or eating, much less sleep. I imagine my stamina is not wildly lower than other peoples.
Also, I suspect they do post. It's very easy for one persons posts (unless they post 40 or 50 posts per thread, or something) to get missed amidst all the other posts.
And finally, if you think there are a lot of flames, imagine of the flamers had more than one post to react to. That's reason enough to stay clear.
I want my Cowboyneal
Fact of the matter is, religion IS politics, education and technology.
Religion is as much a means to control people as politics.
Religion brought education to the masses, specifically in matters of lifestyle, health and literacy (Gutenberg, remember?).
Religion is about ideology, much like technology. This one believes in the PPC architecture, that one in Alpha, the other in Sparc. They then go out and defend their view violently. Sounds like the crusades to me.
Now, to my actual opinions:
I read everything by Jon. I also read every comment posted to one of his stories. They are hilarious, entertaining, insightful and intelligent (okay, not all at once, but you get the picture).
AC posting is a good thing. It gives people with low self-confidence a chance to speak loudly in a crowded room. Unfortunately some choose to abuse it. But isn't that true of anything?
I love /. more than you could imagine. Raw energy, people disagreeing, its such a GOOD thing. I read everything at a -1, because I don't want to miss anything. Like a good cup of coffee, /. is good to the last drop.
And I say all this, even though I am one of those female /.ers that Jon insists are being turned away because of the flaming, trolling and general hot-grittiness.
My opinion, abuse it as you wish. Sakhmet.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Ban the Nukes! Save the Whales! Screw it. Nuke the Whales!
I'm one of those people you mention who read everything and almost never post, but I feel compelled now because I want to tell you you are one of the reasons I visit /. If it wasn't for the discussions you initiate, on ethics, capitalism, the role of tech in society, spirituality, and my favorite subject of all, intellectual property, this site would not be as interesting. Yeah, the tech discussions are great, and I often learn stuff I would've never learned in school, but ultimately it's the discussions on ideology and culture, and the widespread participation, that make this site different.
I must admit though, all the posts breaking on you for being a non tech guy turned me off to your ideas.....I don't respect people who perp (try to be something they're not), and I expected other engineers and tech people to populate the site. But the interview enlightened me to who you really are. Trust me, I identify. Not to sweat you, but thank you Jon.
Myself, I'm 21, for what that's worth, though I've met plenty of 15-year-olds who are more mature than me, and plenty of flaming idiots who are in their 30s.
"Just how old are you anyway?" is sort of an inside joke on the local newsgroups at the ISP that I use. The newbie flamers answer the question and everyone "in the know" gets a laugh.
The fact is that whining about Jon Katz makes me want to ask the question, but you've gone ahead and answered it even before I could. Woy had to click on two links to get to the point where you could type in this rant and then you had to take the time to do it. Don't you think your clicks and keystrokes could have been used more productively?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Katz bemoans the fact that his articles get flames, rather than being discussed in a more open way, and then responds to the next question by flaming the author! Katz can dish out the "who made you the major of Slashdot" flames, but he can't take them back.
Secondly, he begins his answer with "no, I don't agree" [that his articles are a digest of Geek culture written for a non-tech audience] and then he ends his answer by saying, basically, "my articles are a digest of Geek culture written to attract a non-technical audience".
Personally I agree 100% with the question-writer's perception of Jon Katz. Perhaps 99% of /. disagree, but it seemed pretty astute to me. A damned sight more astute than any of the drivel that I've seen from the Katz camp.
The Playboy article is also good for a laugh. Katz has a big rationale about *why* people resent him - his age, his non-geek-ness, his celebrity. I would say, if people do resent Katz, it is because they hate to see his nonsense being propogated to such a large audience.
Fortunately, as Katz himself points out, none of his writings go uncommented on. We on /. have the unique oppotunity to respond to his articles. You have to feel that Katz is a tenacious creature, and admire him for that, at least.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
I've listened to the flames long enough. /. because he generates
Jon Katz remains on
so much traffic.
If you really can't stand the guy, do the
proper thing: boycott.
No free speech advocate (not even Jon Katz
himself) can argue with that. A boycott does
not restrict anyone's freedom to say anything.
A month or so without any posts should achieve
the desired result.
government intervention in things wouldn't be necissary if the government didn't impose an unnatural property right - mainly copyrights. They're not a true libertarian property right, and without them the problems with MS and Time AOL would be impossible.
Part of what Katz is critiscising here is something of the double standard that we in teh tech community maintain. Among ourselves we hold very rational debates in which we'll rip each others opinions to shreds while maintaing a certain amount of respect for each other. Katz is hardly the poster boy for flames. I see techies attacking outsiders regularly for their lack of technical status. Yeah, sometimes you have to shutdown someone who thinks they know more than they do--argubly Katz falls into this category--, but this type of hostility goes against much of the geek "creed". I mean, here we are pushing back against the dangers of closed code, the oppression of closeminded policymakers, and the closing of intellectual freedoms. Yet, in our personal conduct we act like a secret society. Sure, a lot of us like it that way, but its a destructive attitude when disagreement turns into personal hostility.
I read some of the comments attached to Katz' recent articles, and was pretty disgusted. The thing is that no one forced the flamers to read Katz articles, yet they're acting like someone chained them to chair and forced Katz down them with a plunger. This behavior is hypocritcal compared to the more normal behavior on other postings. You just don't see the behavior in most the other posts. I see a lot of debate. Infact, I've rarely seen someone get flamed for having a pro micorsoft point of view. In terms of the original articles, I see commenters methodically tearing apart the points raised in the articles, and drawing very strong conclusions. Now, when we get an article penned by someone like Katz, the trolls come out. Based on these guys, I'd conclude that /. is populated by a bunch of sexually repressed teenagers with serious social disablities. It ain't true of course, but think about how it looks to people on the outside. At this time, techies are trying to get the non technical world to understand issues like DVD, code as free speech, encryption, privacy protection, and the list goes on. The fact of hte matter is that most people will look at these postings and write off the whole group. Furthermore, the personal attacks act as a barrier to the sincerely interested from participating and dampens the interest necessary to grappled with the techincal issues that are a part of our lives.
So what? Well, we're trying to deal with vast unwashed hordes of the mainstream in the face the MPAA, the FRC, Microsoft, and other threats to our freedom. We need to be heard and taken seriously by the non technical world more than ever, and yet our response that world seems to be "You suck. #$@& off and die."
Now I will apologize for the sweeping generalizations and such in my post. I know that a lot of this doesn't apply to most people here, but the trolls sure make us look bad, and Katz has got a right to say something about people who write bestiality rape stories about him in response to his articles. I mean, c'mon people, grow the fuck up!
Hm.. I'd be willing to lay whatever money you want that Katz has never laid eyes on you.. and if that's so, how's he supposed to know you're not a teenager -
when you keep acting like one?
You dug it, man.
grove, past tense of to groove.
...and he blows goats too. please die, jon. -Linus
I could write 7 pages about how that guy is a fake...I fact i will. It will be in my next book. Be sure to buy it at Amazon.com!
FAG!@!
They pay him for the same reson ZDnet pays the assholes that write for them. They piss people off, the people write comments,come back to see what crap he wrote this week, ..etc. This is all good for VA/Andover because they make money off the banner hits that all the pissed off people make.
Why the hell does slashdot pay this asshole? oh ya, banner hits.
"You also are wantonly inaccurate about Slashdot's audience, which is considerably wider than you seem to grasp, with varying levels of technical expertise, and which neither one of us is qualified to speak for."
FACT: A militia of /. Katz fans with machine guns would be easily overtaken by a mob of unarmed Slashdotters who don't like him.
Katz doesn't get it -- a minority agrees with his opinions, others disagree, but the vast majority of us just don't give a fuck about what he's got to say. We want news about science, technology, and computing news and discussion, not commentary about social angst.
--
Poor Nazi GRITS petrified by Jesus!
--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
It's very simple to resolve your complaint, too. It's called a minium threshold. Use it!
--
Poor Nazi GRITS petrified by Jesus!
--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
--
Poor Nazi GRITS petrified by Jesus!
--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
> I went to school in Colorado at a high
> school similar to Columbine. I totally
> related to Katz's articles on his Hellmouth
> series.
I just wished the Columbine kids were left alone by media, including sympathetic eyes. Everytime I see tragedy rehashed in the media, I feel like I'm watching Jerry Springer. [2 cents]
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
I'll be that at the least Bruce Perens will have the opportunity for an interview sooner or later.
Thanks, but I don't think there is such a thing as "I'll be that". Perhaps you were reaching for "Albeit" or "Be that as it may"?
- Brooce
~~~~~
Have you seen me on hotmale.com?
I'm dissappointed in the way Katz answered the second question posed to him. In general, the way I view his writing is more or less what is stated in the question itself. That's not to say he never writes anything interesting, but it really does seem to be a simplification and regurgitation of what has already been said on slashdot. Particularly frustrating are the inconsistencies in the answer. He basically states he diasagrees, and after briefly attacking the question writer goes on to say that he doesn't write for the lay person, because there are no lay people on Slashdot. Then totally contradicts himself by suggesting his readership is composed of entirely different technical backgrounds (Programmers to housewives.) To me this implys that there are in fact lay people reading his work. Further on he says that his purpose is to make what is happening understandable (presumably to the lay person, since people within technology probably understand most of the issues fairly well anyway.) But that's exactly the characterization of his writing he started off by disagreeing with. Basically, to sum up, I'm not sure he entirely understands his target audience, or really knows who his target audience is, which was the point of the question in the first place, a point he seemed to totally miss.
thanks to jon's mom for protecting poor baby jon from criticism.
I'm hemos., aka Jeff. Bates.. I help run this site, along with Rob. Malda.. I handle books, and generally posting storie
ha ha.
hemos just said "grit"!
maybe you should brush your teeth.
I'm hemos., aka Jeff. Bates.. I help run this site, along with Rob. Malda.. I handle books, and generally posting storie
maybe if you were cool people would impersonate you, but sir, with all due respect, you are a jackass. -hemos.
I'm hemos., aka Jeff. Bates.. I help run this site, along with Rob. Malda.. I handle books, and generally posting storie
hear, hear.... Quite sad, but it seems to have gotten to the point where people will flame anything he writes, just because they see his name. If I recall, Pavlov did some experiments like that. I doubt those people even bother to read what he has to say. It's a shame, not only because he writes good stuff some of the time, but mainly because it shows how many supposedly educated and smart people are unable to deal with something they dislike creatively. Just like the jocks they all dispise.... Has anyone else also noticed the number of flames that vow never to read Katz's articles again, yet continuously flame them? Now that is lame. *cackle*
I think that maybe some readers do not understand what the recent publicity that /. has received in the past months means. It means there are far more laypersons reading this than most could imagine, trolls or not. I myself have no technological background, but I am part of the Linux community in my own right. And for that reason, I read this site more than any other news site out there. I appreciate the opinions and honesty posted here. Like most people, I enjoy having a choice about how I feel about Katz or any of /. stories. Most discussions that ensue are ususally quite interesting. And I have my our opinions about those as well. Like Katz or not, he makes techies and lay-persons stand for what they believe in.
Watch out for imposters. This isn't the real Brooce Perens. He doesn't have a . after his name.
Jon is deathly afraid of using a demoronizer.
That said, also keep an eye for the fake hemos, hemos. I loooovvee 31337 trollZ.
Yeah, I'm that guy.
First, my background, if that's important. In 1983 I started participating in messaging communities. In 1986 I started sysopping them. In 1990 I founded my own multi-line, multi-user, Unix-based BBS. In 1991 I net-enabled it, making it the first public-access internet site in Philly. In 1995 I went to work for an ISP. Last year I founded my own internet development firm to continue to feed my love of communications and technology.
OK. Some people don't like message-based electronic communities; a greater number just don't "get" them. Sometimes those people are not intelligent enough to want to involve themselves in the discussion, but more often there is just some stumbling block of mind-set or interest that prevents them from really engaging in the community.
*Those* are the sorts who will laugh at such communities, and they will laugh at them in accordance with how little they understand them. And simply because someone is a technologist, doesn't mean they'll be interested in the communities.
If there are better technology discussions on the planet, and they're online, don't hold back -- tell us where they are. Frankly, with the evolution of the moderation system, I feel pretty confident that I'm not missing out on important discussions, and that I'm able to skip over all the "crud". Laugh at Threads? I doubt anyone who likes this sort of community will laugh; it's about the best possible way to involve this number of people in online discussion.
To take that a step further, anyone who's reading this -- imagine what /. would be without the community aspects. At this point, as a power browser, I figure I can get most of the news that the site serves up (it is, after all, first found elsewhere, as /. doesn't produce original news content, only original opinion content). It's only the community that adds to the value. In most stories, the messages give us all additional facts, fresh views of the stories, and a community reaction to them. Without the discussion, some folks might be inclined to take ZDNet stories seriously, believe MS-funded benchmarks, etc.
Your reaction to peple dismissing the discussion is most unfortunate and to me, and this is just my opinion, it means that you don't really "get" the online community inherent in all these messages. You know, VA Linux cannot own /., Andover cannot own /., even CmdrTaco cannot own /. because /. is not a single entity -- it's made up of all of us. To a great degree, the extent that we care about it is the extent that we post. If we don't care, and we don't post, /. is nothing. To use a different analogy, CmdrTaco built the building, and found people to decorate the walls, but it's the people that visit it and the activity they engage in there that makes the building what it is.
Our very first Slashdot reader-generated interview was with Bruce Perens, back in July, 1999.
- Robin
Katz writes:
- to a general audience
- to an _uneducated_ general audience, one that is not necessarily intelligent
- sound bites, which are compressed 'Reader's Digest' style ideas simplified for the masses
- repetitively, to restate the sound bites often enough that even the dumbest viewer will hear them
- without opinion- at least in theory. This is very characteristic of TV journalism. "Whether or not these brave geeks will change the world remains to be seen. One thing is certain- time will tell." TV journalism often pointedly avoids expressing opinion.
None of this implies Jon Katz is intentionally talking down to Slashdot, or mocking us, or treating us like idiots. He is genuinely trying to communicate- the way he learned how. It gets messier when his hysteria and passionate opinions butt heads with the learned need to suppress opinion, and it is then that he behaves like the worst of TV journalism- producing dumbed down hysterical screeds under a cloak of impartiality.It would be better for Jon to learn that this _is_ a new world, and that the rules are different. It's not relevant for him to try so hard to appear like he's not expressing an opinion- that is for TV anchorpeople to do- in the role of web journalist iconoclast, it is more appropriate for Jon to claim his biases out front and express them openly.
He does indeed connect the geek world to mainstream society- and indeed to mainstream media. I wish he would just _accept_ that this is his role- he is awfully prone to enjoy being called up by ABC, BBC and the Associated Press (due to his credentials as former CBS executive producer- why else?), but he insists on being treated as an outlaw web journalist by his peers, by us his Slashdot audience. It doesn't work that way- even before the full story of his position came out, people sensed that he seemed to be slumming, that he apparently was more privileged and was writing for Slashdot like it was some kind of game. That doesn't get you much street cred.
Yet, the reality is this- Jon has repudiated _most_ of the power and Big Media influence he once had, apparently because he got disgusted with it and decided to close the door on that part of his life. He only seems to be slumming- in reality, he's being a searcher, just like his running to the mountain book would suggest, and he _wants_ the street cred, wants a new role he can respect. He no longer wants to suck up to big media (despite appearances)- it's us he wants to be accepted by, but his habits and learned methods are so Big Media that it all comes off wrong and he fails to click with his desired audience. (trust me on this- _everything_ he's ever done that's self-aggrandizing is What One Does if you play the media game well- not doing it is being a media _luser_- Katz is _no_ media luser, he's a BMediaKingpinFH)
Recognizing this, he has no choice but to try to behave like the people abusing him are just ill-behaved children acting out. He doesn't _want_ to go running back to CBS or wherever, and be a TV producer again. He apparently _hated_ that. He _wants_ to find not just a role here, but a community that accepts him. Look at how much he talks about community, how often he swears that he _is_ supported by a vast community in email, that they are the _real_ geeks, not his critics. And it's his own past working against him- his own habits that trip him up and set him against the interests of most slashdot geeks.
It's a tough position Jon Katz is in. If he was to quit with the sound bites, stop writing to general audiences, not answer when called by ABC and BBC and AP, he would gain little and throw away most of the advantages he _does_ have. Yet he seems unwilling to accept these advantages for what they are- he is shamed by them, it seems, he wants to be something much deeper than an ex-TV-producer with good connections and the knack of writing to general audiences.
Well, I'd say this to him: having finally learned enough about you to feel I at last understand you a little better, having tirelessly criticised you under my own name out in the open until I became one of the two names you cited as sort of 'braver flamers/critics', I think you should STAY- but you have _got_ to start using your advantages rightly. Be out-front about it! You're Slashdot's translator for general audiences. You're the guy whose number is called by big media when they want _your_ opinion. You, Jon, have the potential to be a bridge, and rather than turn against all the things you learned in your 'other life', you should embrace them- because they are setting the tone for your writing anyhow, you can't avoid that. You _do_ write sound bites, so write good ones. You _do_ write to an uneducated general audience which doesn't even read Slashdot- so do that and do it well and count on people outside the Slashdot norm coming to see what the fuss is about and finding your articles the only ones that speak to them, that translate and explain what they are seeing. You _do_ have connections: normal people don't just get hired by Wired and Rolling Stone and called up by big media reps (Wired and RS stringers certainly don't get the Beeb asking them what the latest media merger means!). Use those connections. When they ask about geek/techie things, be able to answer them. When big media needs to see a certain side of things (i.e. DeCSS), hint off the record that they need to cover things a certain way or they will appear the tools of corporate influence. You _know_ how to do this stuff.
*g* Luke, it is your destiny! ;)
Okay, I read Jon's responses to questions. I agreed with some, disagreed with others. Then I scrolled down to the comments to see what people were saying about them. What did I find? Absolutely nothing. Nearly all the responses were either people flaming Katz for his long article, people flaming /. for not having him post his own interview so they could have it filtered out, or people doing other assorted types of flaming. Where's the discussion about Open Source, the future of the Internet, Libertarianism, or any of the other ideas that Mr. Katz brought up that actually matter?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Jon Katz writes:
Very well, Jon. Let me add myself to the list of people who don't like you, are not loud, and even have the temerity to put a name behind my words. For that matter, what's wrong with disliking you anonymously?
I am not fond of your verbose style. Your grammar often makes me wince, and your topics, while interesting in and of themselves, come out in your articles as bland rehashes of popular opinion. As a smaller issue, you have yet to fix the problem with your apostrophies, despite numerous suggestions of solutions from a variety of Slashdot readers. This is still primarily a technically oriented forum, and we have problems with people wo purport to write about technologically-related issues without appearing to make any effort to fix their own technical problems.
And yes, I know that I can just filter out all stories posted by you. I don't feel that to be an acceptible solution. I tend to do my filtering based on content, not on author. (Although I always seem to be able to pick out your articles from the style of the introduction on the front page.) However, Slashdot currently has a single columnist: You. To the outside, the implication is that you're the only regular columnist because you're the only person Rob and Hemos always agree with. From the Slashdot community, it's frustrating to see your point of view continually reiterated without any other regulars to provide alternate points of view.
I'm not necessarily advocating getting rid of you (although, were that to happen, I would shed no tears), but I would appreciate a less condescending attitude and, if your articles were, as you put it, "shorter, crisper," I wouldn't mind either. What I would really like is another columnist with a different point of view to offset yours.
Upon reading over my post, I seem to be ranting a bit... Sorry, but Jon's dismissal of his critics as cowardly flamers struck a nerve. Anyone who agrees with me about Katz, anonymous or not, feel free to lend your voice to mine. (Objectors to my views are welcome, too. I suspect I'm opening myself up to a lot of criticism here.)
--Phil (I doubt I would have posted this vehemently if I actually liked Katz. Why do negative feelings always seem to generate more emotion?)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
I had to reread some of his statements again. Your right.. Perhaps he'll respond to this..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Seems to me this translates to he would use the ordering, aka, order by moderation, but sets his lower limit to -1. It's OK to not toally agree with something, and still think it's a good idea.. ;-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Sorry. I disagree about AC's. Although many people abuse the system, there are a lot of very good repsonses from AC's. Some of the responses are better than people posting with an ID. I'm glad that there are at least *some* moderators reading at a level low enough that a couple of the important AC posts get moderated up for everybody else to read.
How much anonymity do you lose by registering an ID? None! If I wanted to make a stupid remark but couldn't do it as an AC, it would take 30 secs to create a new ID (well, that's about how long it took to create this ID a year or so ago). Perhaps it's a convenience thing?
How about forcing moderators to read at the zero threshold? I think this would help some of the excellent AC posts to get moderated up to one or where other people would get to read them. Abusive AC's could be moderated down to -1 so that other moderators don't have to see their tripe.
I think that meta-moderation is silly. It's very hard to tell whether a moderation is fair or not when viewing comments out of context. A comment moderated as interesting could well be a duplication of somebody else's and really quite redundant.
Finally, I think that it is okay for deviation off topic, so long as it's not a top-level post - some good discussions can occur. Reading with threading ensures that I don't have to view off-topic discussions if I don't want to.
Secondly, however, I still think your attitude is irresponsible. If you mean the religious right, then say the religious right! As it so happens, I agree with you. But believe it or not, many many Christians don't agree with the religious right's tactics. It is unfair to associate us with them, even by default.
Vagueness is the last refuge of incompetence.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
We must be reading different articles. What I read was that he is nearly content with what he has writen, aware that there are flaws, and aware that he has room to learn to write better.
Perhaps you can point to something that supports you contention that he thinks "he's a better writer" than someone else.
Just as an example -- David Futrelle, currently at Money Magazine, formerly at Upside and Salon. Here's somebody who makes an effort to understand the technologies and economics that he's writing about, has genuine insight, is consistent from one week to the next and doesn't place himself at the center of every issue. And he doesn't say "geek" in every other sentence.
I think his only previous exposure here was when he wrote that Red Hat was more difficult to install than MacOS, and everyone here flamed his inbox to a crisp.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
You write:
I believe that religion has no place in politics, education, or technology, but the moral ethics taught by Christianity should be present everywhere.
That's a very narrow point of view. There are numerous areas where Christian morality is widely regarded as rooted in the dark ages and totally unacceptable today. The classic example is of course in its attitude to sex and nudity. Most of Europe is rather relaxed in this area nowadays, and as a result Christian moral ethics are about as useful and relevant on European beaches as the Victorian aversion to the sight of a bare female ankle is relevant on the high street.
Sorry, but Christian morality is NOT the static universal that you think it is. It's just a set of value judgements belonging to a place and a time, and like all value judgements, they are not relevant in a different place or a different time.
In particular, the US seems to be stuck in a sex/nudity time warp of its own from which it may not emerge for a small eternity because of the political power of its bible bashers. Well, that's a local hangup. Please don't try to export it to the rest of the world.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
... I do agree that too many people take the title "Christian" without having clue 1 about what Jesus meant.
That is seriously funny! If you think you know what Jesus meant then you're blissfully unaware of the vast distance in time between then and now, the huge uncertainties in how faithfully the message has survived its passage down the ages, the immensity of the misunderstandings that result from the cultural differences over 2000 years, the sheer imperfection of the documentary record, and the maliciousness and self-serving of the multiple human hands that have transported the alleged words of Jesus across the millenia into the world of today. Alas, digital signatures weren't in common use back then.
No, I'm afraid not, you do not know what Jesus meant either. All you can do is believe in a particular package of values that the frail hand of Man has delivered to you, and have faith that it might at least in part represent what Jesus might have meant so long ago.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
He even went back to his old, tired arguments about how since he's written a bunch of books and articles that means he's a better writer (and therefore person) than anyone who would say otherwise.
In the meantime, recently all my filters seem to have disappeared... I had checked the JonKatz 'ignore' checkbox in my prefs so that I wouldn't have to put up with the irritating blurbs to his articles, but between JonKatz articles being posted by other people and my filter settings disappearing, I'm getting way too much Katz for my liking. It almost seems like a conspiracy to force people to read his stuff. (Yeah, I know, "You don't have to read it." Yes, and I'd rather not waste the bandwidth on downloading his blurbs or on the aggrivation that I get from accidentally reading them.)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
I recommend reading the Playboy interview. It's actually somewhat insightful, without being incredibly condescending and down-speaking. I wonder if he only talks down to geeks; he sure doesn't patronize the Playboy interviewer like he does to the Slashdot readers.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
- I don't know. I get tons of very nice email. The public message boards of Slashdot tend to be populated by teenagers who resent the fact that I'm not a computer geek. I'm not a programmer, so some resent that, too. But I think my opinions are controversial. In my nine years [of Internet writing], the public posts have tended to be very hostile. But I think it is healthy for me to be challenged. This is what keeps you from being a New York Times op-ed page gasbag. My job is to make people think, to start conversations.
I'd hate to be labelled as a "teenager" by him for saying these things. In fact, although there's definitely a lot of what I'd begrudgingly call teenage angst on Slashdot, I'm sure there's plenty of adults flaming him as well. Myself, I'm 21, for what that's worth, though I've met plenty of 15-year-olds who are more mature than me, and plenty of flaming idiots who are in their 30s.---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
this is prompted by your interview, specifically the q from
/., and i like some, dislike other
/.: fit in, understand, and explain. i note that
/..
q*bert.
i've read you in the past on
articles. you write pretty well, and you tend to lay it all out
on the
page. i find that admirable, and above all else i'd give you
thumbs up
just for that.
it seems in many ways that you're trying to do three things with
your
writing on
q*bert used
the phrase "lay people." amusing really. it implies a coven of
technical wizards and a mass of unwashed digital illiterates.
the haves
and the have nots of the information age. simplistic, and yet
there's a
sense that it's true. it comes up a lot here in ireland about
the
information poor, and the widening gap that's leaving some people
out.
how much will you need to learn, and what works will you need to
create
to prove your guru-hood? the fact that you spoke out before
reaching
guru - will that raise the bar for the level you'll need to
maintain?
questions you might want to put to the community.
as an aside, stephen king starts out one of his books that he
penned as
richard bachman by discussing the idea that the beatles had about
touring under a false name to see what it would be like to start
again.
he deemed it impossible, but on the net it seems quite reasonable
that
one could reinvent oneself regularly on the net. maybe something
to
try.
anyway, those three motives. q*bert's comment also seems to
relate to
fitting in, and perhaps if it's really true that geeks fail to
fit in
when young that they would try hard to do so later on - and be
just as
exclusionary as their adversaries before. it was true for me,
though i
try not to exclude people. are you just drawn because of some
unique
quality of the community, or did you yourself not fit in as a
child?
i'm not incredibly keen on "the community" concept. not sure if
it
fits, but i suppose that would be part of understanding. it is
used a
lot, sometimes in a way that seems false, sometimes not. and
perhaps
that too is an element of understanding. and as a writer it
seems
obvious that you would want to explain that to others.
all in all i for one do like the fact that you write for
remember
that people are more likely to pass along negative then positive
feedback - a shame really. i think in some ways you seem to
straddle
the gurus and newbies. holding mirrors up to both. people don't
always
like what they see.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
# katz.pl
# $Revision: 0.94 $
for (;;) {
open($dialogue, "</dev/community") or msgrcv(getpeername);
while (<$dialogue>) { listen; reverse @opinion }
while (shift @opinion) {
&examine(values %ENV);
crypt(quotemeta);
s/'/]/g;
s/19\d\d/l9\d\d/g;
s/\b\.(\s)/,$1/g;
write and msgsnd;
accept($hatemail, $flames) or die;
}
read;
}
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
I know that there are a lot of people out there that wonder about the opinions and personality of JonKatz. While I'm not particularly one of them, I did have to read this one anyway just to see what the answers to some of the questions from the other day were going to be.
Aside from the people who are interested in what he personally thinks about things, what was the purpose of this interview? I don't think anybody was misguided enough to think that this interview was going to unite everyone under one flag of either hating or loving Katz. Repeatedly in his answers, he pointed out that he's just another member of the slashdot community, just like anybody else that wants to be. I agree with him on that, he is a member of the slashdot community, and though I don't have to like it, I do have to accept it, because I don't think anybody deserves to be thrown out of slashdot.
But still, if he's just another average slashdot joe as he sometimes portrays himself, (the only difference being that his comments have a "moderation" so powerful that they show up on the main page) then what's the effective difference between interviewing him and interviewing some other prolific slashdot poster who has a large crowd of people who both love and hate him? (Just tossing out names, people like Signal 11, Foogle, Bruce Perens, Tom Christiansen, etc)
So, I'm not trying to flame, but I'm honestly curious - aside from quenching the curiosity of a few people who honestly want to know what it's like to be inside Jon Katz's head, what was the purpose of this interview???
(Oh, and what gives with the superscript 1's for the apostrophes?)
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Boy is that true...I don't have anything against the man personally, but he can be wordy, and he does have a specific set of "soapboxes" that he likes to get up on when the opportunity shows itself.
I'm thinking though that Katz has set a record for the longest set of answers to an interview. There might be a longer interview elsewhere where the person got more questions, (like I think the l0pht interview was pretty long) but in general this seems like one of the longer ones.
I could of course be smoking crack on that one though, just that this one "feels" longer. (Whether that's an unintentional indictment of his writing style or not, I don't know)
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
You've fallen prey to a fatal error - and that is once again, somebody has taken slashdot seriously.
People may accuse me for being an elitist, but...back in the day, when not only was the signal/noise ratio good, but there still was discernible signal on slashdot, back when people weren't constantly questioning the ethics of the people writing the damn stories because they hadn't been bought and sold 1000 times, and back in the day before the grits pouring, natalie worshipping people who inhabit these parts now, slashdot MIGHT have been worth taking seriously.
Since all of that stuff has long since happened, it's not worth taking seriously.
What I don't understand is this - you're sticking up for Jon Katz against the flamers as if it was hurting YOU personally. It shouldn't. And even if you were Jon Katz, it shouldn't hurt you personally. Remember all of the drawbacks of anonymity, and how AC's are the "emotional" equivalents of script kiddies - they strike out at anything that they can see, hoping that in one out of 1000 people that they'll actually make some headway.
These are just flames, messages posted on a board. If you lose sleep over them, that's when you should worry about whether they're true or not. Just brush them off, and don't feel the need to stick up for Jon Katz since he doesn't feel the need to stick up for himself.
I don't mean this to sound like a flame, but even if it does, I don't particularly care. Because I know that I'm a complete stranger to you, and that since this post isn't presenting any technical knowledge, you should feel very free to completely ingore it and think of me as just some random idiot.
If it makes you any happier, you should. Don't let this stuff get to you. Stick around slashdot long enough, and you'll be tarred and feathered with flames. But they don't have any basis in objective reality - they're just the knee-jerk reactions of some complete stranger that you will NEVER MEET in your entire life.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
I think the problem with that is that the people who are really clueful are out *doing* what they love, and don't have time to sit down and write about it.
:)
:)
It's not meant as an insult to writers, but I do think that a certain amount of the old adage: "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach" is true.
My LUG is having that problem right now. A lot of the people in my LUG are absolute perl *wizards* but they're so damn busy coding and making wheelbarrow loads full of money at it that they don't have time to come sit down and TALK about linux.
Maybe it's the same with writers and linux. The people who are the ones that you'd really like to see write a weekly column, (like say, Linus or Alan Cox) are too damn busy doing what it is that put them in that spot of your admiration to enjoy your admiration by actually writing.
Sucks, don't it?
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Are you paid for these articles? If so, are you freelance or employed by Andover or VA or whatever we're calling them today?
Or, to state your resolve more plainly, you have decided to ignore Rob's advice in the moderation guidelines, and concentrate on moderating down those opinions that you don't agree with. Well done: you've grasped precisely what moderation is NOT supposed to be about.
> personally, but like he said, that doesn't happen in the threads, only
> on e-mail.
If that's the case, the solution is obvious. Why don't you and JK and co. form yourselves a little e-mail list (closed, of course), where you can chatter away to your hearts' content without the gross light of reality intruding?
I think it would be much more entertaining and thought-provoking if Rob, Katz, and the others jumped into the forums and broke down the barriers between author and poster. In my mind they're the same thing ... or ought to be.
...is that he's a lousy, boring, incompetent, and shamelessly self-promoting writer. He rambles, he has lousy spelling and grammar, and he has not yet mastered the art of cross-platform punctution. He is a mediocre, tedious writer.
/. is a tech news site. It would do just fine without a resident windbag to preach at us. Recruiting Katz might have gotten /. some publicity initially, but at this point, Rob should dump him and find some real writers who graduated from college and have some knowledge of the tech field.
Secondly, the man has nothing interesting to say. He is a master at filling a page with verbiage, but when one goes back to actually analyse his content, you often realize that he either said very little, or that he said something painfully obvious. The only time he does have anything to say is when he talks about politics, and in that case he trots out a tired anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, leftist dogma. He seems to believe that he can subsitute words for arguments. Even when he has a provocative or interesting opinion, he never manages to actually give evidence for it.
He also seems to view himself as the center of the universe. Half his article talk about his conversations with others, his attempts to install linux, his books, etc. He is clearly in it for the publicity of having thousands of geeks read his stuff and then click a link to buy his book.
Now, Katz has a right to be an incompetent writer writing long-winded, idea-free articles. My problem with him is that he is elevated above the rest of us and allowed to spread his nonsense accross slashdot's front page. He is the only one on Slashdot who does this, and he does a lousy job of it. It is not clear what function he serves.
...
Rob's moderation systems have definitely made this better, and he thinks quite a bit about this issue.
Which is it, man? Make up your mind.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
> As for the short paragraphs in his usual posts, that's a good thing.
No, it's not! A paragraph should contain a point or an idea. There is actually a logic to writing. A good writer will make a point in one paragraph and when he finishes, he will start a new paragraph. A writer should not arbitrarily start a new paragraph without finishing his point, which is what Jon does.
> Would you prefer 50-line paragraphs, or 5 line paragraphs?
A writer who spends 50 lines on a single paragraph is almost certainly expressing more than a single idea in that paragraph. Paragraphs should not be arbitrarily long anymore than they should be arbitrarily short. With Jon, I'm always left guessing why he started a new paragraph.
Reading an entire Jon Katz article is hard work. Scanning it can be even harder. When scanning, one usually reads the beginning of a sentence. If the reader is uninterested or he feels the point is sufficiently clear, he can skip ahead. In a Jon Katz article, it is difficult to determine how far to skip. You can't just go to the next paragraph because it is usually part of the same idea and should have been included in the last paragraph.
> This is what you do when you need to present information in a dense, cluttered layout.
Actually, you should start with an outline and try to make your point clearly. Jon writes about lay topics for a lay audience. He's not presenting any extreme depth to his topic. There's no reason for him to write in a disorganized stream of conciousness. He's trying to make a point and it shouldn't be a chore for me to "get it".
The problem with Jon is not that his articles are long, but that they are too long and say too little. He repeats his ideas. He says the same thing in different ways. He rewords his last sentence and says it over.
Sometimes, he repeats an idea in a new paragraph for no reason.
He labors on his topic. He doesn't know when to stop. He feels that his every word is precious and is unwilling to delete any of it. He spends too many words saying too little. He says the same thing in new ways without adding anything. He paraphrases himself. He doesn't present new ideas, he just reiterates his original idea.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Considering that Katz is a professional (at least in theory), it is entirely reasonable to demand more of him than just mere intelligible work. Proper grammar has evolved, atleast in part, to improve readability and coherance. Katz's poor grammar detracts from his "work". When you consider that writing ability is all Katz truly has to contribute to the community (e.g., not legal, scientific, financial, medical, etc.), it is hard to justify his existence here. [Even though Katz might fatten Slashdot Inc.'s coffers].
"If the topic of discussion is a Jon Katz interview, then his idiocy (or lack thereof) and his bad grammar are certainly on-topic."
Katz is the topic here. That is what, I believe, the particular poster was commenting on originally.
Furthermore, even if Katz is not the topic, and his article is about, say, "geeks", Katz's grammar (not to mention his other "habits") does not suddenly become immaterial. When you consider the fact that :
a) There are limited opportunities for feedback. Email being the only way I can think of.
b) Katz is one of the select few individuals chosen, by the powers that be, to post articles.
c) Katz is an employee and "friend" of the editors--he is entrenched.
d) The powers that be have, in so many words, said "too bad" in numerous emails (the first, and only, line of attack).
e) Katz's highly inflamatory writing, despite his impopularity with many (perhaps even most), might still fatten Slashdot's wallets.
People who dislike Katz may, in fact, be best advised to act much like they have (though I disagree with many particular methods, e.g., "Katz sucks"). I personally believe the best way to handle Katz's position on Slashdot is to post occasionally on Katz's threads, and to try to educate Slashdot Jr's as to how Katz and Slashdot operate. If we users can create some kind of consensus...enough to reach that critical threshold where people just agree to either stop reading slashdot entirely, or just ban Katz, we might prompt the owners to change their approach.
For those who will, inevitably, tell me that I can merely ignore Katz, I say hogwash. Katz does not operate in a vacuum. Or, to borrow and taint a phrase from Martin Buber, "Idiocy anywhere is idiocy everywhere". Though this might prompt many to ring alarmist bells about fascism and the like, it does not make it any less true. Can you honestly tell me, that, when Katz posts an article, it doesn't affect the traffic and the quality of other articles? Can you honestly tell me that the owners don't sit on their asses at the end of the day after posting a Katz article and a few other meaningless articles, and feel satiated (or atleast their wallets fattened)? Tell me, what happens to the quality articles, not to mention the discussion? Katz changes the dynamic of slashdot, it is as simple as that. While some may argue that it is, on the aggregate, for the better, I disagree strongly.
While my only right, when push comes to shove, is to leave slashdot (and maybe even compete against them), I will not do so without a fight. If this is a community, then I take some ownership of it beyond just what I directly hear and what I say. I may not own slashdot, and I might not speak for the community, but it is not much of a community if communication is only one way.
So when the the Katz filter is circumvented, no only are you exposed to the article blurb, but also forced to read it and post a response to it?
Wow, those filters must be stronger than I though. I usually can pretty much filter through stuff myself. It's a little trick I picked up somewhere I like to call "skipping the story"(tm)
Finkployd
Well, yeah, but. I think I'd just as soon that Katz not jump into the forums. Nothing against him, mind you, just the hordes of lamoids whose IQs seem to drop (and testosterone levels soar) everytime they read something by him.
It's like some sort of weird Pavlovian response. ("Hey, Katz wrote something! Bark! Bark! Bark!") Their posts would be pretty distracting.
I was wondering whatever happened to the Brill's Content gig. I don't remember seeing any mention from you or Content that you weren't writing for them, but I can't remember seeing anything from you in there lately either. What's up?
Just as an aside, and as a charter BC subscriber, thank God they got rid of Brill, and I can only hope that the new editor does a better job of keeping her (I think it's a her) biases in check.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I don't think that his opinions in his writing are either stark or rehashes of "popular" /. opinion. I think most people (outside of this corner of the web), especially those unfamiliar with technology would consider his views vastly different from opinions they are used to seeing in op-ed pages - that is, liberals and conservatives.
I think the reason his opinions sound that way to US are because we see so much of his writing.
Here's a suggestion: Katz, make your pieces a little shorter, and write less often - say, no more than three essays per month. Slashdot, get one or two more authors that like to write about various aspects of technology/society, and have them do the same thing - a couple of essays per month.
That way, we'll get perspectives from more than one person, and we won't read so MUCH of one person's writings.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I love the term ChristoGeeks. I have a great reverence for the Christianity as practiced and taught by Jesus Christ (see below). Were he alive today, I would be in his Church.
But He is! All Christians believe this... It seems odd to say that if He were alive today you would be in His church, when the only reason for anyone to be in His church is _because_ he is alive today!
Gerv
A question for the crowd: what non-geek commentator(s) would you like to see on slashdot?
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
For the third time this week, and the fourth time this year already, a Katz article has been posted in such a way to circumvent the Katz filter used by the enormous number of /. readers that find even an article blurb on the front page to be beyond mere annoyance.
If you don't want us to be able to filter out Katz, why do you give us the false hope of the option? To some /. readers, the Katz filter alone is enough reason to get a user account. Is it in Katz's contract that you have to do everything, ethical or otherwise, to get his stuff before the largest number of eyeballs?
Are any other filters being circumvented? Katz is the only thing I filter. Is anyone annoyed about this kind of thing elsewhere in the site?
Enabling the filter won't do you _any_ good, because the last four Katz articles have been posted in such a way to ensure that the Katz filter doesn't catch them. Presumably this is a commercially driven decision to derive more banner impressions and possibly sell more of Katz's book on geeks, though the result has actually been to bring hordes of people that don't mind flaming Katz into this thread and making a nuisance of our selves.
Lots of people have said that people like me that have posted messages like this one shouldn't bother to read the article. We are just trying to get through that this failure has been noted. I'm not here to flame Katz, and I don't go into Katz stories that get caught by the filter and flame them. If the filter was being respected, my posts wouldn't be here in the faces of the Katz fans. Katz fans, support the anti-Katz people in this, it will lower the amount of anti-Katz postings in here and make your day better.
Try a mirror. You, Paul, are whining about the lack of a "complete Jon Katz filter". I'll continue to state that you ought to have one built in... it's called a brain.
If that doesn't work, try this... /jon katz/i}
foreach $article (<ON_SLASHDOT>) {
next $article if $article =~
(you do realize this a joke, right?)
The guy is hardly my hero. I rarely ever agree with him, but I am reminded of the famous quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
See, here is the difference... you don't want to read (or even see) Jon Katz articles, but you click on them anyway. Myself, I *choose* to read Jon Katz articles because all of you "I hate Jon Katz" whiners amuse me. Get the difference yet?
Sometimes I wonder why I bother trying to have a coherent and productive conversation with people who feel compelled to use phrases like "bum-boy" to make a point. References to latent homosexuality are not becoming... nor are they accurate.
However, I do feel compelled to post this time, because there is one thing in this article that I agree with, that the Christian Right is neither.
They try to
- force
people to think their way, and I believe that is a violation of Great Commandment No.2: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Christ was about forgiveness, not comdemnation. Sure, they can memorize the entire Bible, but I wonder if they realize what it truly means.One more thing: Sure, religion can stand poking from Johnny, because no one cares what he says
Then again, what do I know? I'm a cradle Roman Catholic, apparently the lowest form of religious scum around these parts, ranking just below Satanism judging from the comments of certain others on Slashdot...
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
It really shows Katz's true colors.. that he really does believe ONLY HE knows Slashdot's TRUE audience, and because he gets 200-300 emails a day he is the Expert On Everything Slashdot.
I personally thought Q*Bert's post was just as valid and non-flamey as any other post, but Katz jumped all over him for no reason.
Obviously, Katz knows more about us than we do.
Question: "...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."
Answer: "...I think its a responsibility of government to keep the Net and the Web as free and non-commercial as is possible. I don't believe Libertarians would share that view...If I understand them correctly, the Libertarians present a strong political rationale for keeping a space like the Net free from corporate or government interference."
No, Jon, you don't understand Libertarians at all, in fact, you barely understand the internet. (Geez! You're promoting your own book right here in the interview. How commercial can you get!) Libertarians are opposed to involuntary interactions between human beings. This places them against governments and criminals. If a corporation commits a crime (theft, fraud, etc), then a libertarian will be against them. Libertarians do NOT believe that money or making money is evil, nor do they believe the size of an organization has anything at all to do with morality.
Commerce, as long as it remains a voluntary interaction between two individuals or groups, is supported by libertarianism. The philosophy finds nothing wrong with commercial concerns.
But the question, and Jon's reply equating freedom with anti-commercialism, assume that commerce is involuntary. But no one is forced to be subscribed to AOL, to buy Time magazine or to watch Tiny Toons. If corporations really had to power to dictate terms to governments, then where are the laws mandating purchases? (I don't consider government mandated monopolies to be commercial concerns) Why isn't Chrysler sending police to my door when I buy a Ford? How come I am not being sued by ABC/CBS/NBC for not owning a television? Why has Redhat not indicted me for running Slackware?
Corporations can only wield government power if the government first gives it to them. It's extremely frustrating to see people attack the symptom and not the disease.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yep, including mistakes using non-ASCII editors to post ASCII text.
As far as I know editors do three different types of things for writers:
Given that you've published real books, I think your editor deserves a hearty thanks. While you often do have interesting things to say, I get the impression your editor does a lot of work before your books hit the presses.
Now you mention that Rob Jeff and Robin are great editors -- I dunno -- I haven't seen too much editing on their part, especially of the first type. They don't seem to catch the non ASCII characters, the run-on sentences, or any of the other mistakes. But then again, they're not really editors... nobody who spels az bad az rob kan be a reel editur.
You say Slashdot is hiring real editors? GREAT! I might actually read everything you write instead of skimming it if someone does a good job of editing it first.
And btw, using as a crutch that you "barely got through high school and didn't finish college" won't cut it. If you're going to call yourself a professional writer, you should expect to be treated as a professional writer. As a professional coder, any code I put out for public consumption will be decent code, even if I'm doing it for free. I'm not going to write uncommented spaghetti code that won't compile and then make the excuse that "I did it for free!"
This is sounding a bit like a flame, but that's not how I mean it. I find the subjects you choose for your articles interesting, and they do tend to promote discussion on Slashdot. But I tend to find them a pain to read, mainly because the writing style seems almost like a "stream of conciousness". I can't bring myself to read it all the way through. If you made sure that they were edited before they would posted I think they would be much better received.
The playboy article has a quote from you:
That sure seems to be condescending way to look at the community that is nice enough to provide you with a forum to post your articles. Not to mention a condescending way to look at the New York Times.
I think the problem most people have is with "the frequency with which [you serve] as spokesman for the growing number of people who work and live online". In particular, the frequency with which you claim to represent and understand geeks, while being about as far from a real geek as possible. As you should know, being one who uses the term so frequently, being a geek is about more than just what you know about computers. Being a geek is about interest in technology, wanting to know how things work. Being able to see the beauty in a technical fix... But not only are you not technically sophisticated, you don't seem interested in these things. How can you claim to represent or understand geeks?
And btw, I don't resent you (although you at turns bore, annoy me and occasionally interest me), and I'm certainly no longer a teenager.
Step 1. /. asks Katz questions about himself. /. flames Katz for talking about himself.
Step 2. Katz answers the questions about himself.
Step 3.
Anyone see a problem here?
Got anyone in mind?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I agree, but you're making the invalid assumption that the Katz flamers have a life outside /. If they don't get a rise here, it's over for them. What's two hours of wasted time when your whole life is a joke.
I'd love to discuss some of Jon's points without an attack on him personally, but like he said, that doesn't happen in the threads, only on e-mail. Those discussions used to be here, but the noise got too loud.
Sad really, total freedom is choas, and choas isn't good for coherent discussion. AC's are a particularly determined kind of chaos.
+&x
The killfile might be a bit extreme, but this has really gotten out of control. The last time I had mod points, I saw at least 20 posts that needed to get killed. Maybe modding down ACs shouldn't cost mod points? Or 50 or so full time troll-bashers with unlimited points to use on ACs. /. is part of a billion$ corp. now, it's time to get professional and not be bothered by disgruntled teens.
+&x
Of course, I may be a wee bit biased here as an AC myself. :)
:-)
/. memes (you know what they are). a post goes down by 1/2 point..... nah, that's a stupid idea, forget it. Something needs to be done. I'm gonna try and point them over here, I just hope they realize how bad it a has gotten, i.e. expontentially worse since they last time it was brought up, and the mergers, and the money. There's just TOO many peole here.
/. comments(you might want to check Friday's edition to see if your post got snagged), I wonder how many people reading USAT realize that pouring hot grits down natalie portman's petrified PANTS, is a good portion of /.'s content. Although I guess its the equivalent of the funny/obituary pages of the old media rags.
You're the problem, dammit!
It's the good ACs that cause the deliemma.
Maybe Rob could roll up a 1/2 point auto-moderator. If an AC post contains any of the
Heres a funny thing. The other day I was reading USAToday (dead tree) about the "DDoS of Y2K". They were quoting
(if that doesn't show you how much geeks rule, what does...)
+&x
Definitely Dave Barry.
He is not exactly a geek, yet his writing is often very interesting (hilarious) to geeks. If you don't know about this, go back and read "Read This First!," (it's in the sci.electronics FAQ) his review of Independence Day (pointing out, in a humourous manner, the one part that made geeks everywhere groan loudly), "Dave Barry's Guide to Guys," and many other interesting-to-geeks writings.
He even tackled EULAs. Check out this link for a good geeky laugh.
I'm doubt Slashdot would actually hire him, though... Maybe they can, with all of that IPO money. It would definitely attract readers and he would be a good guy to have "on our side." He's made fun of M$ before, for the same reasons we tend to hate them.
Man, would that ever be cool...
"The people who read me are directly involved with technology -- administrators, programmers, developers, students, and many, many highly-technical Linux geeks and nerds. I get mail from programmers, people overseas, from CEO's, government officials, bio-ethicists, geneticists, NSA spooks, and all sorts of teenaged geeks from all kinds of schools, from high school to college...
How can you claim that? You are more arrogant that I ever imagined! So I guess you are the end-all of writers in every community. NSA spooks pull up Katz reviews of movies to find out where technology is headed. You seem to thing that you have an unlimited forum here. Everyone join me in going to your preferences and blocking everythign by Jon Katz. You are abusive of your rights on slashdot and posts things that are definitly not News For Nerds.
Also, How do you claim that you are read by highly technical linux geeks, when you rarely write about anything technical, much less a topic that can be highly technical.
You shouldn't abuse your position. Contrary to what world you have created in your mind, you sir are not a technocrat. You are not respected, your opinions are not well founded or much less explained in any fashion. All you do is sum up stories, dumb them down, then post them on slashdot.
Hell, I could write a perl script that would take the place of you.
Completely wrong.
These "Jon Katz is an idiot" and "What horrible grammar!" are flamebait and offtopic, and I will moderate them as such.
-- iCEBaLM
On his writing style. I really see nothing wrong with it... Katz is far from terse, and that comes from cutting his teeth by writing books and feature articles for magazines. Unlike other print forms (i.e. newspapers), editing for length is not much of a problem. You just slap in another signet and sell some more ads or add in some filler content instead of cutting an article. (Wonder why books often have tons of blank pages at the beginning or end? Filling out the signatures.)
As for the short paragraphs in his usual posts, that's a good thing. Short chunks of information are easier to read on-screen. Would you prefer 50-line paragraphs, or 5 line paragraphs? (Pending screen width, of course.) This is what you do when you need to present information in a dense, cluttered layout.
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/writin g/
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/writi ng2/
Jon Katz is an idiot. And so are you for not providing a valid argument. If you don't like Katz, don't read Katz. I know the filters didn't catch these last few articles, and that's a technical issue, not something to blame Jon about. Regardless, if you see a story about Katz, by Katz, etc. don't read it if you don't want to. All you're doing by posting and pissing and moaning is giving /. a few more page views on a Katz article. It doesn't take that much of an IQ to realise that the more page views Katz gets, the more you'll see of him.
If you want the filters fixed, I'd suggest emailing Rob or Hemos directly so they can directly evaluate the need.
Personal attacks. Interesting that so many people attack Jon for (supposedly) flaming Q*bert while in the same paragraph, they flame Jon on personal grounds. It's also interesting that many of the posts criticizing Jon's writing style are the most ill-edited pieces of drivel in the forums.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Nothing I like better than reading an article full of ']' characters in place of apostrophes. Not everybody reads slashdot on a Unix box (well, sometimes I do via Lynx if I'm in a hurry or there's not enough memory to open Explorer).
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.5; Mac_PowerPC), fer shure....
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Ever since I started reading Slashdot, I've been bewildered at these people who freak out about Jon Katz. To be sure, anyone has a right to dislike or disagree with any of his articles. But when this happens to normal people, they post a critical message and get on with their lives. Not so with Katz Kooks, however. It's not enough to just register dissent; they must, in the grand tradition of net.kookery, gush forth a river of hatred with all the of energy in their soul.
Now I think I've got it. Here's my theory: these people are nuts. They are stark raving mad. I don't mean that as a figure of speech; I mean that they are suffering from a mental health disorder and are need of professional help.
Are they going to be offended by my theory? Boy, do I hope so, because I fancy the idea that my mere words have made their blood boil with apoplectic rage. What power I have, over complete strangers! In fact, maybe Jon has had a similar notion and has decided to provoke the Kooks just for the sheer sport of it. It sure seems easy to pull their the string, just type a few lines, hit "Submit" and watch them cavort in madness. It's like shooting at their feet and commanding them to dance. Now DANCE, ye Kooks!
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Oh, and the Santa Claus thing was really meant as a joke; the real thrust of my idea was the rest of the post.
Actually, some kids at MIT did some calculations and showed pretty conclusively the impossibility of Santa Claus existing and visiting all the good little Christian children in the course of one night. I don't really think anyone has done anything comperable for religion that didn't hinge on a lot of silly ass metaphysics. I myself have never seen Occam's Razor, or anything else in the fields of logic and science, as having a lot of relevance to my religious life. There are a lot of ways of looking at the world. In my view, there's nothing wrong with using a couple of them in their proper time. It is entirely possible to hold science and religion to be complimentary rather than mutually exclusive. And I don't think that there is any single principle, logical or otherwise, that can with authority declare the presence or absence of God, gods, the devas and Yakshas, or anything else for that matter. Religious belief stems from a different sort of authority, and is subject to a slightly different form of examination that belief about particle physics.
To start this off on an honest note (after flaming a Microsoft worker for not saying so w.r.t. a Microsoft post he made), I'm a theology student with the PAOC, although they have no responsibility for the words herein ... :-) I love my beliefs ... I believe in God and basic Christianity and the rest of it. If you don't like that (anyone reading this), tell me about it elsewhere and read my feedback on the Internet Infidels site. I would agree that most incarnations of organised Christian religion (I won't comment on others) are not perfect and, in some cases, bad. However, it should be pointed out that from within the worldview of true Christianity, organisation makes sense, even if it doesn't always work out well. The PAOC, for instance, organised itself mostly because there was a desire to share funds between individual independant churches to send people overseas with. In todays incarnation of it, there is still the attitude that we are an association of independant assemblies ... (we are a sister organisation to the Assemblies of God in the USA). Why do I mention all this? I don't want to compose a 20 page essay on the issue, but suffice it to say that Christians wouldn't be Christian if they didn't believe in getting together for Church regularly, that certain activities are wrong (like murder, lying, cheating or homosexuality ... none more than the others), etc. If you don't like the beliefs of Christians, that's not the problem of Christianity. If a person is truly a Christian, it will permeate their life and system of thinking. If so, it will affect what they have to say to their governors and how they vote. If this happens, you will end up with what looks like religion in government when in fact all you have is Christians who are voters. Yes, there are Christian-right groups who aren't thinking straight and not acting in love of the world while promoting their beliefs. Mind you, the rest of "us" try to keep them straight as much as the rest of "you" do. We just tend to be nicer about it ... Censorship? Just on a note that hits home a little, I believe that censorship is wrong to the Christian because, if anything, those who are able to control anything will control and stifle religion first. I'm not too worried about the religious right taking over the world (it won't happen) ... but getting my free speach shut up (including my belief that homosexuality is wrong but that I can still hang out with and befriend a homosexual) is something that really scares me ... ... have fun with this ... I'm not proofreading :-)
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
atheism is NOT a religion; it is based on logic and reason; religion is based on faith and presumption
Well, I don't know about atheism being a religion, although it has seemed to be one for some atheists I have known personally. If atheism is not a religion it is most definitely a belief --
When those of us who are theists (those who believe in a personal supernatural being that intervenes in history -- that covers a lot of territory, religiously -- Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Hindus perhaps, I'm not sure) discuss God, we are not talking about Santa Claus, some magical figure that "defies the laws of physics" as you put it. I think you may misunderstand the word "supernatural" as it applies in this kind of a discussion, as opposed to the Blair Witch Project. "Supernatural" is not magical, weird, or necessarily occult: it comes from the Latin meaning above or greater than nature. Or in another way, outside of nature, and therefore, the "laws of physics".
Here's an example from physics. For more than a thousand years, the accepted "laws of physics" were understood to be the body of Greek and Hellenistic theories about the natural world that is often referred to as Aristotelean physics. Based on the experience of phenomena that was available, these theories worked just fine. Much later on, observations from astronomy, coupled with much better mathematical tools, allowed Newton to rework physics completely once again, based on a wider base of experience. And, incidentally, the Newtonian theories still work just fine for the phenomena they were intended. Starting in the 19th century, new phenomena such as radioactivity led theorists such as Planck, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, et. al. to construct brand new "laws of physics", some of which seemed, and seem nonsense, unless you understand the domain of phenomena they were intended to make sense of. But they are very practical -- the computers that you and I are using depend on a knowledge of quantum mechanics.
To us, God is a person outside the natural world, and is the person who created it. This set of theories or beliefs are what we use to make certain phenomena -- our experence of our own human experience, of values such a truth or beauty or justice, make sense. Can we "prove" the existence of God? Well, to some extent, it is a meaningless question, if you mean can I prove the existence of God the same way I prove the existence of Peoria or Phobos. If God is outside the frame of natural experience in the manner I state above, I can no more "prove" his existence than Einstein could have meaningfully discussed the truth of Special Relativity before such experiments as the Michaelson-Morley demonstration.
In the very same way, you cannot disprove the existence of God either, you can just choose whether or not it makes sense for you to believe that there is a God. The issue is not whether or not religious persons use reason or logic (I would say about the same percentage do as non-religious persons - too few) but the body of experience that religious persons apply logic and reason to in evaluating their beliefs.
Why do I believe? Because when I consider all of my life's experiences, I can make more sense of what I know by believing in God. In making the important decisions of my life, I believe that those decisons made in light of that belief have been good decisions. But comfort has little to do with it. As you move from simple theistic belief to true religion, you move from simple intellectual assent, to a relationship that involves trust, accountability, and cost. I am a Christian, and a Roman Catholic, both by choice. I would be much more comfortable (in some ways) as the agnostic I once was, than having to face up to the responsibilities that result from confronting what I see as the truth.
BTW, I can honor Jon's attitude, even if I don't share it.
Claude
What are you people doing to me? I'm on a corporate LAN, and you put a link to a PLAYBOY article on there? Visiting those depraved, worthless websites from work has been known to get people fired! Now I can't read it until I go home!
Note for the humor impaired: buggroff.
Communication is only possible between equals
Come on, the idea that anyone (from the trolls to Rob) needs to "ask" to be accepted here is just silly.
While your attempt at pshchoanalyzing someone you have never met was interesting to read, I believe you make many assumptions that you have little reason to.
Katz writes articles that are intended to stimulate discussion... maybe that is not what you view as worthy of some kind of ideal community you seem to think Slashdot is (both of you take this community thing waaay too far), but it is certainly a very legitimate method of writing. Katz is right in saying that the internet is an arena where this style is highly appropriate, and I welcome it, believing it has flourished here on Slashdot (despite the trolls).
I come to Slashdot because I enjoy the discussions, not just the articles (which it seems you do too, if you post and read the threads)... If every writer here only posted when they were "sure they were right", this would certainly not be as vibrant of of what I believe is an incredibly unique site.
No one needs to be accepted here, and I do not believe Katz is striving for that. He is doing something that he loves doing. He writes on topics which are interesting to him (even if he does not know everything about them) and to a lot of people who come here. I think it is easy to entertain the idea that he has learned a lot since coming to Slashdot, as have a great majority of the users. Quit picking this apart (I did not know they had a scientific name for annoying nit-picker, but thank you for providing it).
The idea of never listening to someone again (as in all the "My Katz-filter is not working" cry-babies) because you do not happen to agree with them just seems so assinine to me; You never know where a good idea can come from.
Do you think the "Slashdot Community" could ever accept me!? Oh pretty please.
I really think the largest problem is not the AC's anymore. It is the BrucePerens., AntiKatz, Hemos. and all the other trolls who have become registered users. It makes it so much harder to ignore their shit and wastes countless moderator points.
While I would not be sad to see them kicked off, I think the best solution for everyone is to increase the moderators.
It's no mystery that the amount of crap has gone way up in the past few months, but in the past few weeks I have noticed that moderation has been a tad slow in keeping up.
The last few times I have moderated, I spent 4 out of 5 points moderating down trolls. That is really annoying.
I just think the best solution is doling out more moderation points per moderator, or selecting more moderators... as opposed to any sort of a killfile.
Thanks for the URL! It would be nice to have a few more people like that regularly on /. Having someone like Katz is nice, but really it seems that the "discussion" after his articles are becoming stale and repetitive. The lack of technical ability in most of the media seems to generate the same responses to many articles posted. It would be nice to have some regulars that are more technical posting too.
I've never really thought of that adage that way, that sadly makes sense here. Thus the Jessie Bersts of the world and such I guess, and perhaps JK above (he's had a few very disappointing technical errors in the past).
Those writing often seem to be not busy (and perhaps should be) with other things, mainly with what their writing about. A sad little fact leading to some critical errors that I've seen in many articles by "those who teach." One problem I often see is the fact that the writers often do not stop to explain what they're writing about, or if they do they do it poorly or incorrectly. Probably because some of them aren't "those ho can."
I sympathize with your situation in your LUG, I often leave people who ask for my help on their own to learn the hard way rather than interrupt my own projects.
Yep, it sucks.
I wish I did. I find a good writer with a technical clue now and then but few that write regular columns that I'm aware of.
I figure either that there are very few of them out there, or that they get very little exposure with other people taking their place who are "less technically inclined" (being polite).
The popularity of the "Ask Jon Katz" article got me thinking. While I often totally disagree with Katz on a ton of things, I don't have a prob with his "articles" appearing on /.. However I think it would be nice to see another writer brought in who could act as a counterpoint to Katz. They don't have to totally disagree, but it would be nice to get someone else in on the mix with differing opinions rather than just Katz's "articles." From what I hear he does reply to his e-mail but it would be nice to see someone else in a public forum.
To me Katz is somewhat mediocre, but thats because he's a straight up journalist. His "gee whiz" view of technology and "geeks" doesn't really give him a lot of credability. You all know the rest of the substanciated complaints on him.
But you have to admit, when you compare him to the average journalist, even the average tech journalist, he pretty much blows them out of the water. His willingness to challege prevailing views gives his a certain amount of respect from me that I think others here aren't willing to give. Here I am referring to the columbine stories, his articles that challenge capitalism (to an extent) go beyond most of what I read anywhere else, for an author who I would consider "mainstream". He wouldn't go as far as most here, but, in todays world, you just can't if you want to be taken seriously by a lot of people. Change comes slowly, and it doesn't always move in the right direction.
In a way he helps us gain mainstream credability. I think he overstates his importance, especially with this new book in this area, but it's there. At least he attempts to connect the "geek world" to "mainstream society". His article in playboy clarified that for me a bit.
Katz does serve a purpose as I just stated above. If you don't want to read his articles, you don't have to. Even if he made it through the Katz filter.
Now I just hope my employer didn't notice I was viewing pages from playboy.com....
...Rob could of hired Jesse Berst to be the official article writer.
I just read Playboy for the articles!
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
For the sake of form, I'll point out just one little bit of cultural myopia on your part. You criticize Christianity (in the form of the Christian Right) for involving itself in politics more than other religions. This is true in the USA only because Christianity was, historically, the dominant religion of this country (and it arguably still is today -- IIRC, about a third of all Americans still consider themselves Christians of one variety or another). It is certainly not true worldwide, as can be shown by even the briefest examination of the Arab countries (for example), many of which are dominated by Islam far more than we are by Christianity. So I don't think that your statement, as a criticism of Christianity relative to other belief systems, holds up; Christianity is no more inclined to control society than Islam or some other religions. It just happens to have the dominant position in the country you live in, which is quite a different thing.
Now this is what strikes me as most odd... Why would anyone PAY for Katz's /. writings.
If it is just to piss people off enough to post about him and flame him and all that negative energy which surrounds most of katz's "features" then I find this bad.
There is enough negativity in this place without Katz around to salt wounds. Why encourage more.
Oh wait, I forgot, it's all about the money. sorry to bother.
They are a threat to free speech and must be silenced! - Andrea Chen
Fish! LipHo
Jon, I for one have been one of your few supporters around here, now I'm not so sure, you blindly insulted the majority of this community with those remarks and I for one will browse with the "don't display Katz articles" option.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
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?
Its not necessary to have had a bad experience with most prominant religions to notice they are fundamentally flawed.
A view, a judgement, an appraisal, a belief ... less strong than positive knowledge. None of these imply any possibility of a correct opinion.
Last I heard, /. was a news/discussion site, incapable of forming an opinion. Getting right down to it, /. is a bunch of perl code on several linux servers running Apache. On a more basic level, /. is nothing more than silicon, metal, plastic, ones and zeros. Machines don't have opinions (please, no ST:TNG references).
And, BTW, I for one don't think he should necessarily go away. I may not agree with him very often, but that is the whole point of opinions!
Eric
This has been bugging me for quite some time.
I read most of Katz's articles, and I dont always agree with what he says, just like I wouldnt always agree with what my mom says, but I dont tell either that they're idiots.
After every article that Jon has a hand in, you always see the same things, "Katz is a moron", "What horrible grammar!", etc. Well I have one thing to say to that.
If you think he is a moron and writes with horrible grammar, stop reading his articles, dont waste hard drive space, bandwidth, and brain cells on reading it and flaming him as it does nobody any good.
I personally have no problem with Jon writing for slashdot, I couldnt care less about his grammar as long as I can understand his view points, and I dont care to read comments about how much of an idiot and how bad his grammar is. I'm sure many people agree with me.
These "Jon has bad grammar" and "Katz is an idiot" comments need to start being moderated down, and even if it costs me karma or lengthens my time between receiving moderator points, I'm going to practice what I preach when I can.
-- iCEBaLM
They aren't. I am a Slashdot author, and I'm conspicuously present in the public forums. I did the Borgification and Interface article. I have every intention of doing another, heartily encouraged by at least Roblimo who posted the last one- when I have something well-developed enough to say that I'm ready to spend some days writing it, just as if it was for print.
I tend to run long but not, I think, repetitively- basically the only time I feel I have an article is when I have a _lot_ of ground to cover. I disagree strongly with some of Katz's writing principles- I figure, if you are not quite sure you are right, why are you writing anything at all? The world has a way of _editing_ your rightness- unless you are truly pigheaded there's no reason to be wishywashy and pretend you don't have an opinion. If you are off base you _will_ be corrected, and at that point your notion of what is completely right will change. Rightness is not really a destination, it's more of a process- it is time based. I took pains to time-stamp the argumentative essays on airwindows.com for just this reason. When I go back and look at my ideas later, some of them will be wrong in the new context.
I feel that to fully interact with a world that is both embracing and hostile, you have to have both humility and selfconfidence- not one or the other, _both_ in large amounts. I figure I do pretty well on those grounds, mostly because I have to. I believe Jon Katz is on the one hand lacking in humility (which is a _very_ easy and obvious criticism to make) but on the other hand, lacking in selfconfidence. This sets him up to try and pull rank and _assert_ a superiority he does not feel and isn't entitled to- which is a large part of why he's not slugging it out in the threads like writers like me.
I can only guess at the reasons for this, but I'd single out Jon's attempts to censor his past from himself- he doesn't honor all parts of his life. He was a very heavyweight media exec, the Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News, and this seems to have horrified him so much that he attempts to call this another, now disdained, life. It is as if that life is not part of him at all.
Unfortunately, you can't do that- I suppose Thomas Merton, Jon's Trappist monk, led a more sheltered life which did not contain elements of shame. This is why Jon would be drawn to him, but it wouldn't equip Merton to be able to teach Jon about coming to terms with all elements of his life- and so he hasn't, and this is a barrier preventing Jon from dealing with us on equal terms.
I realize that I am a _strange_ candidate for bringing further enlightenment, but on other hand I'm one of the two critics Jon named who post under their own names with their own emails handy. I too have had supportive email from intelligent people over this. In retrospect, I'm a little disappointed in myself that I didn't consider the idea that _Jon_ felt inadequate: I know perfectly well how this sort of thing works, and now we have all the clues (former big media job that was repudiated, shame over past 'lives', efforts to behave 'born again' to totally disclaim the former life and not accept it in the slightest way) to see that, as so often happens, Jon's seeming arrogance is compensation. It reads as arrogance, but comes from feelings of inadequacy. Beating on him frankly doesn't help alter this, it perpetuates it, and I'm not surprised Jon resents such beating though he can't articulate it in a way that will help to stop it.
I would suggest,
I, for one, would not continue saying 'no' if that was the question. Jon, people desperately want to resolve the contradictions in your presence here, but they can't until you come to terms with the contradictions within yourself. I'm almost completely sure that a lot of this stems from the whole 'rejection of media trendy' thing you've done to yourself- completely rebelling against what had to be a major part of your life, and desperately searching for something to redeem it, make it like it never happened. How about instead asking if perhaps Slashdotters could accept these parts of you? I see no reason why that wouldn't happen. In effect, you have decided for yourself that being a bigshot executive producer was _so_ bad that nobody can possibly accept you unless you pretend it didn't happen. It would be much healthier and more effective if you quit trying to deny entire parts of your life, and got honest about them. You pontificate a bit much for a writer- but there's a harmony and appropriateness about your pontificating as a writer-ex-bigshot-TV-producer... a friendly one, one that really loves geek culture and wants to further it, help it. That is likeable, more likeable than an incongruously bombastic philosopher-writer...
Be who you are, and I know that many of _my_ objections to your presence, your writing, will tend to fade away. This is because of who _I_ am: I have Asperger's Syndrome, and I do tend to fixate on such incongruities and hammer them into the ground- it's my nature, I have a tough time letting go of such things. It looks to me now that there's a path for you to be in more harmony with Slashdot, but it requires you to quit trying to redefine yourself using Slashdot as a tool- and _accept_ yourself, including the bits that shame you, with slashdot as an environment.
For the first time in a long time I'm genuinely happy I don't filter you, because this is just the sort of insight I needed to get... I might actually start wanting to hear from you if you can grow in this way. The key point is that not being who you are is a barrier: you've been getting defensive, you fight it, you try to be superior to avoid having your barrier broken, avoid the "He's nothing but a 'tired TV producer'!", and in doing so you cut off any chance of real communication- which is your only hope of thriving in the new media, much less as a person among other people.
Be who you are. Slashdot will accept a writer/pontificator/ex-TV-producer. What it will not accept is somebody who insists on being So Much More than an ex-TV-producer. Your efforts to 'rise above' what is only part of your life are separating you from the people whose community you want to belong to...