Slashdot Mirror
Selfish Society
In Borsook's Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through The Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech, published by Public Affairs, Borsook takes aim at the Social Darwinism of the tech culture, at its lack of empathy for human beings -- especially the technologically primitive and impaired. In this world she finds much hostility and paranoia, a world of "testosterone-poisoned guys with chips on their shoulders and too much time on their hands." Ouch.
She has a point, and it's hard to write for Slashdot and not wince at the above description. This is a narcissistic civilization with a mean streak, fat and lazy and arrogant from years of uninterrupted opportunity, innovation and peace, thriving from years of neglect by unknowing and entrenched institutions. Values and political systems are often forged in turmoil and difficulty, but people who've grown up in and around technology have seen an almost unbroken stretch of growth, innovation and prosperity. Jefferson wrote that in times of peace and prosperity, there is little need for politics. Not surprisingly, this techno-civilization has little interest in the political systems that still dominate society, so it radically underestimates their power and has an inflated sense of its own.
Having known only one reality, the young and techno-savvy can't quite imagine any other. But the political systems that dominate society have a keen interest in them, as a host of new laws, regulations and legal initiatives are already demonstrating, from the FBI's mail-sniffing program "Carnivore" to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
As a social grouping -- despite the handful of protestors who made their way to Seattle and struggle to form public interest groups online and off -- this culture has by and large rolled over for greedy megacorporations in exchange for full employment and technological capital. That makes it a vulnerable society too, unprepared for the assaults just around the corner. "How could they take my Napster away?" as that e-mail wailed. "Who did it? Where did they come from?"
As a culture, it mistakes mechanical skills -- like programming an operating system -- with technological knowledge and power. It tolerates an alarming amount of hostility and abuse, both of which make any political communications -- at least those in public -- nearly impossible.
If it has any common ideology, it honors innovation, economics and freedom -- the freedom to speak openly and to be prosperous. In fact, prosperity and the acquisition of technology have become this society's hallmark; it doesn't really have any other principles.
The techno-young correctly grasp that many of the country's seminal institutions -- politics, journalism, education -- have failed them and the larger society. But nobody seems to have given much thought to what might replace them, or to how they might defend themselves against increasingly encroachments from the off-line world.
Since this particularly gifted society created its social revolution quite apart from politics, education, even most adults, it has no sense of history and little memory, which creates another point of vulnerability; to be ignorant of the past is to be defenseless against the future. The techno-world eschews even the most marginal understanding of the tortured history of technology, the awareness that periods of technological advancement are always followed by periods of fear and retrenchment.
From the Greeks to the the Enlightenment philosophers to Thomas Jefferson to Albert Einstein, some of the world's greatest thinkers have argued that to have knowledge is to struggle to understand the relationship between what you know and what you do. If they're right, we're in trouble. We have no common agenda. We stand for nothing. We take actions based on tiny nodes of specialized information. Granted an unprecented opportunity to speak, we have not bothered to learn how to listen. Our freedom to speak out becomes illusory when most of us are shouting into a void, because nobody really cares what we say. Meanwhile, the real social and political agendas are being set by older people with little knowledge of technology, working out of l9th century institutions corrupted by corporate money.
That leaves the average citizen -- the prime user of technology -- caught in an intolerable position, between a technological elite moving rapidly past them on the one hand, and an ignorant power structure making foolish laws and uncomprehending responses on the other. As a society, we have no means of grasping the bigger picture, the purpose being the things we do, the moral rationale for the way we live and work.
In 1159, a philosopher-noble named John of Salisbury helped revive the then- dormant notion of individualism. He challenged his society to achieve self-scrutiny and understanding. "Who," he asked, "is more contemptible than he who scorns knowledge of himself?"
It's a great question. Liberalism and conservatism have been discredited, Libertarianism seems rigid and stagnant. In fact, conventional political ideologies seem far too narrow and inflexible for these times. Individualism seemed the right idea for John of Salisbury's time, and it might be even more relevant to ours, given that it fits the Net ethos like a glove, from the hackers to the cypherpunks to the open source progrmmers. And it's the only possible antidote to life in country evolving steady towards a corporate rather than democratic republic.
Technology has become the world's most interesting and ascending social force. No ideology -- with the possible exception of corporatism -- is stronger or spreading more rapidly. The frequently idealistic generation that designed the Internet -a diverse collection of engineers, cyber-gurus, philosophers, programmers,nerds, geeks, communalists and free-thinkers -- is yielding power and influence to the inhabitants of the Second Generation Internet, the first generation to grow up with networked computing. This new techno-generation takes for granted startling realities -- the ready availability of much of the archived information and entertainment in the world.
This techno-elite, taking sophisticated knowledge of technology for granted, has lost touch with the vast numbers of people in the world -- the elderly, the poor, foreign-born -- who don't share their skills and confidence. "Anybody can get an encrypted e-mail program," JOEB7 e-mailed me last week. "Why all the whining about privacy?"
JOEB7 doesn't seem to know that the vast majority of people have never even heard of encrypted e-mail programs, let alone used them. Such people dominate the most powerful and vital subculture in the world, but have no coherent political values beyond a nearly universal contempt for the one in place.
We think the individual's primary responsibility is to speak freely and become prosperous. Neither of those are small or inconsequential things, but as a cultural or social philosophy, they ring hollow. They promote cynicism, hostility, alienation, superiority, and most of all, they leave this culture vulnerable to better organized and powerful elites -- media, Congress, corporations. This may be inevitable, but it's worrisome.
We hear political truth daily -- we are vaguely conscious of threats to privacy, the looming menace of genetic and other technologies, poorly made, unnecessary and overpriced technology, challenges to the environment, human dignity, etc. -- but don't much want to deal with them. People worried about these issues are derided -- in this techno-culture as crackpots and extremists. We either laugh at them or dismiss them.
Democracy and freedom aren't about prosperity. You can be poor and quite free. Democracy is about the legitimacy of the individual, whose voice and vote should count for more than any other single interest or group. Technology can either be the vehicle through which those voices are re-democratized, or it can provide the tools through which corporatism can generate even more money.
This is an intensely political choice -- a decision -- even if many of the people most involved have no idea they are making it every day of their lives.
This book is available at FatBrain.
Katz writes:
To which xtal replies:
And to which I say:
You, I, most of /. live in the probably the single most privileged culture on earth -- ever -- and yet you claim it's a meritocracy. How many women write code with you? How many minorities? How many, to refer to Katz, elderly, the poor, foreign-born do you work with?
It's strange how claims of meritocracy frequently surface amongst the privileged.
I'm not claiming that you didn't work hard to get where you are today, but you most certainly didn't get here on merit alone -- you got there because of opportunity (you/your parents were able to afford a computer), education (you/your parents were able to give you a framework for learning to read and write a new language), and you got there because of wealth and privilege (opportunities for programmers in the Sudan are, I've heard, scarce).
Katz's point (while strangely symptomatic of the generational narcissism he faults us for) is much more general (and subtle) than 'we owe the world 'x';' and I have little or no patience for those who whine 'I was treated badly in junior high.' At least have the courage to help those who were like you (you generally, not you xtal).
And one should never mistake mastery of a technique (Perl, Java, kernel programming) for mastery of power itself. The ability to program computers is only one method of controlling power, not power itself. Power is changing the way people think, feel and act: whether that is through brute force (bullying or nuclear weapons) or through far more clever techniques of authority (dis-information, socialization, and language itself).
I might attribute too much to Katz, but here's where I think he was going:
I disagree with Katz's rather self-important ramblings on many occasions, but on this one he has come up with a good point -- I'm sure you're familiar with the Holocaust-related analogy: "They came for the Jews, but I said nothing because I was not Jewish. They came for the queers, but I said nothing because I was not queer... then one day they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."
END
Yessir, the governments will have all the technology all locked up before this bunch even notices.
Two of my recent favorites (seen in Boulder, CO):
"Earth first! We'll mine the other planets later."
and
"Maybe when all the trees are gone you can wipe your ass with a spotted owl."
This thread alone should demonstrate how wrong you are. It's ironic that at the same time Slashdot get lambasted for wandering from its roots in pure techdom in favour of inflammatory 'soft' articles such as this, you publish a long rambling diatribe about the lack of political concern amongst techies. Do the editors of Slashdot ever read it?
And then, one day when I was 25, I woke up and realized just how big a jerk I really was. So, no, I wouldn't say that Atlas Shrugged SHOULD be "required" reading for everyone; even though I agree with a few of the things objectivism advocates. A man can be rational without wishing death on 90% of the world population.
I did notice the hate and contempt in many of the reviews with 5 stars. One went so far as to say that if you didn't agree with Ms. Rand's philosophy he did not want to know you. I've been there...I used to be like that, and it's a sad existence. Thinking you are above everyone else makes you feel so secure because it means you don't have to face just how big your shortcomings really are, and how disgusting your existence really is. After reading Atlas Shrugged (if you choose to do so) you'll discover yourself alright, just not in the way all these reviewers say you will or should. Many of the 5 Star reviews read as though they were written by snotty, angst-filled, well-to-do, indoctrinated teenagers who have never done an honest day's work. Or by people who have decided the world is full of degenerates with no resemblance to their righteous selves, thus spending their lives reading about objectivism. Some guy even bragged about having read Atlas Shugged three times...GET A LIFE!
I appreciate that Ms. Rand came from Russia to the U.S. escaping communism. I escaped my native country for the same reason as recently as 1979. So I am quite familiar with the nature of her predicament. The problem, as we can clearly see by some of the reviews, is that her allegories and metaphors are being taken literally by some people who think they have a right to exist and anyone who isn't like them doesn't.
I'm glad I read Atlas Shrugged, once. I know I couldn't do it now...it is tedious! I tried reading The Fountainhead a few years later and couldn't get past the first chapter. Objectivism represents a phase in my youth...a phase I'm glad to have outgrown.
Why do people who comment on the technology industry insist on putting unnecessary and unrealistic "burdens" on the people who are involved with building it? When I started out in college a few years ago as a computer science student nobody talked about us being "moral representatives" for the technologically underprivileged. We were simply students learning how to program computers just like mechanics who learn how to fix cars. We all hoped that someday we would get good paying jobs because it was a difficult task and not many people possessed the skill or the discipline to do it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why can't all of the journalists, and programmers, who have for some reason decided that we are now responsible for the fate of civilization go away and leave that responsibility to philosophers, clergy members, and politicians and let me get back to doing what I have been trained to do:
Write computer programs to store and manipulate data so that businesses can operate more efficiently and effectively.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that we all should maintain a strong interest in what happens with our political landscape as well as operate in society as good, decent citizens, but no more than any other person who didn't happen to choose programming as his/her career path.
I used to know a lot of people in college who were fanatical about Ayn Rand. Then they grew up. I've yet to meet a Randite who thought they were anything short of exceptional.
I've read a lot of posts on slashdot and elsewhere from pompous Rand naysayers, who almost always seem compelled to throw in gratuitous ad hominems and a generous sprinkling of "Randite." These posts usually amount to one or two anecdotal references to "people I knew in college." I've read only a few that even attempted a real argument--most attempted to use logic to prove the non-existence of logic.
Real live humans are much more diverse and complex than Rand's caricatures, and the difference really does matter. The simplistic half-solutions offered by Rand share a fatal flaw with earlier simplistic solutions inspired (ironically) by Marx, which is that they work only for cartoon characters. Bill Gates is the closest real-life approximation to a Rand "hero", and I don't think we need more of him.
Rand's fiction is Romantic, and she made no pretense otherwise. Her heroes were intended to present the ideal, not real life.
If you think Bill Gates is anything like one of Rand's heroes then you've missed the point of all her work. If Gates is anything like any of Rand's characters, he's a Peter Keating or Gail Wynand--a "second-hander," not a hero--whose wealth has been created by selling inferior technology with slick marketing and heavy-handed tactics. A monopoly does not an Objectivist hero make.
slashdot broke my sig
It's not deciding that the community can go to hell, it's deciding that you're not going to lessen your own existence for the sake of the community. In a perfect world, the community wouldn't even ask that of you since the community would be made of individuals who have no need to force others into doing things against their will. Of course, you never say what you mean by 'another asshole' so it's hard to refute you.
The world will never become any closer to perfect if nobody ever strives toward that ideal.
The problems come down to the differences between what I might see as perfect and what you might see as perfect. The great thing is that a system based on true individuality takes that into account. True individuals don't feel the need to tell people how to behave as long as how you behave doesn't impinge on my life so if we all follow that, then your perfect world and mine will coexist beautifully.
>There's a reason. It's an immature philosophy, favored by immature people, and for that reason it truly is more often encountered in college than in post-college "real life".
I think the main reason many college students profess to follow Objectivism is that it's an insulated environment and it's easier to follow a hard philosophy in an insulated environment rather than in the Real World where it might actually have costs associated with it. There are adults who practice an individualist philosophy in adult life but the fact that it's difficult weeds out those who don't truly believe.
>Some people are apparently born with the "hero nature" and should be allowed to do whatever they want without inconveniences like governments...
It's not "some people", it's all people. Everybody is born with the "hero nature" (to use your phrase), most just don't/can't come to terms with that. True individuals do what they do no matter if people approve of it or not. It's not a physical test, it's a mental one. Can you accept your nature as an individual or not? Can you let others live as individuals or not? Those are the "test" questions, how you answer them is what's important.
The difference between Gates and a true individual is that he has used his company to hold down others instead of raising up his own works and letting those speak for him. When you resort to destroying instead of producing you become the worst kind of second-hander, which is what Gates has become.
>Too many people's expression of individuality is to be a selfish jerk.
I agree 100%. I don't, however, think that this is a reason against arguing for individuality any more than the fact that many people choose to drive like assholes should make us argue against cars.
This is the classic "right vs. left" argument, cast in a "yes I can learn/use technology vs. no you can not because you are poor":
One side is saying "yes, you can rise out of your status in society and better your position, out of your own worth! Western thought & capitalism exists because it WORKS!"
The other side is saying "no, history determines your fate, and since you are poor, you are destined to be poor. The western thought & capitalism rose because of the tyranny and control of evil white males, hence history has enabled it, not intrinsic worth."
What's amusing is that academics are still arguing about this to this day (so far the right seems to be winning, though the left had quite the lead during most of the century, given our socialistic tendencies until 1989..)
-Stu
When you program for 12 hours a day (if you make it past 8), aren't you typically exhausted?
Most people are.
That's because using your *brain* is just as hard as using your body for 8 hours a day. Try it. Program for 8 hours with a few interspersed short breaks, a 1 hour lunch, and NO websufing or email. It's mind-numbing (though you accomplish a lot by 5pm.)
-Stu
positively. berkeley is such an epicenter of capitalist thought...
-Stu
>> It's especially hard not to when you used to be ostracized in school and now you're the shit.
I think that's the whole point. Majority of geeks were ostracized in school. The society threw us away, mistreated us and put us through hardships. We were show and learned how society treats those who are different. Now we're all grown up, now we ARE the shit. And what happens? The same society that turned THEIR backs on us when we were young is NOW complaining that we don't give a RATS ASS about THEM. Who is more arrogant here?
Let me get this strait.. I am wrong for feeling apathetic towards someone who beat the crap out of me 10 years ago. Mabey it IS wrong to feel that way, but it's what this society molded me into.
This is why geeks stay together. It isn't arrogance. It is because we as geeks share a common set of ideals and experiances. We can relate to each other much better then to the rest of society... because that society ignored us until we all of a sudden became important. And now we're being called arrogant and apathetic. I don't know about you but when I was in school the popular/mainstream people won't gime me the time of day. Now they're complaining that they are left out. What else can I say?
Ex-Nt-User
I was being an ass in that post on purpose. And I infact do agree with your post. I was trying to point out that the people who are now complaining about "being left out/behind" are the same ones that did it to us geeks earlier. I don't believe we should all shaun them now in revenge, but it is human nature to do so. I just think the majority of those complaining are being quite hypocritical.
-Ex-Nt-User
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
ahh, the "argument from popular computer simulation" =)
Hey, wait a minute - that's where I learned that "Human behaviour is economic behaviour".
What, however, is your conclusion? Anyone who reads CNN knows that privacy is in danger, that the hacker ethic is under more concerted attack than it has ever been. What do we do about it? Your article implies, without ever stating, "nothing".
Is that really your conclusion? In that case, why write about it? Where's the solution? That's what the technology elite are looking for.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
There was a good review of this book at Reason Online a while back. The reviewer there thought Paulina Borsook lacked clue.
Who was it who said that Libertarianism starts off talking about man's freedom but then always deteroriates into whining about income tax?
- Reduction to overall removal of capital gains taxes. Who does this most benefit?
- Corporate tax loopholes inserted as riders in unrelated legislation throughout our tax code. Many American corporations pay NO TAXES AT ALL. Some even get refunds on no taxes paid. Who do you think benefits most from farm subsidies, ADM or the family farmer? Who benefits from state tax codes which give tax credits to attract business only to have the company up and move out when the benefit runs out and the next state ponies up? Who benefits from tax money paid out to sports teams in order to build new stadiums? Not me.
- a HUGE military budget spent on mostly useless goods (think SDI, unnecessary ships ordered against NAVY budgetary requests), wars fought for oil tycoons (who might be president). Here's a news story for you... Peru and Columbia have some of the largest oil reserves in the Americas... now why do you think we're fighting a "drug war" down there???
Yes, I consider my tax dollars wasted away, when we could be building new infrastructure, providing medical care for our citizens, and decent free education for our youth. And when my right wing friends goad me with "well why don't you move then if you don't like it here" I'm beginning to think they're right. Maybe Costa Rica would be a better place to live... and Amsterdam certainly has the kind of society I'd prefer to live in (though not the climate)... there ARE better places in which to live than the USA. I think it's time to plan an emigration... and if enough tax paying citizens agree maybe our politicians might finally get the idea that our citizenry is rightly pissed off with paying taxes for no social gain. I want to live in a society not a social darwinist trap designed to prop up the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.Having (attempted) to work through the '89-'91 recession and having lived as a kid through the '72-'74 and '81-'83 recessions I must assume these kids just aren't prepared for the eventual economic kick in the ass.
Yes, it's true that most young technology savvy kids assume that the now (supposedly) wonderful economy is somehow dependent on their brains and success, but it isn't so. Nor will technology workers be responsible when the next recession hits, these are cyclical effects more dependent on Federal Reserve policy and exchange rates than anything else.
Yes, it's true that computers have increased efficiency for most businesses by automating much office paperwork and accounting away. But these gains in efficiency will go only so far until we hit the next wall of automation. At that point I expect to see GDP growth fall back, and possibly even a recession to hit. We're well due for one soon... GET PREPARED!
And, maybe after going through this and possibly losing your house, a marriage from the stress, or some other setback, you kids might begin to understand that those with hot skills from twenty years back are no more or less intelligent than you. That you've lived young through todays market gains is more a matter of luck than a sign of (social) evolutionary success. And maybe after you've had to care for a dying parent (and seen for yourself how poor Medicare/Medicaid is for our citizens), or stepped into a city school to meet your child's frazzled out teacher because (s)he has a class size of nearly 40 pupils, or walked along one of the many bridges which are literally crumbling from lack of repairs... maybe then you'll realize that these gains are illusion for the vast majority of American citizens.
That your skills are in demand today isn't proof they will be in demand tomorrow. That you're successful today doesn't mean lean times ahead are avoided for certain. That you're healthy today doesn't mean your health will remain (in fact, given enough time it's certain to fade). PREPARE YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY! And consider the many citizens of America who had to grow up with substandard education, poor health care, and dilapidated surroundings; that could be you but for circumstance.
We used to have a reasonable social safety net for those children who, by no fault of their own, grew up poor. After the Republican 80's and Demopublican '90s, we have none of that left. I voted for Clinton in '92 for one reason: National Health Coverage. With the Democrats and Republican platforms mirror images sans abortion, I simply can't vote for either party any longer. For these reasons, this year I'm voting Ralph Nader for President.
Overwhelmingly white??? Has this guy ever been in a computer science program, or seen programmers? Drinking and screwing? I don't know what to say. I wish?
Morals and values are decided by individuals, not groups. The "values of society" is a misnomer. It is what the majority believes. That doesn't mean that I have to believe it. Democracy is supposed to protect the rights and beliefs of the minority.
The point is that there is no "common value system" for geeks. If anything, geeks are more likely to think for themselves and come up with their own beliefs. Don't try to pigeon-hole us all into one demographic.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Right. And then a buncha Silicon Valley geeks and dot-commers raised housing prices so high they all had to move out.
Serves the pretentious bastards right.
Of course, when the nanotech billionaires move in and herd out the net.nerds, I'm sure there'll be YAO (Yet Another Outcry)..
(pre mod'd down for your convenience)
Your Working Boy,
... during college to cover my expenses away from home, 1992, and when applying for a sales job at Radio Shack I was up against 6-8 compsci/engineering grads for 2 positions :p
I simply can't vote for either party any longer. For these reasons, this year I'm voting Ralph Nader for President.
I am also disheartened by the lack of true choices in modern American politics. What's even more dangerous and troubling IMHO is the pervasive lack of trust in our representation. In a Democracy, having your politicians ranked lower in public trust than your lawyers (I wouldn't doubt it) is scary, corrosive, and self-destructive. Would putting a man like Nader (many of whose positions I disagree with substantially, but whose integrity I respect) provide a swift enough kick in the ass to this country to get it talking on a mature level about real issues?
America seems to me, at this point, to be in a very childish phase. It wants things but won't pay for them, it wants rights but no responsibilities. Can an environment like this even support a mature debate on civics and the role of government in society?
Something many Americans don't realize is that in many Western countries (Sweden in particular) the citizenry has basically decided to incorporate the government into society as their advocate, trusting them to do so. In the US, you don't get the sense of the government as the citizen's advocate, except in very rare occasions (NTSB, FDA, GAO come to mind).
I've been told many times over my life "America: love it or leave it". I'm thinking these days, perhaps I may end up doing both.. A country like the Netherlands, where they've a history of tolerance and freedom and a large percentage of English-fluency, seems like an ideal candidate.. Every time I go back there (Amsterdam, Den Haag) it seems more and more attractive.. Lots of IT jobs, relatively inexpensive housing (compared to NY/SF), great food/culture/people..
Is America too big to fix?
Your Working Boy,
Cool! I've accomplished something on slashdot!
(actually, I have my own positions and opinions on just about everyhting here. I don't try to be in with the "in crowd.")
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
On the *surface*, the 'public' sees rants and raves from IT people on newgroups and places like Slashdot. The 'public' see IT people, many of them very young, making relatively huge salaries with apparently little effort (how hard is it to sit in a chair all day typing :-).
From this perspective, the IT community can appear to be selfish and spoilt. And when exposed to this attitude, the IT community feels hard done by and bites back often with rants and raves (as we have seen in the postings) which only fuels the public perception again.
However, being part of the IT community I would have to say that the majority of IT people that I know aren't like this at all. Sure they are quite a few IT people who are arogant and selfish and I would go as far as to say that perhaps there is *slighty* more of this type of people than normalin the IT area, but not to the point where I would tar and feather the whole community with that tag.
I think a lot of people fail to see the hidden aspects of IT. That being:
From my experience, these are two points which have a heavy influence on what the public think of IT people and are two of the reasons why the public may have misconceptions of what we are like as a group.
One of the reasons that tech culture seems "selfish" and "arrogant" to others is that the people that run it and work in it have worked HARD to get what they have
While I'd be the last person to disagree that IT people generally work very hard, I think you are missing the point of the article. I used to have the exact same attitude that you expressed in your post. Here is the line of thinking that I had:
Goddamn, I have been installing/compiling/scripting etc for years in my own time to learn everything I know and that's why I got a kickarse job earning decent amounts of cash - dammit - I worked hard to get the money that I do. And besides, I work real long hours etc etc
And you know what? I was exactly right - I had worked harder than most people and so in that respect I deserved the money that I was getting.
But, I was still selfish and arogant. I only found out after a friend pointed out the reason why. The reason is:
I have been lucky because my situation/family/background/financial situation enabled me to have the opportunity to use computers. Some people aren't so lucky. Some people may have been able to afford a computer but without having any guidance or inspiration, they have been shown what their potential could have achieved using computers. I originally trained to be an engineer but switched to computer science after I realised that this is what I truly liked. Some people can't afford to do this.
There are a lot of reasons why people never find out about their options when it comes to IT.
For you and me, we were fortunate that we found out or were shown these opportunities. It has nothing to do with how smart we are - sure we get brownie points for seizing the opportunity when it came by - but for a twist of fate, we could have been an unlucky one who didn't get a chance at that opportunity.
If we don't recognise this, then we deserve to be labelled selfish and arogant ... because that is what we will be
I used to be that kind of geek... I still am, to an extent. When I see new tech, the first thing I'm doing is thinking of the cool things I could do with it, or trying to figure out how they did it (and wishing I had the money to buy it).
But now, after being repeatedly faced with the knowledge that whatever tech we have, the NSA had a long time ago, Congress doesn't understand, corporate interests want to use to gouge the consumer, and the Average Joe want's the government to use to protect their children from violence and porn, I'm not the same as I was before.
Basically, I'm still a geek at heart, but with a thick layer of cynicism. I like to call it "realism".
The enemies of Democracy are
You hit the nail on the head with that one, man.
I would also add:
5. Donates one's time and effort to volunteer orginizations/groups that the author is unaware of, rather than ones that can be easily cited from old issues of Newsweek (see "Research, Extensive").
In the article: "JOEB7 doesn't seem to know that the vast majority of people have never even heard of encrypted e-mail programs, let alone used them. Such people dominate the most powerful and vital subculture in the world, but have no coherent political values beyond a nearly universal contempt for the one in place."
Or more concisely, most people don't care to know. Most people don't want to know how a computer works they just want results. People might be shocked to know about the chemicals and hormones in their food. But they don't really care to understand, don't really want to know the mechanics of how or why they should avoid them. What they want is a result, a 'give me something an idiot can use to fix this'. And that's at the high end of awareness.
People don't really want to know or care about how computers or networks or ecommerce work. Not even the people who make most of these decisions. Is that arrogant? Probably. But it's still true. Nobody has any respect for the mechanic whether that person is laying tile, working a loom, fixing your dishwasher or keeping your network running. This point hit home with me when I had a discussion recently with a recruiter, a partner in a firm who screamed about the lousy system support he got. For a network of ~100 clients he had one person who was paid ~$30,000 year.
Why don't you filter him if you don't like it?
Szo
Red Leader Standing By!
Ayn Rand was, I would assume, estranged from her family. I know she had no children. If you view the family, including your children, as a community, then most people - who would happily sacrifice themselves for the children - would see the poverty of the objectivist line, from a darwinist as well as a moral-intuitionist perspective.
Borsook doesn't really tackle the paradox that "libertarians elebrate the cult of the individual" but Open Source celebrates the collective.
Except that it's not really a paradox. Open Source(tm), at least from the quasi-official position taken by Eric Raymond, is purely (and perhaps excessively) individualistic. The Open Source programmer programs for the adulation of his peers or to "scratch an itch", both essentially individual and arguably selfish motivations.
(Oh, and dear God, BTW, this isn't an Open Source vs. Free Software flame, just an observation, so put the lighter back in your pocket.)
Free Software, on the other hand, is built on collectivism. From Richard Stallman's quasi-official position, the Free Software programmer programs to share and eschews the notion of intellectual property, which is an essentially collectivist position.
Open Source ideology is basically a rehash of Reagan's "trickle down economics", whereby the unapologetically selfish pursuit of personal advancement generates fringe benefits for other people, in this case software. In fairness to the OSS community, unlike Reaganomics, the OSS version of trickle-down sometimes works (Perl, Apache) and sometimes not (Mozilla).
The real question, which is unlikely to be answered thanks to the political smoke surrounding it, is what the real strengths and weaknesses of the three models (Open Source, Free, Closed Source) are. Each has produced predominately different kinds of software and each has failed spectacularly at other kinds.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
bullshit.
I have been lucky because my situation/family/background/financial situation enabled me to have the opportunity to use computers. Some people aren't so lucky.
what about the people whose situation/family/background/financial situation allowed them to use computers, and yet can't do a damn thing with them, and those that choose to do nothing with them? EVERY middle income family in America can provide a computer to their household, if not specifically for the kids there. what will these kids do with it? some will surf the web for porn, some for MP3's, some for warez, for information, for social interaction. but some will go beyond that, and actually learn something.
your arguement, in another light, says that many people could be as fast as michael johnson (100 meter dash, olympics) if given the right training/shoes/dedication, but since some people aren't given those things, we shouldn't look up to michael johnson, that he doesn't deserve to be an idol/hero. but he did run that fast, and those other people didn't. this is the age old arguement, do intentions or actions define a person?
I bet the author of that book and John would get along really well. Someone in the know should set them up. LOL
Nameless
Moderators, Please mark this up.
As a relatively "late convert" to the computer/IT world, I have to say I totally agree with this last post.
Who says that the "OUTCOMES" of a meritocratic system have to be equal. I am all for helping those who are under-privileged, but not at the expense of punishing hard - work, or dumming down the cutting edge for sake of lazy dullards who can't or won't work hard enough to understand.
There. I feel much better now.
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
Where is it written that a review of a book that is basically a loosely and poorly edited tirade against the supposedly selfish denizens of the information technology "elite" needs to get top billing from Slashdot. How "news and nerd-worthy" is this.
I am not a Katz hater, but this one is really over the top.
Get a clue Katz. The idea that anyone who has withdrawn from what they consider a corrupt and immoral public sphere is somehow selfish could only come from you.
Cheers to all of the selfish among us. They have given "us" the longest economic boom in American history, and created more wealth for the "redistributors" to wring their hands over.
Truly disgusting.
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
I find it truly ironic that the criticism of this post, in which Jon discusses someone else's claim that geek culture is ugly and selfish, consists largely of ugly, selfish responses.
Ironic, but not surprising.
--
Actually, as long as these toys make people money, we're fine.
boo.com had some cool technology, but that didn't save it from a sadly well-deserved oblivion. It failed that crucial test, and that made it history.
D
----
It's not all luck. I'd say at least 95% of the population doesn't have the brains needed to do what we do well. 99% doesn't have the brains or the interest.
Nowadays, those with the brains are extremely likely to be exposed to computers. True, that wasn't so 20 years ago, but now it is.
Heck, my boss asks me for advice on his marketing campaigns, not just on computer-related stuff. That's because I have a brain and we relate well to each other. I could have probably had a career in advertising or marketing and been darn good at it (and quite well off, just as I am now) if things had been just a little different.
Now, arrogance is annoying in and of itself. Ask anyone at my work - I'm genial, courteous and always try to be helpful. Arrogance is not a good thing, since it pushes you away from people. But feeling embarassed for doing well isn't a good thing either. Ideally, smart people of all types should strike a happy medium, which I personally think I have.
But one other thing does deserve mention. Selfishness and a desire for freedom go hand in hand. If we are not selfish, if we bow down to the collective will, we are surely not free. This is the contradiction Communism tried to fight, and this is why it failed miserably.
D
----
ah yes another brat slurping at the bandwidth jizz. thanks for being illustrative of the very topic at hand. it's ok, i know how it feels.
The problem is, we don't live in a perfect world. Any philosophy of right and wrong (aka how to behave) that doesn't account for that is woefully inadequate, if not down right misleading.
I'm against the 2 big evils as well,
and there two ways to go...
Anarchy, no one has any rights..
libertarian socialism, smack down
the businesses, smack down gov't
that want to take rights away.
ICQ#2584116
-- d'arcy poirot
Don't confuse the politics of the Libertarian Party with libertarianism. In recent years, the LP has followed the stupid strategy of allying itself with the Republicans in an attempt to take down Democrats. This has led to the even more stupid tactic of selectively choosing which issues to highlight and which ones to ignore (ostensibly "for now") to avoid offending Republicans. This, in addition to the fact that many gay rights legislation put forth by Democrats gives gays more rights than non-gays (reverse discrimination is also wrong), is why the party ignores gay rights issues.
Of course, The LP has done this for such a long time that we now have more neo-republicans in the ranks than true libertarians. (They talk like Republicans, act like Republicans, why shouldn't Republicans join? They get to look "fresh" too.)
My point is that the net is libertarian in the sense of the ideology, not in the sense of the Libertarian Party. (which sucks)
Take a look at The Webley Page for some essays talking about this (and other) libertarian issues.
There is a new generation of teenagers and young adults who have lived their lives in unparalleled prosperity, never knowing an economic downturn like their GenX slacker brothers, boomer parents, WWII grandparents exprienced. When this Eden ends, how will they deal with it?
Borsook wrote:
It is clear from this passage that Ms. Borsook considers these benefits of the state as rationalizing its existence and power. Presumably, (Borsook never spells it out) the argument goes as follows: the state paid (or pays) for X (a Good thing); "without the government, there would be no" X; thus, there must be state rule if you value X. Hence, to oppose the state is to oppose X. And if X is truly Good, then every opponent of the state is, at best, not Good.
Or worse: for a person who has *benefitted* from X to oppose the state is either disgusting I-got-mine hypocrisy (if X is a past benefit received, like the internet, an education, or an interstate highway), or worse, idiotically self-destructive (if X is an ongoing benefit from the state, like labels on linens and environmental regulation). This is the origin of the two negative characterizations that frame the piece: the teenager and the know-nothing.
This chain of reasoning is flawed. The state is NOT the only means of providing X for almost *every* X. Every one of the goods and services Borsook mentions -- the internet, microprocessors, research universities and their graduates, limited access superhighways, clean water, labels on linens, environmental quality -- could plausibly be provided mostly via private means. (That "mostly" is a caveat meant to acknowledge the role of the state in providing law enforcement, needed for the market to function.) Indeed, many similar goods and services *are* created outside of the state.
Of course, the market has a logic quite different from the state sector; without state interference these goods and services almost certainly would not have come about in the way they did. For instance, it seems very plausible that, absent state subsidy, the net would not have come about as quickly, nor in the particular form we now find it. We might be ten or twenty years "behind" where we are now. However, I find this scenario perfectly acceptable for two reasons: first, I don't buy the myth of progress. The net is "progress" -- but the benefits accrue mostly to those who can afford to access it. Second, the money paying for this subsidy, "the greatest government subsidy of technology and expansion in technical education the planet has ever seen", did not just magically appear. It was taken, in taxes (or alternatively, in reduced services), from those who need it more than "we" do. In other words, like so many other state programs, this subsidy was *regressive*. I wonder if, given the choice, Ms. Borsook would have supported this policy? Does the actual outcome, which evidently rankles, shake her faith at all in the planned economy?
Ms. Borsook can certainly take issue with the logic of the market and try to convince people that it would not do X in a way they would like. And libertarians can say, "would too", and she, "would not", repeatedly.
That sort of political argument is interesting, but it moves away from my point. Libertarians have much the same political goal as everyone else: to live peacefully in a prosperous, happy society of liberty and justice. This obviously requires certain goods (and services) to be provided -- somehow. Unlike the mainstream, libertarians believe that most goods and services can (and should) be provided via private means. We may be wrong in this belief, but to *assume* the opposite is true in order to demonstrate that our ideology is internally inconsistent (and that the technologists among us are thus ungrateful idiots) is logically unsound. You must refute our beliefs, not assume they are wrong.
Though usually I enjoy Kats articles I must admit he does seem somewhat clueless here. However I'd argue that to be a geek is an inclusive philosophy. There are many shared traits that define geeks, such as creativity, intelligence, low interest in non-geek society, desire for freedom, etc that you'll find most of in most geeks. You have many different overlapping camps, commercial vrs completly open vrs open but forced to stay open, simplicity (GUI) vrs flexibility (CLI), etc.
I think this generation of geek will largely be freedom fighters as we have grown up with the Internet and free (as in speach) software. We are less concerned about the financial side of geekdom but more likely to profit from it. We are more political and agressive because we are born of a time when the things we have came to enjoy and count amoung our rights as human beings are being attacked by corporations, politicians, and religious nuts. When this generation reaches the age to have political clout massive changes will be very likely. By that time some of our youthful hopes will have been smashed which will keep society from as massive of shifts but they will still be big. The technology that flows from this generation will further this out of need. The Internet, genetics, and nanotech will invade every aspect of our lifes and it'll be up to these techsavvy youth to keep shortsighted nay-sayers from misguiding these technologies and causing damage. Imagine the worlds of Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, and Distraction -- that is just a small peek at the ways society may change in the hands of these geeks. Nobody can say what the world will be like but nothing will ever be the same.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I can't speak for every techie out there, but as for myself, I'm VERY politically oriented. I registered to vote right after I turned 18. I've voted in every election since then(Both national and local). I've collected signatures for certain causes I believe in.
Not only did I study it, but I actually took a class on the US Constitution. I want to know how things work, and why they work the way that they do. I think that what holds back "geeks" from being a political force is that we all have such wide ranging beliefs on social and fiscal issues.
I happen to be a Republican. One of those right wing guys that Peter Jennings likes to talk badly about. I know many geeks who are further to the right than I am, I also know just as many that are to the left of even Ralph Nader.
What is there to tie us together? Nothing, that I can see.
The gun rights people have something that ties them together. The abortion rights people have their common bond. The environmentalists have their agenda. You name any special interest's group and they have something that they ALL believe in.
What do we all believe in? We can't even agree on Napster.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Some of us just prefer to wait for there to be something worth saying before speaking.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
As usual, katz is oversimplifying the situation. There are geeks from all walks of life with all sorts of codes of ethics. There are atheists, christians, and all sorts of other religiously minded people.
Now there are people from both categories who are good people and there are people who give into selfishness. Now all situations can lend themselves to selfishness. A pampered life like the tech life can lead to a more comfortable sort of selfishness. Since everyone around you is doing more or less OK, it's easy to forget about them since they obviously don't need you.
Of course, some people do in fact have morals. Take Larry Wall for instance. I don't think that anyone will deny that he's been one of the most giving members of the hacker community, and he leads a tech life like many of the more selfish members of the community.
Of course, part of this is that a very visible section of the tech community is young and being young lends itself to being selfish. So there may be a bit to what katz said in that the tech community has a very visible young component.
Of course, there are few in the US who have the right to throw stones. I suspect that this is the real origin of a selfish streak in the geek community -- it's the culture that they grew up in.
So why is the culture selfish? Human nature coupled with the opportunity for giving into it provided by a prosperous economy would seem to be the easiest explanations, and KISS. It's not like there have been many selfless societies which didn't fall into the error of making the individual nearly worthless.
What's the solution? Virtue. Pretty easy. If the problem is that people aren't being good enough, they have to be better.
Of course this is a major problem when you can't agree on what goodness is. And if anyone is operating under the delusion that there is some sort of concensus in the US or the world, what are you smoking? I don't smoke, but I know some people who'd love to try what you're on.
So of course the first step we have to take in fixing society is to decide what a fixed society would be like.
So while moaning about problems in society is useful (watch out for that tiger!), it's just the beginning of starting. it is an important beginning. There are plenty of people who won't even admit that human beings are broken and need fixing.
Once we convince them of that, the next and biggest step is to figure out what we want. And this is, honestly, not going to happen in the US. It might happen in North America, but not the US. The US is a loose political experiment which is trying to see if you can keep people together with a simple list of forbidden actions. Of course things are changing and mandates are cropping up here and there (good samaritan laws, for instance), a country in which a positive ideal of good was set up for all would not be the US other than perhaps in name.
So we live in a country where we have a few iron rules ("Thou shalt not!" type stuff). If anyone can honestly be surprised that selfishness is a big trend, I'm impressed. Left to themselves, a large portion of people will give in to their impulses. Selfishness is a human impulse.
Pretty simple. There is no solution on a global scale that doesn't involve warfare. That's one of the first things that you learn if you're a philosophy major for any real length of time. Understanding the universe is a trivial problem compared to explaining it to someone else. And if your understandings differ significantly, the difference can be dangerous. Let's say that some group which believes in a not very forgiving god is right. The rest of us are in a lot of trouble. Now let's say that you're a member of this sect and genuinely believe it (the lack of ability to genuinely believe in anything in modern american society is another problem entire unto itself), and your son/daughter was being influenced by someone in such a way as to encourage the rath of said deity. What do you do? Is force really unjustified? Let's say that your son/daughter is being influenced by a gang and being drawn into that life of violence, treatury, crime, etc. Would violence be justified then?
It always amazes me when people can't understand religious wars. They're some of the most natural actions of people, when you get down to it. They are not the best option, I think, since I believe that a person's will is inviolable and that their choices are their own.
On the other hand, what do you do about people who don't have other options? If a person is never taught that there is anything but [wrong belief A], they can't choose against it, but they can be corrupted by it. So would that then justify violent invervention?
What would? When is violence justified? If you can say that violence is never jusitified, what response do you give to unjustified violence. What response do you give to violence of the mind? What do you do with a man who preaches violence? What do you do with a man who tells others to kill but doesn't kill himself? What do you do with a man who preaches a philosophy which makes killing insignificant. How close to the act do you have to get before violence is justified.
What do you do with a school for pirates? They don't go on the high seas and steal themselves, but they teach others how to with the intent that they use their knowledge. How is teaching that life isn't worth a gold ring any more reprehensible than teach that neither a life or a gold ring are worth anything?
And if you'll send the police in to forcibly close the school for pirates, why not send them in to forcibly stop [insert favorite pessimistic/relativistic philosopher here]?
And if you'll throw a man out of a room or throw him into prison to stop him to teach, why draw the line there and not just kill him. It's a lot more effective.
So to conclude, of course geek culture is selfish. Given the prevalence of Free Software, however, it's probably one of the more giving cultures. So unless you're prepared to provide a positive ideal of good and claim that those who are opposed to it must be stopped, please don't belabor the point that life isn't perfect.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I predict massive social disruptions if all computers vanished - for one thing, many businesses and even parts of the government have gotten rid of the necessary infrastructure and budget to shuffle paper rather than electronic information. The massive surge in productivity that has occurred in the last few years is mostly due to the increased efficiency of electronic communications. If all the computers went away, we'd be unemployed, but then so would most of the world - the major productivity hit would close many businesses and cause monster layoffs at the rest.
By the way, are you aware that you are really user 216242? I wonder if it would be possible to time the new account process so that your nick was really your user number...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Most of the time it seems like the courts are what stops our elected representatives from infringing on the rights of the citizenry. Of course, judicial review isn't exactly in the Constitution either.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
First of all, I disagree with Mr. Katz' use of the term "Democracy" at the end of this article. The VAST majority of those reading this article (and who are part of the Techno-Elite) do not live and work in democratic societies. Point-in-case: The United States of America is NOT a democracy. We are a Republic (in a democracy, majority rules. In a republic, the majority elects representatives and those representatives do all the decision making).
I for one am highly aware of my political surroundings. And I care about people more than I do technology. Acheiving "prosperity" is not primary goal in life.
The book in question (and hence Jon's article here on Slashdot) is too quick to make hasty generalizations about the geek culture. If one were to read some of the more decent books concerning personality types, I think that you would find that the majority of the "geek-types" fall into the realm of the "NT" temperament type (the initials stand for iNtuitive, Thinking). This personality type has difficulty communicating depth of feeling and thus outsiders often label them as cold-hearted. (if you want to find out what personality type YOU are, try the Keirsey Character Sorter.
I think that in truth, geeks are very aware of their political situations. We are just less-likely to talk about it.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
But you can test them! You can see why poor Al Gore's going to lose the election, despite his being a brilliant thinker compared to Bush - because Bush can charm the pants off our uninformed and easily-swayed voting public. Who will think of the children? Bush! (yeah, I just saw such an ad.. what does it mean, scientificially? nothing! but it's still effective - <blink>WHY??</blink> )
Science may be more precise, but at the same time, it's a limitation that bores a great many people... it's too bad most geeks such as yourself think that that's the end, not the beginning.
Ok...I didn't feel like reading through 300+ posts, so I'm just going to write what I believe.
First of all, it truly amazes me how Katz continually uses the term "Corpratism". While we all know he is referring to the corporations and only the corporations when he talks about this...I think the problem might be more toward Capitalism. One of the worst commercials on television is, I believe, any one of the Wall Street Journal commercials that shows some disgusting snobby or rich folk, and ends with the phrase "Wall Street Journal--Adventures In Capitalism".
It may just be me, but it seems that Capitalism is exactly our problem. Capitalism is exactly what the word dictates, the pursuit of money. Our problem today isn't just that corporations want to protect their ahem-property, but that they don't want to lose money. This goes not only for the corporations themselves, but the people running them, and their shareholders.
There are far too many of us who spend our time on the stock market, just looking to see what is coming over the line on the next Tech IPO and soforth. In doing that, we become one of them.
So, I think that Katz has got a point, but it may be directed in the wrong place....we need to stop the moneygrubbing for a little while, then, and only then, will we be able to control some of the problems that encroach on this society(and we may even be able to get Mozilla out the door!)
-Julius X
-Julius X
remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
- How could they take my napster away?
- Because you had not implemented it distributed enought.
May the "real world" with companies and greed never win. But they will, they certainly will...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
- my review, submitted to Slashdot a week ago, and
- a comprehensive listing of reviews on Paulina Borsook's own site; both the positive and negative and in-between.
With these reviews you may be able to get a better picture of the book. You can even read a review that mirrors the style of the book.--
Make mine methylphenidate.
Somehow I'm a little confused by the idea that the tech industry was in its early days in the 1980's.
Then again, that's the kind of "there is no history" attitude that Borsook discusses.
I suspect I'm just misinterpreting you; did you really mean to say what you said?
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
I'd just like to point out that links to that review have been posted about 10 times already.
(Some of the links were posted after you copied it.)
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=194
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=163
http://slashdot.org/comm ents.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=87
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=124
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=208
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=119
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=141
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=384
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=396
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=442
http://slashdot.org/com ments.pl?sid=00/07/24/202207&cid=443
Reason does allow for personal, non-commercial reproduction. However, since Slashdot is a commercial venture, I'd say that copying it onto Slashdot does violate their copyright. However, since Reason would have to rely on the government in an attempt to enforce its copyright, I guess you're safe.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
author: Pulina Borsook
publisher: PublicAffairs
ISBN: 1891620789
pages: 256
rating: 8/10
summary: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech
I heard about Cyberselfish when driving around Vermont Memorial Day weekend from used bookstore to used bookstore. The NPR station was broadcasting an interview with Cyberselfish author Paulina Borsook, a writer who worked for Wired during its glory years. I was put off by the book's wretched title, but engrossed by the subject: the powerful undercurrent of libertarianism that flows through high-tech circles. I have been astounded but not amazed at the deeply adolescent and peevish libertarian attitudes that so many techies cling to, from gun worship to fear of governmental Internet regulation. Listening to Borsook speak intelligently and cogently about technolibertarianism made me want her book very much.
This month I garnered a copy of Cyberselfish, and I'm still appalled with the title (which comes from an eponymous essay for Mother Jones she wrote in July 1996, when such cyberlanguage wasn't so cybertrite). Cyberselfish is a book-length essay, in fact a somewhat thinly edited series of linked essays. There's a rush of immediacy and wit; for a random example, "Polyamory is the preferred term of art; it's gender-neutral, where polygamy and polyandry are not, and allows for all persuasions of partner choice (gay/straight/bi/it depends)." With the freshness and informality comes flaws. There is too much repeated material in the book. It's clear that essays written at different times have been cobbled together. Reading the book straight through is like reading some multivolume series straight through, in which the characters and history are rehashed at the beginning of each book.
Cyberselfish looks at a few specific examples of technolibertarianism in depth: Bionomics, cypherpunks, Wired magazine, and Silicon Valley's impressive lack of philanthropy. Each time Borsook exposes the compassionless, fearful, posturing, politically myopic core, without dismissing the good aspects of the high-tech culture and individuals. For example, she thinks fighting for privacy rights is good, but obsessing about it and descending into rabid, paranoid ranting on alt.cypherpunks is scary. She moves smoothly from the historical to the academic to the personal, deliberately exposing her own frailities and biases while she examines those of others.
To give a deeper example of the content of Cyberselfish, Bionomics is the use of biological (and particularly Darwinian) metaphors to describe economic processes, as popularized by Michael Rothschild (Bionomics: Economy as Ecosystem) and then the The Bionomics Institute (TBI). Borsook convincingly points out through both empirical observation and reasoned analysis that Bionomics boils down to economic libertarianism, where government involvement is wrong and the most cut-throat, efficient and entrepeneurial businesses are the best. Ecological metaphors are used in Bionomics only when they're useful and sexy: The ecosystem of Hawaii was used as a metaphor for the fragility of protected industries. Under Bionomics logic, Hawaii's beautiful, lush, peaceful ecosystem is to be derided. Bionomics uses metaphors to draw syllogistic conclusions. Doing that can be powerfully convincing but amounts to hand-waving and emotional appeals. Borsook cuts through the smoke and mirrors.
After a few years, the Bionomics Institute conferences were (literally) taken over by the Cato Institute, the premier libertarian think tank in the nation. The annual Bionomics conterences began in 1993. The 1997 conference was the Cato/Bionomics Conference; 1998, the "Annual Cato Institute/Forbes ASAP Conference on Technology and Society." TBI morphed into software-startup Maxager, which intends to offer Bionomical tools to companies. Borsook wonders what meaning can be ascribed to the success or the failure of the company. If Maxager fails, is it because it wasn't Bionomically good enough, or just because of the many uncontrollable factors that cause the vast majority of startups to fail? If it succeeds, does it validate Bionomics, or just the good connections the founder has with Silicon Valley venture capitalists?
The other chapters are just as interesting. Cyberselfish sharply describes all the archetypes of the technolibertarians, from the neo-hippie polyandric Burning Man attendee to the Lexus-driving, 100-hour-a-week, plugged-in entrepeneur with a sprawling bungalow in Santa Clara county.
One of the most crystalline passages in the book describes Eric Raymond's leaking of the Halloween Document, written by Microsoft program manager Vinod Valloppillil. The two clearly have vast ideological differences, the open-source cowboy and the Evil Empire functionary, but they're both hard-core libertarians, an entirely unreported fact. In Borsook's words, "It was rather like discovering that both a liberal and a conservative senator had both acquired their law degrees from Yale: no news here."
As I said before, the book is somewhat haphazardly put together, and nearly every sentence is to some degree contentious; even someone who agrees with her basic position will find reason to quibble. Cyberselfish doesn't come near to answering all the questions it raises. Borsook doesn't really tackle the paradox that "libertarians celebrate the cult of the individual" but Open Source celebrates the collective. What does it mean to be an Open Source libertarian?
I personally think it's somewhat unfair to attack those flaws, as they're inexorably part of Cyberselfish's loose, immediate, opinionated, and conversational style. It's kind of like how Slashdot's open forums allow for a review like this and the inevitable "hot grits" responses.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
These words, which so well fit America in the new millenium, were penned by Coleridge in the prefatory years before the Victorian age. It was an age where, despite the great feats of engineering that marked the Industrial Age, there was a persistent "anti-intellectualism," an "association of learning with idle gentlemen or lazy academics who contribute[d] nothing to the needs of the world." (Houghton's "The Victorian Frame of Mind," which also supplied the above Coleridge quotation.) The father of the great British politician Gladstone, like many other wealthy men of the time, considered education destructive to the commercial impulse (thankfully, the future Prime Minister was not the inheritor of his father's business enterprises).
As strange as it may seem, the culture of networked computing that exists today is also highly anti-intellectual, dedicated to the acquisition of venture capital and stock options, engineering "feats" like Napster, to short "news" items culled without context, three-sentence Slashdot commentaries, and, need I say it, the wink-and-a-nod innuendo of columnists like Drudge. Our interest in science is limited to the practical, or possibly practical, experiments reported in Slashdot, Discover, or The New Scientist; advances in the "impractical" sciences languish in obscurity, since they offer no practical benefits or methods of securing venture capital. And humanities and the liberal arts, of course, are, at best, beside the point and at worst a distraction; technology, as Wired, Napster, and countless others have drummed into our ears, must drive society, rather than the other way 'round.
With a few -- very few -- exceptions (Knuth leaps to mind), programmers are journeymen and skilled labor, not logicians, mathematicians and scientists of any note. We certainly -- bereft of any education or experience in politics, history, theology and philosophy -- are not qualified to set the course our societies must sail. Without any mooring in traditional political thought, and possessed of success in a world that has afforded great economic benefit to our class, most of us gravitate to the smug selfishness of Ayn Rand, proclaiming a vaguely libertarian credo demanding less regulation, fewer taxes, more individual freedom, fewer individual responsibilities. This, in turn, leads to a society in which financial success is the litmus test for personal freedom and comfort.
The "off-line" society Katz talks about is trying to walk a tightrope between stifling engineering research -- which is undesirable -- and allowing technology to dictate our societal goals and means -- which is unsupportable. It has not "failed [us] and the larger society," but it is unwilling to abdicate its power and positions in favor of unchecked engineering and corporate control; this is a society that places law and legislation above individual ethical judgements and intuition, a society that demands accountability from its institutions that the commerce of engineering does not, and cannot, grant freely (vide both Microsoft and Napster). It is a society that represents the fifty percent of Americans who don't own computers as well as the ten percent that spends its entire workweek on the 'Net. And it is a society that we must work within, for if we try to circumvent its strictures, we will be punished.
We, as engineers, must come to realize that society is not software, speech is not a printf() statement, and development does not always mean progress. If we, as a group, cannot learn to work with those who are charged with ensuring the progress and safety of society, then the best we can hope for is a gradual expansion of statutory and case law to encompass changes in technology, leading eventually to the checking of the remarkable, and probably unsustainable, freedom of technology we enjoy today.
The worst possibility is that we might win.
The compleate Geeks in space MP3s :)
:)
if I ever get to a point where my MP3s are mesured in gigs I can type rm -rf *.mp3
The MP3s I pull off Napster are ones like "The Spy who Shagged Spock"...
I have an ego.. but it lays in my code.... This is what "I" wrote... anyone can download... Impress me with code
I don't actually exist.
Hehehe...
I think New Line knows the chances are good they'll never produce a movie...
I believe it's "The greater fool" therie... You buy knowing your a fool and you look for a greater fool than yourself to unload.
Eventually NL will find that fool...
If they havn't allready...
I don't actually exist.
I agree with him...
Programmers make tools and as all tools go they can be used for good or evil no matter what the tool was made for.
A screw driver makes an exelent murder wepon thow a commen house house kitchen knife is prefered.
We have yet to ban a screw driver or a knife. We have yet to have any sort of public outcry over how anyone can have a crow bar or a sledge hammer.
No one dares question the vality of thies tools.
While encryption and file sharing is considered vital to the Internet they are also looked on as tools of theft or threats to national security.
Any given programmer must consider the posable illegal use of his tools lest he be accused of premoting illegal acts.
I seresouly doupt the guy who invented lockpicks had any such limitations...
I don't actually exist.
Also America started as a Republic...
The vote was not a right originally...
I don't actually exist.
You know that statment makes more sence with an understanding of history... :)
"I was just folowing orders...."
I don't actually exist.
Such arguments are based on the extream posabilitys of the libertarian philosophy rather than the expressed views.
They arn't far away from expressed views. I've heard no one argue for the elimination of the FDA but I do twitch when I hear plans to eliminate the IRS.
However I have hear worse from intelectuals.
People get wrapped up in idealism and forget there is a real world out there,
That real world dosn't function in extreams.
I don't actually exist.
You have parents who do not wish to put any effort into rasing children. Instead they want to make an issue out of matereal on the TV, Radio, Internet and in movies.
They have even attempted to censore libarys...
On the other end you have TV, Radio and the Internet that wishes to put out matereal with no moral values what so ever.
TV, Radio and movies must conform to the market and this reality alone keeps quality up.
The Internet being raw data will contain all the knowladge of mankind, all the myths rummors and out right lies. It basicly contains all information and disinformation around the world.
The users of the Internet expect it to be there. The idea that information may be removed or blocked to enable a parent to be lazy is really repugnent.
Yes it's selfish.. call it selfish to want the Internet to function as designed. Call it selfish to demand other people act responsably.
Napster... Call it selfish to demand that music groups like Matalica go after the acuall criminals rather than Napster.
Let's sue Napster becouse music pirates use Napster. Let's sue a knife maker becouse a kid commited suiside with it. Let's sue Elmers glue...
Yes there is a bit of "Selfishness" in technology.. We expect information at our fingertips.
Why isn't Windows source at my fingertips? Becouse Microsoft (who owns it) never relased the code.
Why isn't BlahBlahBlah Encylopedia at my fingertips? Becouse they want to sell it on CD.
Why isn't nude pictures of my next door nabor at my fingertips? Becouse my next door nabor dosn't want them available.
Why arn't Matalica songs at my finger tips? Becouse thats Matalics property...
Why is "MY" souce code not at everyones fingertips.
Becouse my code makes someones life a little harder.
Information dose not want for anything.. let alone to be free. It dose not matter one bit if it's inslaved by it's author.
But once free... it should remain free... unless the author chouses otherwise...
I don't actually exist.
>Playing both sides, Jon?
I like Katz but he has been caving to knee jerk writings.
This is a bad thing for an opinionist or ranter like Katz...
I'll defend Napster as a tool. Even if the tool was made for criminal efforts it should never become a crime to make a tool.
This puts inventers in the position of defending against allgations of criminal intent when there is no intent (criminal or otherwise) as many inventions are pure whim at first.
But Matalica had every right to hunt down music pirates with all the legal zeal they can muster...
It matters not one iota what the tool was made for or how it is used.
It matters that Timmy is a theaf. Not that Timmy used Napster. He could have used IRC and gotten identical results.
I don't actually exist.
Ahhhh, now it all makes sense. Here's how it works:
First of all, the technology of culture politics have the Thomas Jefferson effects geeks society in Columbine. Columbine culture of technology in politics have Thomas Jefferson in geek-society. In society, geeks of political culture has effects on Thomas Jefferson and technology. The culture of Thomas Jefferson and Columbine in society effects culture geeks, but geek culture society effects technology. The politics of culture and technology in Thomas Jefferson effects Columbine but culture geek society and technology effects politics, and politics culture. Columbine culture technology and politics effect Thomas Jefferson geeks. Geek politics and Thomas Jefferson politics effect technology culture. The technology of Columbine and politics of Thomas Jefferson effect culture and society. The geek society of Thomas Jefferson effects Columbine technology and politics. Slashdot is a joke. Columbine, and geek culture effect politics, society and Thomas Jefferson. The technology politics of society culture geeks of Columbine and Thomas Jefferson. The geeks of Thomas Jefferson technology Columbine the effects of society and culture. The culture of Columbine society effects Thomas Jefferson technology. Technology-society, or Columbine, effects geek culture and Thomas Jefferson. In conclusion, geek technology and culture make Thomas Jefferson effect Columbine.
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
I will sort of paraphrase the person who started this thread:
Most IT people are willing to help new people in the IT world out. I personally help people all of the time. I'm the secretary of the local Linux Association, and I am even willing to go over peoples houses and help them work out problems. I am even considering looking around and finding a school system that is in need of computer help and seeing if I can teach night classes (for free, mind you) to the students. I know this is something that I would have personally DIED for while in High School (the ability to actually learn something about the subject). I had to self teach myself, but I'd love to have the chance to help out others into the field.
That said, most IT people are NOT willing to handhold people who feel they are somehow 'entitled' to technology, but have no willingness to learn anything about it. I'm talking about the people who have NO ability to retain knowledge. It isn't because they CAN'T. It is because they WON'T. They ask a question, you tell them, and then 20 minutes later they ask the same thing.
THESE are the people who bitch about the 'technocratic elite'. They can't understand why they can't get into IT, and why we get angry with them. They assume we must all be spoiled rich brats who can't take the time to help them, when in fact the opposite is true. They are spoiled brats who can't do anything for themselves.
Self reliance is something that is highly regarded in IT. It goes hand in hand with initiative and motivation. Also extremely important is the ability to know when you should work something out yourself, and when you should ask another person for help.
These people have none of these skills.
Once again, I'm all for helping out the underpriveledged. But let's look at the people bitching about this. They sure as hell aren't underpriveledged. They are just too lazy and lacking in motivation to get off their asses and do something.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
I don't know where this myth that all technologically minded people are rich came from. But I'm going to tell you that it is complete and utter bullshit.
I don't really know anybody in technology who started off rich. Why? Because the people who started off ultra rich and were handed everything throughout life do not have the motivation necessary to get anywhere in this industry.
The one thing you need to be able to make it in technology is a serious work ethic. If you have this, you will succeed. If you do not, you will fail.
The Facts:
Most of the people I know and work with in IT came from lower- to middle-class families. In fact, a large percentage came from damn near poverty. They had no money to buy computers, and used public facilities until they could scrounge enough parts dumpster diving to put together something workable. If they were lucky, they were able to find a school system giving away older systems that they could screw around with. Up until college, they were completely self taught.
The people who are making it in IT are working their asses off to do so. They are learning new things constantly. And they accept the fact that if they don't know something, they don't claim they do.
This is why so many people fail at IT, and bitch and moan about the 'technocratic elite'. As the original poster pointed out, they can't seem to fathom an industry that you cannot bullshit your way through. If all you have is some certifications you bought and no experience, and can't do jack shit, the people you work with are going to know this VERY VERY SOON. And guess what? They will (rightfully) feel that you don't belong here. Because you don't.
Not only is IT a meritocracy, it is full of people who don't care about padding criticism to make it less harsh. This is the way it works. If I think somebody doesn't know what they're doing, I tell them so, and if they know anything about the industry, THEY DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. The people who fail are those who take it far too personally. I know that if I fuck something up, I am going to be told that it was my fault. You need to realize that the same holds true for everybody.
It comes down to what the original poster said: you don't know what you are doing, you can't make it in IT. The only way to know what you're doing is to WORK FOR IT. For most, this is a new concept, and one they don't want to accept. Guess what? Too bad. I don't care. Just shit, or get off the pot.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Katz argues that there exists a culture that has grown up on technology. True. It's clear that the subject of this essay, and the intended reader, are both us: the people who read/lurk/post on slashdot. It's a great generalization for him to assume that we're all young, naive cyber-hippies who foolishly think we're better than people who are less inclined to technology. That's beside the point, though.
Katz argues that this technology society is hopelessly elitist. Also true. But is this a bad thing? Many, many people who post here have expressed their complete loss of trust in corporations and the government. Are we to believe that the masses of people who blindly accept the control of corporations over their lives have the ability to make good decisions about where to take our society?
Decisions are Katz's main point: he says that while we aimlessly argue over issues that don't concern most people, the corporations and governments are conspiring to control our lives, taking the true decision-making away from the individual.
The fact is, many of the issues that are argued over here directly affect most of society. Technology is changing the world today. Most of society, though, is totally disconnected from the real issues - those of privacy, personal freedom, and yes, democracy and capitalism. The masses have accepted the current state of the internet and assumes that speech will always be free. They incorrectly assume that the real power over our human society is held by the individual, not the corporation.
The public is mostly ignorant to the real threats to freedom, partly due to the "monster under the bed" fears of evil hackers and killer computer virii that steal your credit cards.
Katz is backwards in his reasoning. It is not the cyber-minority who are the problem, it is the majority, who have shown that they're willing to let the AOLs of the world run their lives.
I don't dispute that there's just a touch of narcissism here :). But elitism? Hell no. For every person who realizes the true problems that are brought about by technology, there's one less person who isn't willing to do something about changing our world.
--
It would be interesting to compare how techno-political interactions happen with you folks to the South, with our situation up here in Canada. After all, our capital (Ottawa) also happens to be the primary hub of tech activity - our "Silicon Valley North".
--The more you know, the less you know.
People who sneer at these new laws and say: well, I'll just encrypt everything and then forget or erase the private key.
They forget that any encryption strategy is only as strong as your ribcage (when occifers kick it) or your a**hole (when you're in jail for contempt of court).
Geeks don't need to 'rise up'. They need to lock down, shut down, and walk out. Right now at this very moment the biggest threst to geeks (at least in the United States) is the lie that there aren't enough geeks here so H1B visa's are issued to bring cheap geeks in from other countries to supposedly take up the slack. There's no slack to take other than jobs away from geeks that are citizens. The so-called 'IT shortage' isn't about a geek shortage. It's about money. If any industry needed a union it's the IT industry. (no, I'm not pro-union, but I do recognize that unions are usefull in the early era of any new, and yes IT is new, industry)
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
OH, I see that wanting to protect jobs for Americans within America from encroachment by outsiders is now racist. Well, excuse the term, but ... bullshit.
AS for Americans being lazy compared to people from other countries, that's also so much bullshit. Excuse me for not working a 90 hour work week because I want a life outside of the job. Sure, workers from other countries may seem harder working, but they either must work the demanded hours or get their H1B yanked and they go back to India, Pakistan, China, or wherever. I dunno about you buddy, but if I deal with a tech at another company I ALWAYS ask for a non-H1B visa holder. There are plenty of Americans in America to do the job without using imports.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Not that I claim to understand, agree, or otherwise with JonKatz - but I have listened to his rants now for quite some time. Over and over he notices the injustice in the world, what's wrong with it, and tells us that it is wrong. Yet does he ever offer any advise or wisdom, guidance or otherwise? He has a message, yet his message often times falls on deaf ears because it is incomplete. Just a simple "wake up call" is one thing - yet a weekly or biweekly wakeup call to the same damn thing for about a year gets old real fast. People understand Jon's views, yet often times they just don't understand because he doesn't give any real ideas of how to make it better. I have a question and some advice, my question is summed up by asking if you see any ray of hope in /anything/ you write? My advice to Jon is please give alternatives, expound on your multi-page essays, find solutions. Please try to change the world with your wit instead of just rant.
Worst of all, technies face a lot of bad press - that they are selfish, they are antisocial, they are narcissic, they are whiny, etc. To me, it sounds like sour grapes from people who are non-technical, looking at this accidental group of power-holders and projecting their worst fears and traits onto them. Technological people are *PEOPLE*, they didn't appear out of nowhere, so if people have problems with them, they best look at the culture they SHARE with them first.
Articles like this do call attention to the fact that technology is more and more important in politics and society. The days we programmers and engineers can sit in our labs and have fun and keep things running is over - our world is now THE world.
Unfortunately, articles like this also do nothign more than to perpetuate the stereotypes.
Complaining about it does nothing - the squeaky wheel gets replaced just as often as it gets the grease. Acting as if technologists are some new species/nation does nothing more than to treat us out of context.
It's ALL our world. Problems are ALL our problems. Let's stop complaining and stop complaining about complaining. Let's address real human issues from freedom to having enough to eat, but let's not divide ourselves up any more, and let's not turn on each other.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
To summarize the way I think in my own head, right or wrong.....
There is a line I think many of us draw, mentally, between what is 'commercial' or 'business' and what is 'peronal' or 'free'.
Traditionally, if I want to give a bowl of rice to my neighbor, or give cookies to my whole neighborhood, I can. We do things for each other, help each other out. This works fine and dandy until we get into...
things we can make duplicates of; IP.
See, in the old days.. if I wanted to buy a plow, even a patented plow, I could. if I wanted to then go to my metal shop and *make* a plow and *give* it to my neighbor, nobody really had a problem with that. Sure... patent law says maybe I can't.. but who would care. Nobody.
Now things are different.
The bottom line of this unclear, badly written message is this: regardless of what the law says, or what the politicos say.....there is a line between 'business' and 'people'. Business law is businsess law, but *nothing* should be able to get in the way of the goodwill of the people.
Music? Bah. If people want to *give* things to each other, let th em. If the music industry falters and we have no more good bands.. *oh well!*. Too bad for us I guess.
I don't think I could live in a shellfish society.
I'm allergic to it.
I think people have no right to complain about Napster shutdowns. It's like saying, "hey I have the right to steal" or, "Hey, I'll buy this candy bar if it tastes good!"
Lowmag.net
Look at the open source community. All of the software out there that we use on a daily basis - Linux, Apache, Samba, gcc, sendmail, Gnome, KDE (no license flames please...), nearly everything RedHat has written, this is just a tiny fraction of the immense library of software that programmers have donated to the community for the sake of giving.
Look at the library of HOWTOs at the Linux Documentation Project, which were written for the express purpose of helping newbies understand their systems. Most of these people (including me) have not recieved a single cent for their efforts. They worked cause they believed in giving back to the community.
If after seeing all of that effort donated to the world community, you still think that the technical community is selfish, you've got one sad worldview.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
OK, this was obviously a troll, but I have nothing better to do so I'll bite.
;-) . Anyway, when some of these cavemen discovered fire and tried to harness it, there were probably others who claimed that everything was just fine without it. From our perspective that position would seem absurd, but we have the benefit of hindsight. We know that fire was only the beginning and we can see what it led to.
/. we see a bunch of US citizens who are normally completely ignorant of the rest of the world (no offense to anyone, I'm a US citizen myself) arguing about certain laws passed in Australia and Britain. We also have an unprecedented level of freedom of speech, although there are certainly some forces at work trying to take that away. However, the benefits of true freedom of speech is not something to take for granted, as is being made all the more apparent.
/. and play Diablo. Those tasks may be seen as an utter waste, and maybe they are. However, there's something to be said for recreation. As society has progress people have been allowed increasingly larger amounts of time and more options for recreation. The use of computers for this purpose is just another example of how our lives are being improved.
/.). You should be thankful for what you have. There are many poor nations out there that have missed out on the benefits of computers (and a lot of other things!). You should be thankful for all that you have, instead of whining about it.
While it is quite true that our society used to work fine without the aid of computers, it is impossible to claim that there is no benefit to be had from computers and technology. It's quite simply the difference between working and working better. This is what causes all technological revolutions, not just the advent of computer technology. There was a time when everyone lived in caves and hunted things with big clubs. Just ask OOG about it
Now, you can certainly claim that computers will never have the same kind of impact that fire had. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe they already have. Do you have any idea how much of our society has benefitted from computer technology? It's hard to think of anything which hasn't. Your grocery store can keep track of inventory better and handle customer transactions faster. Your car can run more efficiently. Your long distance phone calls are cheaper and clearer. Virtually anything in manufacturing can be made better and cheaper with the help of computer models. I'm listing more mundane things to try to show you how much influence computers have really had in everyday life, but there are other things which would have been outright impossible without computer technology. Think of the benefits to scientific research that have resulted from computers. The genetic research. Better weather prediction. Improved efficiency in agriculture. Not to mention advances in pure mathematics and other less concrete fields.
And let's not forget the Internet. I'm not one to claim that it has or will totally change society, but it is certainly an impressive force. We can now connect minds that are worlds apart. We can truly be connected with the rest of the world. Even here on
My point is that computers are not in anyway limited to the desktops that we use to read
While some certainly do think that computers are "cool" (and I'm one of them!), that is not the reason they have become so useful to society. If there was no benefit to be had from computer technology we would never have developed it to the point where people can talk about how "cool" it is in the first place. All our lives have been improved by computers, even you've never touched one (which is obviously not the case seeing how you were able to post a message to
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
Mises.org response
Reason Online response
Bottom line, the agenda held precious by Borsook and her colleagues is being torn apart by free thinking. They're terrified, and Borsook's awful writing confirms it.
MJPDon't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
I'd love for an IT union to form, so that I could have the pleasure of not joining it.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
And libertarianism is exactly what the article is about.
Sure, it would be wonderful if we could all live together in peace and harmony in the happy land of candy, but life isn't like that. People aren't fair. And libertarianism just gives them a beautiful veneer to hide behind.
We need a strong government not just to protect us from the active criminals, but to look out for the rights of those citizens who can't do so themselves.
The libertarian ideal doesn't give a crap about the people starving in third world countries. It doesn't even concern itself with the poor schmuck down the street who can't get himself a job. Sure, nobody may have hurt him or stolen from him, but they sure as hell didn't help him.
But according to your philosophy, that's alright. Nobody needs to help those people. And the reality of it is that there's certainly not enough charity to go around. Look at what capitalism did to the US during the industril revolution and then apply that to all aspects of society. That's libertarianism at work.
I'm hoping this is a troll, because it's the perfect example of the attitude the author (forget Katz) is apparently criticizing.
Are you really so narrowminded as to think that anyone who isn't technically savvy is an idiot? Do you have any idea how differently people's brains work? I know plenty of hardworking, smart, dedicated people who just don't have what it takes to be a computer wizard. That's because they're wired differently, not because they're lazy, or need to be coddled, or not valuable to society. I believe in a meritocracy to some extent, but basing it on a single set of skills would result in a society so unbalanced it would be miserable to live in and quickly self-destruct. What if your much-vaunted meritocracy were based on musical ability? Or visual artistry? Or carpentry skills? Or empathy? How would you fare if the elite decided that anyone who couldn't bang out a decent shakespearean sonnet in 30 minutes wasn't worth "coddling"?
Get a clue, and go spend some time in the real world. Meet some people who aren't computer gurus and talk with them about what they're good at before you judge them to be idiots.
"As a culture, it mistakes mechanical skills -- like programming an operating system -- with technological knowledge and power."
Look no further than the dreaded MP3 format. Pure Power. Enough to kill an entire industry.
The beauty of tech knowledge is that when applied properly it ends the argument. In fact, it usually simply obsoletes the entire argument. The genie cannot be returned to the bottle. The music industry as it exists today is dead. No amount of legislation can change that. None.
Who was it that had the power again?
Two words:
It's Not
Why don't geeks seem to be able to influence politics? Because politics is not tech-centric. Geeks are defined primarily by their views on technology and are often anti-social. Politics in it's current state is defined largely by candidates views on social issues. And as George W. (and to an only slightly lesser extent Al Gore) demonstrate, election politics is a shallow popularity contest between two liars who know the right buzzwords and scare tactics to turn on the single-issue voters. (despite my cynicism, I DO have strong opinions on social issues as well as tech issues, and will not be voting for GWBasi^H^H^Hush)
Geeks have a variety of views on social issues. I'm a very liberal Democrat, but I know a lot of Republican geeks. And while geeking away at our programming jobs, there's no conflict because the issues that separate the candidates are not technology issues. Sure, plenty of tech bosses have strong opinions on the direction of national economic policy (really, they're interested in avoiding taxes on their loot), but the masses of geeks will never form a useful political block with the current state of politics in America.
- StaticLimit
Are you saying that you would like someone to set up an environment for you where you can be yourself? Why can't you "express that Open Source is good in some areas, but in others some Closed Source software is better" on slashdot, or anywhere else? I'm pretty sure you don't have to worry about someone coming to your house and beating you up for talking trash about Open Source on slashdot. I bet they wouldn't even pull your post. Heck, this post of yours was even moderated up to 5. If you're not willing to endure a few negative responses on an internet message board to "be an individual", then you have a pretty stange idea of what it means to be an individual.
Ben
Do you use large doses of strong drugs or do you base you opinions of the world outside of America on American sitcoms? I can't think of two social institutions more important to giving people opportunity in life than health and education. Compared to the rest of the rich world, quality of health care and education are so heterogeneous in American, it's absurd. From the June 24th issue of the economist:
And while America's health-care system is deemed the most responsive, it does badly when it comes to measures that reflect general population health, coming 24th in the DALE ranking and 54th, alongside Fiji, in how fairly the financial burden of health care is distributed.
This is based on a recent survey of national health care systems by the World Health Organization. I don't have a similar quote about eduation, but I am fairly confident that quality and cost are as unevenly distributed there.
It's too bad that so many people show so little concern for inequality of opportunity in life. I guess it's an ugly side-effect of the extreme individualism that has developed in America and some other places. It's really not a bad thing to care about fellow human beings. Really, it's not.
Ben
apparently, we've got very different jobs. the second international wire transfers are "uncool" or the second when calculating the interest in your bank account is "uncool" or when writing microcode for medical devices or vehicles is "uncool" then some of us will start worrying. forunately, I'm handy with a rifle, stick and rock, so I've got those angles covered too.
Nah, they just wanted to make their own damn lives easier, and the rest just followed. Not every rock hides a conspiracy...
I got a rifle, a rock and a stick... If I can find some twine, I'm going to have a rock onna stick.
This is offtopic but I'd just like to know the reason for the large number of anti-Katz postings, so much so it seems to have become an organized movement on Slashdot. I've used Slashdot for some time now but seemed to have missed the article which led to this. Any ideas anybody?
Most technological advancement, at least up until the formalization of the scientific method, has come from common people, thinking, "there's got to be a better way", whether that person be a blacksmith trying to build a better tool, or a farmer trying to lessen his workload or grow better crops, or a merchant trying to figure out cheaper ways to get goods to market, and so on.
You're probably thinking of how science became a trendy hobby for the wealthy during the Age of Reason. That's when you start see people like Newton, Galileo, etc.
What's wrong with learning from a computer game? Sure, it's a grossly simplified model, but do you think they just pulled that stuff out of their butts?
Have you actually read much history? Or, more specifically, have you read much on how history is shaped by technology?
History repeats itself because human nature doesn't change all that much. We're basically the same now is when we were tens of thousands of years ago.
What does change is technology. Sure, culture evolves, but how much of that evolution would occur without the technological changes that help it occur? Would popular culture exist without a telecommunications infrastructure? Would suburbia exist without automobiles? Would slavery have ended without the industrial revolution? Would organized religion, democracy, or science, exist without writing? Would we have ever formed cities and nations without agriculture? Get the point?
War is mostly a battle of technology and logistics. It doesn't matter how good your troops are, if you can't feed them, they're useless. If they're carring swords to fight against longbows, they're useless. If they can't get to the battle before it's over, they're useless.
The war of politics v technology is simple:
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
* "go ahead, sniff my mail"
* "ok, we can"
* "beat my encryption"
* "anything going over these wires is susceptible to legally enforced decryption"
* "asshole".
But what really annoys me is that in the process of setting up legislation, they just sponge off all the hackers who set these things up for everyone to use. The government does not rule the 'net; it is subservient, it lives in its own little ".gov.uk" box just like any other net-connected entity.
Mr Straw, if you're watching: you're a patronising idiot, yeah?
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Wait a minute, I misread the heading. I was discussing Shellfish Society. In the immortal words if Emily Latella,... "Nevermind."
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
I think one should be a little slower to assume that there is such a thing as equality of opportunity.
I never did. The original poster suggested that computer skill was a direct result of economic conditions, which is not true. Other things are at play, which are more important. Social forces have a much more significant effect.
I didn't say it explicitly, but I also have a theory that economically depressed groups tend to fear technology, therefore hurting the possibility that those kids will have any interest in technology.
The difference, I think, stemmed from the respect these students were shown, the degree to which their minds were encouraged to imagine positive futures for themselves.
That seems to support my point that social support of an interest in a field is more important than the economic means to be at that field's forefront.
There's lots of other things I would like to have done when I was younger (that other kids did), but couldn't afford to. Certainly I think I should have had those opportunities too. I simply had to be realistic and limit my expectations to within my means. I'm still playing catch up to middle-class "poor kids" who got everything from a wealthy grandparent or a responsibly maintained trust fund. There's some unmentioned skills that they have that I don't, because of the choices I made.
Trust me, I'm not trying to sound like some sort of Republican success story. I'm just trying to put this thread into perspective.
--
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
I have been lucky because my situation/family/background/financial situation enabled me to have the opportunity to use computers. Some people aren't so lucky. Some people may have been able to afford a computer but without having any guidance or inspiration, they have been shown what their potential could have achieved using computers.
While this is of course, entirely helpful, it doesn't have any dependency on one's computer skills, or vice versa.
I come from a lower-class background. While this means I end up behind a lot of people who were coding assembler at 6 because their families could afford SOTA computers in the early 80s, it didn't entirely prevent me from getting into the computer field and being fairly good in it. (I had other resources, mostly friends and family members who did have computers, eventually loaning me a then-clunky C64 in '93.)
On the other hand, I did work relatively hard -- in grade and high school -- to get where I am now; without high marks and class rank in high school, I wouldn't have been able to get into a decent college without selling drugs or selling my body (or something). And that's where I got the resources I needed to really play around with and learn computers.
All this aside, here's what I think you missed: Most people still don't want to know about computers. There may be antitheses to this rule (California, Cambridge, Scandinavia, etc.), but for the wide majority of the populace, its true. If it weren't for the 'Internet revolution', there would be hardly anyone who cared about knowing computers, and it would still be 1980 in terms of computer use.
For those who have the inclination, and the social support (and I envy the young geeks who can build large social groups around technology interests today), computers are an accessible skill. But, regardless of economic background, if the social support isn't there, the interest in computers probably is not either.
Some of us bucked the norm and found satisfaction in computer interests, but most people don't buck the norm, and simply go along with the crowd. And if that crowd isn't (really) into computers, they won't care about whatever options there are in IT, at least not for many years.
If what you say about the significance of "being shown the possibilities" were true, then "Intro to Computers" classes would be creating CS majors left and right. But they aren't.
There are some people working where I do, that I went to grade school with. Back then I was fooling with computers here and there, and for them, it was a laughable thing to do. Now they are trying to find their "options" in the IT field. Right now that option is to work downstairs -- making about half what I make upstairs.
Now, I don't think I'm arrogant about it, but I do chuckle to myself when I think of the scorn I went through in order for that situation to happen. I'm glad I was able to experience it.
The point is, although economic limitations will definitely hinder you, as they have me, they wont prevent you. But if you let yourself have disdain for the computer field (or culture, for what there is of one), then you prevent yourself, and I don't pity you.
There's plenty of scorn going around. Whether that scorn comes from those who laugh at what you know, or from those who laugh at what you don't know... if you ask me, both are part of the computer learning experience. If I'm exuding a little scorn, it can't be all that bad.
--
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
If you think of an ancient society, you have a ruling class, a worker class, and a priest class. The priest class provides technology and has a nice life compared to the peasants, but they live at the beck and call of ruling class. As long as they keep performing well, the rulers will throw them a bone - a nice temple, a big iron server, etc. But the rulers are careful not to let you get any real power - they never give you more than a fraction of what they have. (Think of your nice high-tech salary versus that of your non-tech CEO.)
This notion of self-importance among techies is a complete self-deception, and is the same flaw that plagues libertarian hero Ayn Rand throughout "Atlas Shrugged": the absurd notion that if all the geeks went away, anyone but the geeks would care. That is why high-tech workers don't go on strike - because no one but other geeks cares if their work gets done. You'd like to think that the internet is essential for life itself, but if the whole thing went away tomorrow, only people who read Wired & Slashdot would be devastated. The rest of the world would just go back to mailing letters and buying books from the local bookstore. Geeks exacerbate this by spending most of their time working on things that they want, and not giving a rat's ass about things that other people want. Open Source software is the ultimate example of this - written by geeks and for geeks, and proudly. That is great, but it also means that it if it gets inconvenient to the rulers, they can obliterate it and only geeks will care.
Because you have no real power, the ruling class has no fear of you. They are happy to take your H-Bombs and e-commerce solutions to further expand their own power bases, but if you make trouble, they will just crush you without a second thought and get some new priests.
No, the people in power only fear the workers, and that is a simple numbers game - the workers necessarily have to outnumber the rulers. Workers do what the rulers tell them, not what the workers feel like doing. This gives them the power to go on strike and have it be meaningful. When revolutions come, you need to invigorate the workers and get them on your side - their sheer numbers win out over the entrenched rulers. The priests are on the sidelines; once the new order is in place, they are incorporated or buried alive or whatever - no one (other than the priests) really cares which.
Roman's Tech was its Legions. They could crush anyone or anybody and they would from time to time
kill off entire towns to prove the point. All the other improvements were just to better the bottom line for Rome.
My dad, a very smart well educated man, MBA,PHD. Told me when I was about 11 that the day was comming that there would be 2 classes of people,those that know computers and those that do not. I did not want to be on the wrong side, so I got a Vic20 and started learning basic. It seems that he was not too far off the mark and the rift is widening all the time. What to do about the know nots? I dont know, I have enuff or a time keeping up myself. I find that I too must hone in on a little sector of MIS and be that best I can in my chosen space.
what's the deal with your homepage? I remember seeing that one night and totally freaking out.
After watching some of the Republican convention last night, there's no way in hell I'm voting of GWB. I mean really, is "education" a platform? Seems more like a smokescreen to me.
Much of the boon for tech-jobs also will be eaten up over the next 5-10 years through simple social progress. 20 years ago it was only the very rich/dedicated folks who had home machines (Which is almost a pre-requisite for raising a computer geek), now pretty much anyone can get one. (if you can't afford $20/mo., stop smoking) This wide availability will remove or at least smooth the huge knowledge gap between compu-geeks and the rest of society. This tends to make those skills less valuable, as they are better understood, not as mysterious, and therfore more common. And all of that is still under the aforementioned recession worries.
--
+&x
So what if it is a meritocracy. I have no problems w/ this. maybe I have been reading to much ayn rand but what else should we base our social worth on? looks? money? how many cigarettes you can fit in your mouth?
A meritocracy drives people to do what they are good at. which happens to correspond to what you like (generally, YMMV) this is a good thing. this rewards people who find what they are good at and work hard in it.
the utopia is a meritocracy.
In this world
she finds much hostility and paranoia, a world of "testosterone-poisoned guys with chips on their shoulders and too much time on their hands." Ouch.
There is an angle about the relationship between technies and non-techies the article misses, which is the exploitation of geeks, and the general tolerance for immaturity and downright rudeness when dealing with them. There is a symmetry in the alienation of geeks and their objectification by nontechnical managers and users. They aren't even treated as furniture -- that's the software. The tech support and developers are more like the crates the furniture came in. We aren't expected to have feelings, much less aspirations of our own or points of view.
Geeks value knowledge; the problem is ignorant users. I don't like the perjorative term "ignorant", and reserve that for only some people. A child is not ignorant, rather innocent and needing education. For most people, I prefer to think of them "innocent" of technology -- they don't understand it, it's not their primary job to understand it. Geeks are incredibly generous when it comes to sharing knowledge(thus the great free open source support). The tough part with the innocent users is that they aren't always ready to learn -- they're focused on immediate results. Wise geeks take their cues from them and look for "teachable moments" rather than routinely force feeding them through the firehose.
Then there are the truly ignorant folk, who tend to see all human interactions as a power game. A disparity in knowledge is therefore not an opportunity to learn or an unfortunate situation that can't be addressed right away. It is an outright disparity in the power game. They have to "cut you down to size" so they don't feel small. When I tell nontechnical folks this, they don't believe it could possibly be an issue, but I'll bet every geek who has ever worked dealing with nontechnical people has experienced it. When dealing with the ignorant, I console myself that they truly are small, and not because of their technical shortcomings.
The irony of this problematic relationship between users and geeks is that if you like to help people, being a geek is a wonderful thing. So many people need help with technology.
I do believe that even for geeks, who don't need the kind of daily social interaction that say, salesmean thrive on, true happiness is ultimately dependent upon being useful to other people. It's a tremendous rush when somebody gets excited because something you created puts power in their hands. It's very satisfying when somebody comes to you desperate and worried and you send them away happy and contented.
It's also a great position to take a stand against the kind of organizational stupidity that grinds people down. I remember once helping the CEO's secretary by showing her how to adjust the volume of the beep on her computer. Whenever the boss (who was the most ignorant twerp imaginable) started to hear her computer beep, he'd come out of his office and look over her shoulder, because he thought she must be making too many mistakes. I was also in a position to influence against and in some cases subtly undermine attempts to use technology to dehumanize people or treat them in ways that were subtly or non-so-subtly disrespectful. This is why I truly loath programmers who work on crap like keystroke logging software.
In the end, you can't expect being a geek to win you the outright friendship of most non-geeks; not that it matters; while I like most people, nearly all of my real friends are geeks. It takes a special person to befriend a geek unless you're that way yourself. On the other hand, if you are a helpful and reasonably approachable geek you can win the deep respect and sincere admiration of almost everybody. I remember the last MIS job I had, when I left there was a huge party and almost everyone in the buidling turned out. Some of the managers gave speeches of appreciation (even the ones I'd been something of a gadfly to) and the users had very warm and appreciative things to say.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Read Salamander's post closely..."Vote for me and I will use the force of the government to take money from those nasty selfish [fill in the blank] to give to you."
What is this? A competition to outdo each other for sheer stupidity? I said absolutely nothing of the sort. Just because I don't think programmers have a god-given right to a lifestyle ten times better than other people who work just as hard does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I believe in any socialist "levelling" BS. OK, not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. ;-) Cretins like you often have a talent for imagining things well beyond the ken of saner folk. It's amazing that you can even manage to type, with that few brain cells.
I am keenly aware of how fortunate I am to be in a field where the reward:work ratio is so high, but that doesn't mean I have any intention whatsoever of giving away the rewards I have in fact earned.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
>It's not "some people", it's all people. Everybody is born with the "hero nature" (to use your phrase), most just don't/can't come to terms with that.
Inability to come to terms with it is, effectively if not essentially, the same as not having it. And it's a good thing, too, because the only alternative most people can imagine to being a sheep is being a wolf, and a surfeit of wolves can be rather...unhealthy.
I don't trust everyone to be a "true invididual" as you put it. Too many people's expression of individuality is to be a selfish jerk.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
And today's winner for most deserving of the title "Anonymous Coward" is...well, we don't know. ;-) But here's what s/he spewed:
/. for years, and that's still the most idiotic thing I've ever read here. I haven't said anything racist about whites; I merely observed that programming is a mostly white profession. In actual fact, as a white male I'm pretty quick to take offense at reverse racism/sexism, and have been ever since the time when I was denied a job for which I'd been recommended on the basis of my race and gender (University of Michigan, 1984). You're just the perfect example of everything that's wrong with the spoiled little turds who call themselves geeks nowadays.
>Geeks are paid for their knowledge, not physical labor abilities. Physical labor is for people who don't have any real skills
I wasn't talking just about manual labor. Even what we call "manual labor" can often involve more than meet the eye. It takes more training and practice to become a qualified pipefitter or carpenter than it does to sit in an office and create new JavaScript toys, and believe me you'll notice the difference if you hire someone who's still learning. A halfway decent tool and die person is harder to find than a good compiler writer. I'd rather write filesystems than be a cop or a firefighter or a social worker or K-12 teacher - all hard jobs with great social value, and the people who do them make peanuts compared to us.
Lots of people are paid for their knowledge and their hard work and for tolerating danger or physical discomfort, but programmers are just paid for knowledge - and all too many programmers don't even have that.
>I don't appreciate your racist comments towards whites either
I've been hanging around
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Overwhelmingly white??? Has this guy ever been in a computer science program
Yes.
or seen programmers?
Yes. I've been programming professionally for over a decade now, which I'd guess is a decade longer than someone posting from Central Michigan U. :-P
In my group there are nine full-time people, all white, plus one co-op who is Asian. In the associated QA group there are two white, one Asian and one Indian. Of the whole set, there is only one woman, plus our doc writer is a woman. Sadly, this is all pretty much par for the course in real-life software engineering. The whole industry tends to be white and male, even more so in development than in other areas (such as QA, IS, doc or management), and most of all in kernel development. I've worked with hundreds of developers, one of them black and none of them Hispanic. It's sad. But don't take my word for it. Don't accept any "anecdotal evidence" (an oxymoron, BTW) including your own. There are scientific surveys out there showing the same patterns.
Sure, there are exceptions. One group I work with is full of people from India and Pakistan. Another is full of Chinese. These cliques - for want of a better term - are a well-known phenomenon in hiring; people hire others who are like themselves, minorities perhaps even more so than plain-vanilla whites because they (the minorities) feel embattled. And well they should, because by far the largest clique is the white guys. These little spots of diversity are still just spots, against a vast white background.
Drinking and screwing? I don't know what to say. I wish?
OK, perhaps that's not quite accurate. Often the drinking is quite real, but the screwing is more a matter of imagination and reality. Combine that with a smattering of drugs and an obsession about music and you have your average college student. Replace some of the above with random abuse of the college's computer systems to play games, to download mp3s or porn or open-source software (all equally unrelated to coursework), or to further personal profit-making enterprises, and you have the average geek in college. What's noticeably lacking in any of this is adequate focus on actual coursework. For most people, college is no more than a very nice break before you start having to work for a living. Ask anyone who works in the real world, even in a cushy job like programming, whether they envy the "working conditions" in college. The workload and deadlines in college may seem pretty demanding to you, but they're nothing compared with the real world, and nobody in a real job gets as much vacation time.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
>I've read a lot of posts on slashdot and elsewhere from pompous Rand naysayers, who almost always seem compelled to throw in gratuitous ad hominems
Oh yes, like your characterization of anyone who doesn't worship Rand as "leeches" and "parasites" is really helpful.
>These posts usually amount to one or two anecdotal references to "people I knew in college."
There's a reason. It's an immature philosophy, favored by immature people, and for that reason it truly is more often encountered in college than in post-college "real life".
>I've read only a few that even attempted a real argument
If you define "real argument" as "something expressed in Rand's terms, using Rand's axioms" that's no surprise.
>If you think Bill Gates is anything like one of Rand's heroes then you've missed the point of all her work.
This is a favorite of Randites. This one guy I used to know always used to say "Read Virtue of Selfishness"...until I did. Then he'd say "Oh, VoS doesn't really describe it well, read Fountainhead"...until I did. Then it was "For the full treatment you have to read Shrugged"...until I did. I even passed his little quiz to show that I really had read and understood it, and I still disagreed with him. "If you disagree with it you didn't get the point" only works so many times.
>Gates is anything like any of Rand's characters, he's a Peter Keating or Gail Wynand
I didn't say he's an exact match, but he's more like than unlike. There are plenty of tycoons whose fortunes are entirely derived from mergers and takeovers and other high-finance games; they're the true second-handers. At least Gates and MS owe their success to something vaguely resembling a creative/inventive endeavour. Even MS's monopolistic practices are no worse than the blackmail of the "heroes" in Shrugged when they managed to achieve a monopoly regarding certain essential items. The only thing Bill apparently lacks is some quasi-mystical "hero nature" that is easy to pick up in a book but astonishingly useless as a guide for real-life social policy.
Rand's writing - including her alleged non-fiction - is full of this crypto-Nietzschean attitude, which some might perceive as almost racist. Some people are apparently born with the "hero nature" and should be allowed to do whatever they want without inconveniences like governments, while the rest are mere sheep (or leeches) who should be glad to live off the leavings and discards of the super-race. One is left wondering how we distinguish the true titans from the pretenders. Is there a test? A genetic assay, perhaps? If we can rely on this natural talent to reveal itself, why do we not already live in a Randian paradise? The Randites, of course, do not have an answer except for their certainty that they themselves are among the Chosen Few.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
>the people that run it and work in it have worked HARD to get what they have
Most of the people in the computer industry have no freaking idea what hard work is. Programmers are an overwhelmingly white, male bunch raised in comfy suburbs, from whence they went to college on someone else's dime, spent four years drinking and screwing, then straight into an industry that dumps options and benefits on even the most half-assed of them as though they were gods. Most programmers have never had to perform any kind of manual labor at all, ever, and if they ever felt like they were poor it's only because they were playing little independence games with parents who would be ready to bail them out if things ever got truly rough.
I'm a software engineer, and I currently do very well thankyouverymuch. There are people who've had it a lot rougher than me, but I can at least claim to've spent time outside the "reality distortion bubble" in which programming is done and I never forget what it was like. I am constantly amazed and dismayed at how many programmers act like the salaries and working conditions in this industry are normal. Here's a clue, folks. The median household - not personal - income is considerably lower than the median starting salary for a software engineer coming out of college, who is probably single and generally has zero years of real-world experience. Most people don't get stock options. Most people don't even get flex time. They get their own cube if they're lucky, and dream of some day having their own office. Anyone with the tiniest shred of intellectual honesty would admit that we in this industry are unbelievably fortunate and privileged by any sane standard.
Work hard, my ass. I've worked far harder than most people around me to get where I am, and it's still nowhere near as hard as regular folks have to work to get even half as much. Get real.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
I used to know a lot of people in college who were fanatical about Ayn Rand. Then they grew up. I've yet to meet a Randite who thought they were anything short of exceptional. Every last one cherished the fantasy that they were a Roark or a Galt, that their lack of stunning success in life was because they were surrounded by "leeches", and that under the right circumstances their utter superiority would become manifest and incontrovertible. It's a seductive daydream, particularly to nerds who have raised escapism to an art form, but it's no more than that.
Real live humans are much more diverse and complex than Rand's caricatures, and the difference really does matter. The simplistic half-solutions offered by Rand share a fatal flaw with earlier simplistic solutions inspired (ironically) by Marx, which is that they work only for cartoon characters. Bill Gates is the closest real-life approximation to a Rand "hero", and I don't think we need more of him.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Yes, I read Animal Farm. Orwell was deeply suspicious of anyone who claimed privilege. You know, politicians AND corporate executives. The greatest tool for freedom is freedom itself, not the dictatorship of the masses. I've seen the masses, at Wal-Mart, and frankly I don't want them voting on what I should do. Is that elitist? No. Elitism is *me* trying to tell *them* what to do. I want a world where nobody tells anybody what to do. I want a world where people *ask* first. What's wrong with that?
-russ nelson, registered Libertarian
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
But Mark, all of your examples are either false, or instances where the government has granted a monopoly. Windows has its copyright, CSS has its copyright. I can go buy indie or import CD's at my local record store.
You're right about the masses, though. Now, do you really want these people using the violence inherent in a system of government?? I sure don't!
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Or, perhaps it is that some of the main points in Rand's work is overlooked, or misunderstood. Egoism, in the extent that most people understand it, isn't what she's promoting. She's promoting actions that are good for one's self. When you look at it that way, as scary as it is, how different is that from real Marxism? Someone forced to do something they don't want leads to alienation. When you do things you are good at and enjoy doing, it makes you feel good. Yet it's a selfish act.
Rand's philosophy brings to mind some ideas Heinlein put forth in one of his novels: that noone does anything they don't want to do. Ever. The thinking was something like this: it requires an act of will to do something, ergo, noone can do something they don't want to do. One might not like doing some action - one may even hate it - but one always makes the choice among the various alternatives.
So the mother/father doesn't sacrifice for the child out of love, but rather to avoid feeling like she/he is a bad parent. One doesn't give to charity or feed a hungry person out of compassion, but in order to make oneself feel good. This seems to go hand in hand with Rand's philosophy of enlightened self-interest, where selfish behaviour is not only preferred, but necessary.
Sad.
And not the kind of world I want to live in.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
The reason "geeks" get paid so much is because they have brains and know how to use them.
Ha. Just how different is web programming, installing an operating system, or fixing a network hiccup from the things automobile mechanics, plumbers, or electricians do? You have deluded yourself into believing that day-to-day technical myopia is somehow a complicated, mentally taxing field, and for that reason you deserve to be among the highest-paid, best-treated employees in the world. But here's a clue: it's not. The average geek isn't a rocket scientist, either - in fact, based on utility alone, the average automobile mechanic probably deserves at least twice as high a salary as the average web programmer.
Computer science, automotive design, and applied physics are all truly mentally taxing - don't confuse IT with them (the difference between creating solutions and simply applying them).
I don't appreciate your racist comments towards whites either.
Any race which by and large supports a political party which trumpets saving a few bucks on taxes by nixing universal health care deserves to be given a good beating. And yes, I'm white.
Corporations have the power of money.
Government have the power of law (and money, to a lesser extent)
Geeks/Nerds have the power of tech knowledge
etc...
This being said, each of the above uses its power to get ahead
Also, let's not confuse realism with cynicism. I don't believe I have the power to change society. Therefore I choose to benefit 'my clan', THAT I have control over. I agree, this is where the problem lies; we stopped believing in the usefulness of society.
---
Who is John Galt?
Some people will never know.
Jeremy Latt
...the technologically literate continue to prove the point by posting irrelevent nonsense in response, such as discussions about the origins of the word "narky" and such. Reminds me of a bunch of six-year-olds pompously fighting over the outcome of a sandlot game while the bulldozers sit, unnoticed, waiting to tear up the sandlot to build a shopping mall. Rather than marshal their energies to fight the dozers, they'd rather try to bully and impress each other as to the outcome of the game, which in any event will shortly become irrelevent and useless.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
methinks that the trolls have way too much time on their hands... this spewage looks almost exactly like something that a bot would spew...
tagline
... hi bingo
You apparently don't have a clue.
The point is not the number of hours worked, but how hard they work during them. I certainly hope you have today off, because otherwise you're just another slacker.
Yes, you may have a job that allows you to do this for whatever the reason may be. However, as a general rule in our culture, workers are lazy. You're being paid to do work, not just show up at work. "Oh, you're having a bad day? In that case, go ahead, mope at your desk doing nothing on my dollar." Pft.
Why are Cuban-Americans so successful? They got off their asses and moved to the USA. They have ambition, and to further it, they work hard. Not many of them flee the country in a boat, then proceed to lie on their couch watching tv all day.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
I don't subsribe to your communist rhetoric, Mr Jon Katz. It is not in the constitution that the US government should be in the business of redistributing wealth; yet that is what has been the focus government and the emphasis of people like you ever since RDR declared the 'state of emergency' in 1933[1].
Those who belive that the state knows whats best for the individual use phrases like 'selfish' and 'self centered' to describe those who take their own initiative in life and show just what a motivated indivalistic thinker can do without help nor guidance from the state. We are all driven to believe that we cannot help ourselves and we need 'big brother' to guide us.
-- Greg
[1] The framers of the constitution recognized that there would be some extreme circumstances in which constitutional liberties may need to be suspended for the survival of the nation (such as in times of war). In 1933, after being elected, FDR used this stipulation by declaring a state of emergency, this state of emergency has never been lifted; your constitutional rights have been curtailed for the last 65 years. Look it up.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Come now, Ayn Rand is wonderful and fun and a great light read. But her books are akin to romance novels -- over simplified fantasy that illustrates a few basic ideas (Rand nicely summarizes hers at the end of her books in the "in case you missed it" speeches by the protagonists.)
I confess -- I couldn't make it all the way through the damn speech.
Normally, I like and respect Katz for what he usually tries to do, push the geek envelope. It only makes sense that he do the opposite every once in a while so we don't feel to full of ourselves, but this is too much.
After reading posts on slashdot, I've read a couple of other reviews of this book, and it makes a full frontal attack to a form of philosophy that it automatically assumes is invalid and a bane to society in general. The book was literally shreaded in a very logical and concise way that makes it hard to believe Katz used it to base an article on Slashdot.
Now for my actual point. Aside from your caustic tone, I'd have to agree with you on almost every count. I lived in trailer parks, moved more than 20 times before I was 17, below the poverty level and sometimes on food stamps. Does that sound like the background of a technocrat elite? Fuck no. I put myself through college with the help of scholarships, scholastic merit, and hard work. I now have better credit than my parents, good job security, and more than enough intelligence to shoot Katz down.
Why? I sound awfully arrogant, don't I? I was going to go into quantum physics, but there's no money in that. I'm writing at least two books when I get the time, and have already finished many short stories. My point is, everyone has multiple skills, and I practice mine whenever I want. I just made more prudent decisions as to where my money would come from than other people. Don't go blaming the techocrat elite for anything. Lawyers make more money, so do doctors, actors and accountants. You don't see books saying they're inherantly out of touch and selfish. They chose the path they did for their own reasons, and I bet very few of them are the same. Just like every person in the world, they have their own reasons for what they do. Yes, certain fields get more respect and money than others, but that's just how things are. Do what you like, and damn the consiquences. I never stopped writing, I never stop learning more when I get the chance. I'm not sitting fat and happy like so many other respondants to this post would like to believe.
What am I, then? Doctors and Lawyers have to work long years past college to get anywhere. Good computer scientists have to be versed in dozens of languages and architectures, be able to think fast, and usually undergo tons of certification before they get any respect. They still don't get anywhere near as much money unless they get lucky and IPO. People in technical fields aren't special, they're just part of another emerging front that happens to attract cash. Don't think we take this for granted as a general rule. Doing so is bigoted, and I won't stand for it. I know I got lucky, I could have stuck to my writing career more stringently, and tried harder to get published. I could have easily been a starving artist, but I'm not. I came from poverty, and I'm doing what I can to keep from going back. So what? Wouldn't anyone else do the same? Katz certainly isn't hurting for cash, did he apply this analysis to himself?
Somehow, I doubt it. The human condition itself is selfish. We live primarily for ourselves. We eat, when others can't. We donate to charities to escape taxes, or feel better about ourselves. We can't live for other people. This article is complete bunk. Everybody is selfish to a certain degree. Everyone is arrogant. I am because I'm proud of what I've accomplished, knowing where I started.
That's just the way things are. I'll make no excuses, and I'll dare Katz to prove somehow the "geek culture" is somehow more selfish and arrogant than any other field. Try asking an actor, a doctor or a lawyer how arrogant they are, and see what answer you get. Pride is not arrogance. Duhh.
I'm good at what I do, and I like doing it. So sue me.
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
And it's nothing new that those in power smear those who resist their dictates as "selfish", "unpatriotic", "unmutual", or whatever buzzword seems most likely to be effective.
One of the all-time great scams was the discovery by some tribal chief that he could invent a bunch of arbitrary "obligations" (kill who I tell you to kill, give me a portion of your food, pray the same way I do, etc) and equate them to one's natural obligations (honestly support oneself and one's family, keep one's given word, etc). Thus, the former were draped in the moral authority of the latter, and so government was invented.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
It may be ignored by the philosophical literature, but not by the philosophers. There were multiple copies of her epistemological introduction in our Philosophy dept, and each professor had at lest a basic understanding of her principles.
One fairly evident reason she does not loom larger in the circles of modern philosophy is the same reason Aquinas doesn't loom large in 60's-era social commentary - their views run counter to those of the majority, so they are ignored.
Imagine, say, someone who has spent a lifetime studying Wittgenstein. Even if he sees some lucidity in Rand's principles, it would be a very difficult thing indeed for him to admit that what he had been spending his whole lifetaime doing was just - wrong. Oops, wasted my lifetime, darn it all, and all that. And I don't mean just emotionally letting go of the commitment he made - mentally, he has spent decades training himself to think using a certain methodology, and that is going to be hard for him to break and more so to throw away. It is simply difficult for any minority view (including Rand) to break through, but especially one as dramatically different as hers.
The solution to the problem of bad politics is not a "geek" special interest group. It does not lie in gathering influence to protect our interests. If we do that, then we're no better than the RIAA or the tobacco industry.
The solution is to promote a society in which *everyone*, not just corporations or lobby groups, takes an interest in politics. If each and every individual(or at least a commanding majority) watched the actions of their elected representatives and made their voice heard, there would be no need for endless lawsuits to overturn unjust laws. There would be no midnight-hour amendments to unrelated laws, because the first politician to do so would drown in angry mail from a hundred million people. This is what democracy requires to function--an active citizen oversight process.
Visit the
Most Americans are unfamiliar with the basis of our political institutions. How many people in the US have read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Certainly less than 50%. Of that group, how many have read (or even heard of) the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers? John Locke? How many vote in elections? (Low voter turnout is how the Board of Education in Kansas got elected.) The politicians certainly listen to the Corporations and others that give them money. But they listen even more to the voters! WE decide if they stay in office! You may think that there is no real choice in the upcoming Presidential election, but what about your Congressman? Senator? State Legislature? Local School Board? Mayor and County Council? Any ballot initiatives or bond issues? Remember, UCITA is going to be enacted by State, not Federal, legislatures. Vote!!
Best Slashdot Co
Thank you.
I started working my way up in this loose conglomerate called geekdom _because_ it was a meritocracy (though the -cracy part is questionable -- what do we rule?). My liberal arts education at a prestigious university showed me conclusively that art is dead. So, if I can't achieve success through merit in the dead field of art to which I was originally called, I'll look for a field in which merit is appreciated.
My skills are appreciated in geekdom, whereas in liberal arts they were viewed as threatening and disruptive. I don't know about you JonKatz, but I'd rather put my efforts into a field where they are appreciated. It's unfortunate that much of society is more concerned with polite appearances than with merit, but someone's got to run things. You don't want your highways designed by nice people who lack clues but give good meeting.
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
Warning: Extreme ranting.
I have been lucky because my situation/family/background/financial situation enabled me to have the opportunity to use computers. Some people aren't so lucky. Some people may have been able to afford a computer but without having any guidance or inspiration, they have been shown what their potential could have achieved using computers. I originally trained to be an engineer but switched to computer science after I realised that this is what I truly liked. Some people can't afford to do this.
Maybe I'm the equivicable bad example. My family isn't rich, middle class at best. I didn't grow up in a big city. I grew up in the woods. (Seriously; Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada.)
My grandfather was a coal miner. My father, grew up on the bad side of town - they were POOR. My dad got through university the hard way - on complete scholarships and picking tobacco in the summer. He stopped with with PhD in Genetics from Yale, and one of his big accomplishments is being in that blue book. But, much like myself, my old man is eccentric to say the least, and we're not wealthy.
I have an Electrical Engineering degree. I got that degree through busting my ass in the summers and racking up loans through the year. Don't talk to me about privilige. I'll show you debt. This is one thing about Canada, though - Post Secondary education is about 10% the cost, a lot more accessable, and on average, the public education system is good. I'm not framiliar with the USA, so YMMV, of course.
Computers? I saved every penny I was given from the time I started elementary school until Grade 5 when I could afford a Commodore 64. No storage media. That was a year later. My parents actively discouraged involvement; They thought it was a passing fad and a waste of money. I goad them about that even today :).
There are a lot of reasons why people never find out about their options when it comes to IT.
This is their own fault. Go to a fscking library. They're everywhere. If you're one of the few that lives in a inner city, life is hard, yes. But the vast majority of those whining now are whining because they made bad choices going through school, bad choices in university, and bad choices all around. Not my problem (Tm). For the record - everytime I meet someone young who I might be able to influence, I nudge them in that direction.
As far as "discovering" IT - I can remember _vividly_ the first time I saw a computer. Everything else fell into place from there, and it's a good arguement for computers in classrooms today. I work with someone from Nigeria who has a similar experience - you think we have it bad HERE - and fought his way up, knowing there was light at the end of the tunnel.
Am I selfish? No. I help others, and I bloody well pay my taxes, and I'm sure the time I spend helping out the odd kid is a good investment. Arrogant? Intellectually arrogant, hell yes. That's what got me this far. I certainly don't mind helping others, especially if I can open a few doors that might otherwise not be. People still need to walk through those doors themselves, though.
What bothers me is people like Katz who write about and claim to speak for the techno crowd and don't understand the people at it's core. As one poster pointed out, everyone is different here, but there are certainly common threads.
Rant mode off..
..don't panic
You chose to work at a lunch counter. Life sucks, improve it. What do you want me to do? I'm already taxed at near 50% - much higher than you are. I shovelled rotten sawdust to make enough money to buy an Amiga 500 one summer. Try that trick. It sucked, so I made sure I did well in school.
Your life sucks, you make it better. Don't try to make _me_ feel bad. Life's not fair.
..don't panic
I peronsally see this article as proof of what Katz is trying to say, that the social graces of the "normal world" do not seem to exist in the techno-culture.
Bingo! That's because techno-culture isn't the normal world - you're not in Kansas anymore, Toto. I got a kick in the ass from the "normal world" when I was 5 or so and realized that 95% of the people on this planet don't give two shits about learning anything. The sheer time investment it has taken me to get where I am - the thousands and thousands of hours in front of computers and reading books in my early teens will of course affect how I percieve the world and the culture I live in. There's lots of other people who feel the same, and I suspect for similar reasons.
What Katz is trying to do is make it seem like the techno-culture needs to encompass the slack-asses of the world. I respect intelligence and skill - at something. If you haven't got either, I'm not going to respect you. That's just the way it goes in my world.
One of the things I believe is that everyone has something they're good at, and they should do that, or they're not going to be happy. Spend your time doing something you like, work to be the best at it, and you'll get respect from the "techno-culture" because they respect that. Nothing pisses me off more than the sterotypical blonde bimbette without two clues in her head. Or, not to be sexist, Rocco, her male counterpart. Not to whore for karma, but I suggest Katz, you, and anyone else having difficulty read A Portrait of J. Random Hacker.
Isn't this a little harsh? The natural gift of intelligence is scarcly different than the gift of athleticism or being attractive.
Oh, the irony. I didn't see any of the "beautiful people" sharing their social networks - I still don't. Do what you like and do it well. I could be a lot more harsh - harsh was public school - but I've mellowed in my old age.
..don't panic
You, I, most of /. live in the probably the single most privileged culture on earth -- ever -- and yet you claim it's a meritocracy. How many women write code with you? How many minorities? How many, to refer to Katz, elderly, the poor, foreign-born do you work with?
On my team (4 people) there's one fellow who grew up and was educated in Nigeria. You are right however - but, the question is flawed. The minimum qualifications for what I do are a post secondary degree - and if you do this kind of work, you're not poor (well, I won't be poor. Still gotta eat KD every now and then to pay off student loans). You still have the problem that not everyone has the intelligence to do this job, should we hire anyone who walks in off the street, because they want a tech job? Of course not. But that's where this arguement leads. Life ain't fair. IMHO, in *Canada*, there's enough opportunity for anyone who wants to sacrifice to get ahead. If they're *lucky* enough to have parents who *encourage* reading and math when they're little. If not - it's NOT MY PROBLEM. If these people need to lead a life of crime, we have prisons. That's the american model. It's not as bad in Canada, but only because we're a little more socialist than you guys. And got the taxes to prove it.
Katz's point (while strangely symptomatic of the generational narcissism he faults us for) is much more general (and subtle) than 'we owe the world 'x';' and I have little or no patience for those who whine 'I was treated badly in junior high.' At least have the courage to help those who were like you (you generally, not you xtal).
Who's whining? I'm happy with my world, as I've stated many times. It seems from the replies I get that you poke around, you hit lots of raw nerves. What do you propose we do, then? Remove those nasty qualifications from jobs? Let gutter bums preform brain surgury? Why not lobby your congress for more taxes to subsidise post secondary education for all those poor kids? That's one of the things we have here in Canada.
Technology is thus what Foucault referred to in The Order of Things as a discousre of power.
Now, you have a good point. If you want to talk about real power - real power comes from the barrel of a gun. The right for the state to take your life - Government is a monopoly on violence. Violence, or the threat thereof, is what our socieities were built on.
Your mastery of technology means nothing if the elderly, poor, and foreign-born break into your home and destroy your computers and burn down your house.
That's why roughly 47% of my income is taxed (in Canada), to maintain reasonably good standards of living for those people. You will note that a good percentage of that buys guns, chemical weapons, and military forces (SWAT, Police, Militia (Canadian Reserve), etc, to guarantee that if someone takes what's mine, the government will enforce their monopoly on violence and lock their bitch asses in jail. Didn't take long for that right to get exercised in LA. If society breaks down, and I don't get killed in the process, we'll cross that road then.
That is to say: look beyond the code to see the effect that your excercise of technological prowess has upon the world at large.
What, stop coding and go live in a field? There's a divide in our society that's centered around intelligence, it sucks for equality, but it's there. Am I to be faulted for that? Not everyone is economically equal in a capitialist society. They can't be. These arguements smack of much more socialism than I'm willing to put up with.
Maybe society will switch and value living on farms more. Then I'll be screwed (maybe). Till then.
..don't panic
This techno-elite, taking sophisticated knowledge of technology for granted, has lost touch with the vast numbers of people in the world -- the elderly, the poor, foreign-born -- who don't share their skills and confidence.
One of the reasons that tech culture seems "selfish" and "arrogant" to others is that the people that run it and work in it have worked HARD to get what they have. Posers, idiots, and other creatures are thrown to the side, because difficult as though it may be to grasp, this culture is a meritocracy. You get what you work for. If you don't know squat, this is easily demonstrable (even by others, to you). This concept is completely foriegn to most people, especially those that have been coddled through life.
You want to be good with tech? You have to be smart and dedicated. If you're not, tough noogies. There aren't armies of geeks wanting to come to your door and baby your email when it doesn't work. The problem is that, of course, everyone is not smart and dedicated. This isn't my problem.
You will find some of the richest in this industry - Gates, being the prime example - are more than happy to give money to worthy causes. Like libraries and feeding starving people. Not coddling idiots.
This sentiment runs deep, I suspect, because most of us got the shaft from "popular culture" when we were young (myself included). Well, the tides are turning, and no, I won't hand things to you on a silver platter. Go bust your ass and then come and talk to me. I'm happy with my world.
As a culture, it mistakes mechanical skills -- like programming an operating system -- with technological knowledge and power. It tolerates an alarming amount of hostility and abuse, both of which make any political communications -- at least those in public -- nearly impossible.
What kind of non-sensical babble is this? The ability to manipulate information processing machines to do what you want (programming) IS power. It's just not a power that's equally distributed. It's a power some of us might have even been born with. "Political communications" - is that what this drivel is? Make sense, man!
Arrgh. I can't deal with this anymore. Get a clue, Katz.
..don't panic
Damn right. The father of a friend of mind, unfortunately grew up rather poor. His father wouldn't even LET him go to college. But he is brilliant. He works for low pay as a machinist now, but this guy is a mechanical genius. He takes apart and puts together cars. He *invents* new machines to create all sorts of metal objects. I'm sure he would have made a great engineer. Unfortunately he was not as lucky as any of us sitting on our asses and typing on slashdot complaining how "hard" we have it. Some people would kill to work 80 hrs/wk for ~40-50k.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"The scary thing is that "American culture" is taking over."
Or perhaps "American Aculture". I can hardly see McDonalds and Backstreet Boys as "culture". More like facades for profit making.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
We are becoming a more materialistic, superficial world (or at least nation). I've noted that America (US), is basically acultural. It is a melting pot of cultures that annihilate. Nobody really has underlying common bonds with neighbors, other people in general, etc. I'm an atheist, but there certainly is something to be said for the framework and goals religion, and culture, bring. So here we are in acultural America, where the only Gods are fortune and fame. We geeks sit here and complain that sitting on our asses all day for $X0k is somehow not fulfilling. Others buy a Gargantuan, to one-up their neighbor's Expedition. The only thing we have in common, is really the pursuit of material. Post-modern is an overused word, but we are clearly a very nihilistic society. It's no wonder that kids don't know how to deal with emotions and self-esteem, and do crazy things that we in turn blame on every aspect of society. It's not just geeks, and their hyperactive gadget obsession, it's everybody.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Katz goes on and on about some weird doctrine he calls "Individualism", a psuedo-democratic world that supports "the legitimacy of the individual, whose voice and vote should count for more than any other single interest or group." This apparently boils down to nothing more substantive than "people who believe as I do in free MP3s and the evil of corporations should have a veto on the votes of everyone else". If he really was as big on freedom as he thinks, he'd have to acknowledge the necessity of personal responsibility...and he might even be a libertarian.
Katz and Borsook are completely ignorant of libertarianism beyond a few slogans and a vague bugaboo of evil little selfish people who love freedom and make their associates look bad. Here's an excellent deconstruction of Borsook's book, pointing out that not only does she know little about the movement she's so worried about but that she doesn't understand the real politics of techies, anyway. She's a perpetually hostile outsider who's been casting a jaundiced view at the technical community for as long as she's been familiar with it.
And so is the tech culture.
If soylent green involved live people, it would also be selfish and self-centered.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
In the same company, a couple of years later, a woman came to me and asked for advice. She's absolutely brilliant at coding device drivers for pretty much anything. Her lead programmer was a rocket scientist. Literaly - NASA dropout. He'd written a multitasking OS, and it had been blown out of the water by Windows. He hadn't worked a day in the last five years, convinced my friend to do his work as well as hers while he played Quake and whined about Microsoft. He could talk a good game to management, though. Her question: management was investigating, and she was wondering how to continue to cover for him, or whether she could just let him fall.
Two years. Five years. Yeah, eventualy they got found out. By one company. I'm sure they went on to other companies. But try slacking off that long as a truck driver.
I wonder what percentage of IT projects fail because the people involved are complete bullshit artists?
All those Dot Coms hitting the wall? Mostly because the business models were bullshit, but how many never made what they set out to make because they relied on "geeks" who only know how to hack the soggy gray (pink, really, when it's on) CPU?
IT is packed with posers and idiots. How do you think Microsoft sells CDs? And sometimes damned good people, smart and hard working, get tossed aside.
Software is a great industry, and I love it. But it is not some kind of paradise where smart people who work hard always win and bullshit is always exposed. This is part of the real world.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Because Katz isn't a geek, and yet seeks to write about them in perpetuity, he continually convinces himself that there is an overall geek outlook.
There is an overall geek philosophy. Technology and innovation are valued above more conservative standards. When a millimeter-sized camera is announced, the geek will react first in appreciation (Neat. Cool. How does it work? Must get one.), then with caution (But what about privacy?), and finally with acceptance (Everyone will have one, but just wait until the micron-sized ones are released!).
The non-geek will react differently. First with detached appreciation (Look what those wacky scientists/engineers created.), then with caution (If I can monitor my son/daughter, does this mean they can watch me at work?), and finally with legislation (Digital Camera Protection Act).
The difference is that a geek believes that technical progress is its own reward. The non-geek wants to understand how technology impacts the social framework.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
You were saying something about sheep?
Oh well, who is John Galt?
I personally consider Ayn Rand to be a very scary author... however, just because you believe a philosophy to be a little scary doesn't mean it can be discounted... unless you are the Grand Inquisitor. Not including Rand was a political decision, obviously. Marx wasn't exactly brilliant either... so is he in there or not? I see ideas that could've been Rand's in Major Barbara by George Bernard Shaw, and he was a socialist.
In fact, Rand didn't really refute Marx at all. Marx never claimed that need was the only thing the working class had as its claim to a share of the capitalist classes wealth, it was that that wealth was created by them and the capitalist class fed on it.
So, I certainly encourage everybody out there to read Atlas Shrugged, and then get a copy of Red Harvest by Dashiel Hammett, an American communist (I've read both, and both got my mind working). Come to your own conclusions.
My personal opinion.... the people who believe things because they are said by Oxford are the worst people in Western culture.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Because it is invariably by those who are themselves, or who are trying to manipulate me through guilt.
Yes, I do owe something to others. Mostly my parents who saved and made opportunities for me. That was their choice, and I honor it by repeating it for my children. I also owe a great intellectual debt to those scientists, inventors and engineers who preceded me. They have already been rewarded for their work, and I honor them by continuing it.
But otherwise, forget it. Others certainly are less fortunate. But am I to somehow make them moreso? How? Why? What do I owe them? Many of them take a great deal of money from me via taxes.
The point Mr Katz made is valid, however. If we do not learn mass communications [pandering] and power politics, we will be dominated by those who do.
This is a democracy, not a meritocracy. So if some sleazy lawyer contributes money to the re-election fund of a similarly sleazy politician, do not be surprised at sleazy laws.
What's disturbing is the trivia that geeks vehemently fight over. The GeForce people are against the Voodoo tribe. Quake 3 vs. Unreal Tournament. Dreamcast vs. PlayStation 2. Athlon vs. Pentium. RedHat vs. Debian. Emacs vs. vi. KDE vs. Gnome. These aren't treated as points of diversity, but as raging, personal offenses. You never see people fighting over brands of TV or coffee, so why tech stuff? Why are we so confrontational?
What's funny about most of these issues is that they're viewed as important battles to be won, and yet, aside from being superficial, they're mired in misunderstanding. Some people hate KDE because they firmly believe that only techies should be able to use computers, not realizing that most of the ease-of-use criticisms are coming from within the tech community. There are also people who argue about superiority of Linux over Windows, yet those persons' idea of using a computer is surfing for pr0n and MP3s. And there are people who insist that Nvidia is the only graphics show in town, yet they don't realize that game makers are barely supporting a fraction of what any card could do, because of driver instabilities and the too-high pace of change.
I volunteered at a summer camp a few years ago. It was a computer class for inner-city kids in Philadelphia. We're talking schools that border on hopelessness. Several admitted on the first day that they had never touched a computer before. We started all the way at the beginning. As in "it's a mouse, not a microphone."
By the end, they all had hotmail accounts that they could use as easily as I used mine. They could all write resumes in a word processor. The more artistically inclined ones were scanning in their work and posting it on web pages.
Now, what about their classmates who didn't get into this program? Are they "meritless"? Nope. They just weren't offered the opportunity.
grep -ri 'should work'
You know, I thank the stars that I was able to dork around with computers and teach myself Photoshop and HTML and that I can hack JavaScript enough to make my customers happy. I worked to get where I am but I also realize that luck has always been a factor. So you are right, some folks aren't that lucky. SO WHAT. Life sucks for some people, it's always been that way. America is moving at breakneck speed trying to homogenize opportunities for its citizens, far more than the rest of the world. But someone will always be on the bottom. You eat fast food? Your office have a janitor? You can't turn every sad case into a techno-jillionaire, that's not the way Life works. There will always be people who don't get a 'fair shake' or who live in shitty conditions and die without ever realizing their potential.
The REAL issue here is that most of us geeks aren't paying attention to politics enough to protect what we've built. And if it comes to pass that we have our precious online freedoms legislated out from under us then that's our tough luck and we have no one to blame but ourselves. Selfish? Nah. Arrogant? Absolutely. We've worked hard to earn the right to be.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Someone has been reading/watching Fight Club...? ;)
"You are not your job..."
Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net
John writes: This techno-elite, taking sophisticated knowledge of technology for granted, has lost touch with the vast numbers of people in the world -- the elderly, the poor, foreign-born -- who don't share their skills and confidence.
"Anybody can get an encrypted e-mail program," JOEB7 e-mailed me last week. "Why all the whining about privacy?"
JOEB7 doesn't seem to know that the vast majority of people have never even heard of encrypted e-mail programs, let alone used them. Such people dominate the most powerful and vital subculture in the world, but have no coherent political values beyond a nearly universal contempt for the one in place.
What's the term in law? Ignorance of the law is no excuse. This is no different with technology. If people don't take the time to learn about that expensive biege thing under their desk how can I feel sorry for him? When I take my car to the garage I have a very good idea of what it wrong with it. A car is expensive. It's in your best interest to know how it works so that you can protect your investment.
The same goes for your computer. It is an expensive tool that can give you access to vast amounts of knowledge. To learn about your computer and the internet does not take up that much time when you consider what you get out of your investment.
Don't yell at us the "Technilogical Elite." Yell at the ignorant peons. Wake up you peons! I have friends who are peons. I tell them of the laws that are being passed and the systems active on the internet all for the sole purpose of controlling everything you see and hear on the internet. I tell them that their every email can be read and stored for later use. They all roll their eyes.
"I can still play Quake."
"I can still write my letters."
"If I have any confidential stuff to send I will worry about it then. For now I do not have a problem with it."
They all humour my "little rant" and go about their little lives.
They don't want to know. Should we save them?
If you want us to save the lamb from the slaughter you'd better tell us how.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
So really, I don't think that this "my this, my that" thing has much to do with "tech culture" in general. I would not have considered those people on the phone part of the "tech culture" by any means. They just wanted to get on the internet and try to search for the latest gardening tips. I think it's something else in (American?) society that is causing this syndrome...
It's a wee tad condescending to lump all those who are anti-abortion together as xtian right wingers, too, don't you think? And offtopic to boot.
And the gist of what the original poster surmised is true. It is essentially about coolness, when you get right down to it.
Your post was simply well-disguised flamebait. I could have used a moderation point to express that but felt this justified a response instead.
--
NeoMail - Webmail that doesn't suck... as much.
I think this problem is prevalent throughout the US, and not a special problem with the techies. People have become disillusioned by a system they see as corrupt and unchangeable. Why would you want to fight within a system when you know it is broken, or worse, fixed by the house to make you ineffective?
I for one feel very strongly about several issues, but also feel that the current system is locking the majority out while pandering to a small but vocal minority of special interests. I give time and money, but feel very poorly about the effectiveness of either.
political values when they are such a diverse group?
There are christian geeks, satanic geeks, moon worshipping geeks. Religious diffrences result in different viewpoints on online censorship. On copyright, some want abolishment while others point to copyright as being the basis for the GPL. Geeks have wildly diffrent views on freedom (BSD vs. GPL).
Because Katz isn't a geek, and yet seeks to write about them in perpetuity, he continually convinces himself that there is an overall geek outlook. At best, there is a general tendency towards libertarianism in the computer realm. Jon, the geeks are not going to rise up in unison and stop the "corporatist" usurpers, or whatever your current threat is.
matt
Read it, thought it was OK, her sex ideas are majorly screwy, tho'.
Here, tho', are some steps to take for a "wake up call" for Ayn, good after Rand reading, one might say, if you don't tear your eyes out. Sorry, that was un-called for. Here we go:
1. Go to a REAL BOOKSTORE
2. Find a copy of "Why People Believe Stupid Things." Written by the Editor of Skeptic magazine. (Randy?)
3. Read it, pay close attention to the Cult of Ayn Rand section.
4. Either understand it, or go back to thinking Rand was god. But wait, she thought god didn't exist, which means she doesn't exist! Ahh!
Dan
Okay, now I know what happens on that 50 page speech that I skipped over.
I mean, really, and you expect people to watch that on TV? [click, click]
Dan
Replying to myself:
Yes, I know what time period the books represented.
Dan
Thank you! You posted almost verbatim what I was going to! I think a lot of people here on /. and on the Internet in general need to go back and READ the Constitution of the United States and the Federalist Papers. I think many people here only know what they're fed by media sound bites about the way our goverment used to and still should work. People who decry our goverment are obviously uneducated about the governmental and political process and also didn't pay attention past their 5th grade history class. The US is running headlong to disaster becuase people are not educated about how our government should work and therefore have no initiative to do anything about it. I think that the Internet "subculture" would actually be very pleased at what they would read in the writings of our Founding Fathers. Even if you're not a citizen of the US, I think these documents are worth the read for a perspective on a truly free government.
/. is a raving libertarian. I'm very proud to be a conservative.
Also, not everyone here on
Some people take their .sig way too seriously
I think it's unfortunate that the public should have to "deal" with "real politicians." Elected officials were put in office to represent the voice of the people. Perhaps the problem is that some people don't know how to voice their opinions in a constructive way, but I think an equally significant problem is that politicians haven't yet learned how to listen to what they call the "internet generation." The increasing commercialization of the internet forces government officials to focus on the internet, but most of them really don't know much about it. So what happens? Instead of listening to the "real" voices of the internet, politicians listen to Big Business.
I don't think there is a way of organizing internet users into a powerful political voice, but perhaps this Napster brouhaha will do just that.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
I think that technology is not neutral. Believing that a technology is only "as good as the person who is using it" is naive! Every technology has social ramifications that are inherent in its purpose. Marshall McLuhan is often quoted "the medium is the message" but people generally misunderstand this to mean that a medium influences what content can be transmitted on it. I think what it means is more literal: a medium is itself a message... a technology has a specific effect on society... a lightbulb requires a power infrastructure which implies large capital interests, which in democratic capitalism meant large power companies. This is a direct social effect of the technology of the lightbulb.
So what's my point?
Well, I think that both political and social institutions as well as geeks need to fully wake up to the fact that "the medium is the message" and start making decisions about technology on that basis. And do it in a rational manner... not in some haphazard way through boycotts, legislation, lawsuits etc.
I think that a rational examination of technologies will be built on a framework that includes the following three pillars:
- "the medium is the message"
- human rights (a la Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
- "the world is one country" and humankind its citizens
I have been writing a paper on this exact subject. It is currently in progress (and some parts are really old and pretty rough to boot!) but here it is. (I hope my poor server holds upHelping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
The book mentioned in the article has been long debated elsewhere (and here), and can be generally described as narrow-minded, stereotyped, bigoted, et.al. from someone who generally feels their own elitist status threatened by technology. They (like Katz I feel at times) sat down and tried to figure out a way to use their 'mechanical' skills of wordsmithing and rhetoric generation to make their own buck off of the 'tech' world. In this case, I feel the book is being re-hashed here as simple post-fodder.
Even the basic assumptions in this 'short' piece are faulty in the extreme. I'll avoid a long treatise on all the points (I'm sure others will have their point to make), but here are a few.
* That the people involved in the whole wide world of digital technology can be wrapped up in a neat package with a nice well-printed tag attached. This is a favored tactic by the traditional media to create material for the sort of shallow, sound-bite, barometer reading type of stories they substitute for journalism in many cases. 'Napster! Let's see what the 'techies' think about it! Coming up next!'.
Every time the news story tries to ram fat, white, male, anti-social stereotype hackers down our throats, up pops a proud Indian woman who managed to break through the traditional female roles in her society by starting a web-based business of her own. And so on and so forth.
The people that want to generate this tag (see Yuppie, Boomer, Hippie, etc.) seem to get more and more frustrated and upset by their inability to do so. It's a bit of a mystery on its own.
* The idea that there is a 'technical elite'. Hey, I'm a developer, why didn't I get voted in? Again, it exists simply to create a 'straw man' to throw spears at.
* I couldn't help but get a laugh at the line (I'm paraphrasing) 'mistaking mechanical activity like designing an operating system with technological knowledge'. I think someone at there end is mistaking an advanced liberal arts degree with 'valuable insight'.
Smilodon
A lot of us are techies in part because the "soft" world of politics and philosophy and such makes very little sense to us. That isn't entirely our fault. Since, rightly or wrongly, most philosophers gave up on forming any coherent philosophy, especially one that offered any sort of objective morality/ethics, there quite literally is no solid basis for some of these discussions of politics. To wade into these waters with much more intent than a few sound-bites or to stir in a couple of memes is to soon be mired in endless muck and murkiness. Few self-respecting tech folk will go in there.
Selfish? Oh my! Such a naughty, naughty word! I must be suitably cowed that someone thought they could get it to stick to me or "my community". When are we going to at least get smart enough to know that "selfish" is not necessarily synonymous with "bad" or "evil"? Nor is "selfless" synonymous with "good". Such mucking around in knee-jerk accusations and meaningless bromides does nothing but dull the mind and turn off more people who like to thing more clearly.
Many of us are libertarian because it makes more sense to us than the alternatives. Damned if I see how that makes us automatically "selfish" or "self-centered" or meaningfully described by any other such bully-word. People attempt to shame and dismiss opinions and their holders that they do not know how to address civilly or intelligently.
Hi Mr.Katz! :Death is God's way of telling you not to be such a wise guy.
:),....
Check out the end of this page. It says
Is this coincidence?
Just kidding
Just another coder...
Hey, dude, discussion about this book ended around the time the author's tour finished. (Ditto the bad reviews)
So we're apolitical and incapable of dealing with politicians? How come the M$-Boies duel was the most hotly-followed, skillfully lawyered, endlessly-discussed case of the last/new century?
Face it, you don't know any of us. You don't know whether we vote, give money, donate time, work at activism, steal secrets, practice santeria, wear forbidden codes on T-shirts or even read your pompous rants all the way to the end.
Six figures?????? New Line wuz had!
First, let me start by echoing a sentiment already posted here...Jon, why spit in the face of the group that made your writing career?
Secondly, and more originally...did anyone out there read "Generation X" when it was originally published, WHILE they were a GenXer, WHILE suffering the effects of the "no it's not really a recession" of the early 90's?
I remember getting out of a grad degree in '93...it seems like all of my pals who had graduated college in 87-89 were getting fatass jobs, and now that I had waited a few years, I was priced out of the market by more fresh-faced kids two weeks younger than me...by whom?
The yuppies who ran the places where I slaved away as a temp. Who had car services drive them from mansions in the 'burbs yet bitched and moaned if I got in 10 minutes late because my commuter bus got stuck in traffic on the way to work. This, btw, acted as a sort of penalty for living in the burbs if you weren't at the top of the financial pyramid.
Watching them uphold stupid drug screening policies when they freely admitted to smoking acres of weed in college. Bitching about how they don't want their kids getting sex ed in school--but then paying for their kid's overnight prom rooms! No sick days. Etc.
Luckilly, I had been online since '86 and had always used different parts of the Net and some *nix shells as part of my hobby...so when I finally landed, I did it on my feet. I was able to capitalize on an unstable yet lucrative job market to ratchet up my salary to where it should be and make up for the lost years I spent as a Coupelandish "boomerang child."
As Coupland put it, there was a time but a few years ago that the ex-Haight-Street turned Wall-Street crowd ran the show and tried as vigorously as possible to make us--the older children from their failed first marriages, in all senses--clean up their messes and deal with their excesses. Now we're on top of an industry that wouldn't be anywhere as near commercially sucessful without us. We have enough real job experience to manage, and actaully expect something of the people working both above and below us....
If a bunch of grumpy boomers who can't be bothered to find the "On" switch on their overpriced laptops are whiny about that, f**k em! I like my paycheck as much as they ever did.
PS--when I mean "ex-hippies" I don't mean any of the REAL techno-hippies out there...the wonderful old men in Birkenstocks who first taught me how to use CUnix back at Cornell, frinstance...btw very few of those guys who I know, at least, live in yuppiehuts or have an SUV....
or our society would be doomed.
Of course, any engineer with too much time on his hands could take Barstook's book or Katz's essay and use any word/phrase-replacing editor to critique any group x for lacking important dimensions y.
I know of no identifiable group which is perfect in every dimension. I don't find Barstook (an ideological dim bulb) to be the final authority on techys as a class nor the proper philosophy to adopt.
I see a world of interacting systems, through filters I can change according to MY requirements. Barstook and Katz see a completely different world through ideological filters.
To my empirical mind, ideology is surely the worst intellectual tool of the last few hundred years.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Charity: I would never give $ or time to institutionalized charities. I give a lot individually, e.g. people in russia who need help.
Community: Giving $ to universities and other institutions is aiding a class of socialist meddlers, not primarily educating the next generation.
Volunteerism: I would never waste my time (while not retired) in helping a kid to read, local hospital,
Barsook is an ideologue. Let her define the terms, and she can make any group look any way she wants.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
As a party interested in the recent plight of the oily penguins in South Africa, I was a little put out at the evidently selfish I'm-ok-Jack, I-got-mine scribblings of some /.'ers on the matter. But when I actually looked into the posts, and monitored the results of the money that was actually sent to the institution by people to assist with the tradgedy, I kinda thought, you know, there are people here who have some grip on reality, not everyone is a total geek wrapped up in all things online to the exclusion of everything else. I think that while the author is highlighting some aspects of the current culture, he is taking a somewhat iconoclastic view. It makes a story, but it don't make the truth.
I think in many cases, there are geeks out there, intelligent people who are concerned about thier environment, who have the resources to amend things that appear to be wrong and that are willing to join communities that fulfil all the political agendas too. I think, Mr Katz, that you are wrong about people.
Unless you are some sort of sad screwball loser who can't go out into the sunshine and only interact with machines, it is natural for you to participate in meatspace in a meaningful way too. And not necessarily badly, or half-heartedly either.
Perhaps it is merely because the tech community is young, involved in activities other than social engineering and able to express themselves in a free manner outside of other institutions.
Oh- and by the by - (flamethrower on) where exactly do you get off by assuming that so called "foreigners" are unable to express themselves as clearly as you do? You seem unable to recall that there is a huge (much bigger than than the population of the US) English-speaking, educated community in the rest of the world. Please keep your Nazi xenophobia to yourself. You exhibit the typical arrogance of an ignorant Yank who has never been further than your city limits, and you assume that everyone out there is not like you! How wrong you are!
I might mention, to start, England, Canada, Australia, other Commonwealth countries etc.
Please spare us your phobias!
I think my brain is dribbling out down the back of my legs
No, I read this scathing review of the book a couple months ago and decided not to waste my time.
--
Jason -
Before you discount the libertarian movement entirely, you may want to check out this organization:
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty
P.O.Box 65743 - Washington, DC 20035
URL: http://www.glil.org/
I know there are several other organizations that have been around a long time (I think one is called LGLC) but I can't find their contact information.
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to have for lunch."
I first heard that about 10 years ago, and then a couple weeks ago here on /., but I forget who posted it.
That's why the U.S. was formed as a Constitutional republic and not a pure democracy - to keep the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority. Fat lot of good that's done though - the Constitution gives NO authority for the creation of almost all the three-letter federal agencies that exist, but did that stop them from being created?
--
What is Libertarianism?
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
(from http://www.libertarian.org/)
--
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
Read more at http://www.libertarian.org/
--
First, which one of you set him off on this rant?
With that said, it seems to me that he seems to leave out some important items. For one, a lot of these people have grown up in a post cold war society where they are constantly bombarded with advertisements everywhere around them. They by items with brand name logos on them so other people see this advertisement.
Look at the rest of the culture. Look at the prevailence of music styles that angry when they have no reason to be angry. Are they living with the threat of an invasion from some country? No. Are we in a great depression to rival the Great Depression. {for those who don't care know history it was that time when an aweful lot of people didn't have work, and couldn't find work.}
Look at TV. Look at the prevailence of sex and violence. No other generation has grown up with such constant bombardment of sex and violence. Look at the popularity of the crazy show that are called "talk shows".
This atitude is not just inside the tech world. It is previalent all around you. Look at the recent death caused by a father who atacked a guy at a kids Hockey game.
Starting to get the point? They just want to single the tech world out. They should look in their own little world of media. There is a lot of argueing (and back stabbing) going on behind those smiles on the tv.
These are just the times we live in, and they seem to be getting worse. I just don't like the media singling out the tech industry just becuase they think crackers = hackers and they are evil. It could be argued that Alexander Bell was a hacker of his day. The hacker mentality has probably been around as long as we have.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
For those who have a hard time understanding or handling more than 1,000 pages, you might try The Virtue of Selfishness.
Everything is diced up into shorter essays that two-dimensional readers might find easier to swallow. Then again, thinking is a prerequisite to understanding this material.
Interestingly, people either absolutely love or hate Rand's writing. Usually that's an indication that the issue has to do with the philosophy represented than a name-calling slam (usually by one who hasn't even read the material).
*scoove*
1. Visit Amazon.com - Atlas Shrugged
2. Buy it.
3. Read it.
4. Either understand it or bug off and continue to be a parasite.
*scoove*
"But I don't think of you."
I completely agree. The geek community (or at least the /. geek community) seems to be rather insecure. Wether or not being anti or pro something is cool is not concerning me so much. People will always be somewhat insecure to express their own ideas, it is simply easier and more comfortable to agree. I am most concerned with people agreeing with these ideas arbitrarily, without really bothering to understand them first.
/. is not the place to be an individual. These days the large majority of posts tend to be juvinile and trivial. However, postings like yours are the ones that spark the interesting and worthwhile discussions.
You also make a very good point about the word technology. People too often focus today on electronic and computer technology. But technology encompasses a much large group of "items" than that. I think that this thought is what is slowing the computer industry. The computer industry needs to be more connected with other industries.
I disagree that
Just to express my self and prove your point:
Napster should be shut down and/or reformed. But right now they are the lesser of two evils. The RIAA needs to be taken down a peg or two first. I think that many of the geek ideas and motivations reflect an "instant gratification" that is characteristic to the geek lifestyle. However, large political things such as the ones mentioned in Katz's article are things that still need to be handled slowly.
As far as Echelon and Carnivore, I am anti, but not completely. I beleve that the government should have some sort of electronic wire-tapping. They have just as much a need to protect themselves (and often it's citizens) as we have a right to privacy. But we need to find an adequate balance. Their power online should be no greater or uncontrollable than it is offline. Electronic wire-taps are fine, but warrents should have to be issued by judges to get them. These warrents should allow monitoring of a very narrow and specific amount of information (as the US Constitution stipulates in the Bill of Rights). Finally, that information gathered should be treated just like any other evidence. And you should have the same right to an "expectation of privacy" online as your do offline.
I realize that I have digressed here, but I think it was necessary.
Shaun Jamieson
ICQ: 1634382
The author has us (slashdotters, and technologists in general) pegged... and has valid concerns about the direction we're going in. We do need to look around, see the bigger picture, and try to plan things out a bit more. (A ton more would be better).
If you can make the culture bridge, and not take it personally, it's a good critique.
--Mike--
So, here's JonKatz's recipe for success: take an article from the mainstream press, stir in personal emails and comments from slashdot, add a dash of half-baked analysis, and sprinkle with a few painful misspellings.
Taco, how much are you paying this guy?
This is america.
Anyone who can do the work can get the job.
Everyone has free access to computers.
Good lord.
Get up out of that chair, drive to the bad part of town, dress like a local and see how true ANY of that is.
Look, you don't have to be at all sympathetic. But I think you do yourself - not to mention the rest of us - a disservice to ignore the differential of opportunity.
Yes, people can (as many, MANY have) overcome their disadvantages, but that is different than NOT having anything to overcome. Should something be done about it? It's an interesting question, but one that will NEVER be resolved by pretending the problem doesn't exist.
I think that attitude is the insularity that the book and Katz's post pointed to, and I think it's worth a good long look.
Couldn't hurt, anyway.
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it. --Chinese Proverb
I don't really think that anyone was bemoaning the idea that this world is a meritocracy. I think some people were saying that it isn't one, that it has a great deal to do with being born into a fortunate class.
I don't think this idea at all discredits the hard work most, if not all, IT professionals have put in and will continue to need to do to succeed. I just think it's more than a little naive to think that's all it takes.
Are there lots of people of color where you work? If so, do you think that's true everywhere?
Is there any reason - other than the laziness or general unfitness of not-white people for IT work - why minorities are so poorly represented in our field?
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it. --Chinese Proverb
I think it's real possible that you're making the common mistake of generalizing from your own situation. It's understandable, but I think it can lead you into a mistaken view of the world.
The Native Hawaiian kids where I live are at the absolute bottom of almost every social indicator, and their test scores would indicate that they are, on the average, pretty well unprepared for life in today's America. When some friends of mine organized a school-within-a-school based on the premise that approaching them from their own culture would help create an environment more conducive to learning, they got some surprising results.
Truancy went way down. Standardized test scores surpassed those of the school population at large. And their attitudes toward technology use changed dramatically. They began to develop a CD-ROM about the culture of a remote valley, and, finding the available tools inapplicable to their needs, a student developed a custom multimedia authoring program that he later sold for $50,000.
So what changed? This is a public school, with the resources available to all schools in this impoverished rural island community. The difference, I think, stemmed from the respect these students were shown, the degree to which their minds were encouraged to imagine positive futures for themselves.
If one hasn't seen life from the point of view of a minority child, who is told in so many ways that she is dumb and has little chance of bettering herself, then I think one should be a little slower to assume that there is such a thing as equality of opportunity.
Kudos to those people who have succeeded through sheer grit and determination. I respect your achievement. Please respect what some kids have to go through just to graduate high school.
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it. --Chinese Proverb
My respect for Jon Katz definitly took a hit broadsides with this one...
"money, power, fame... a geek craves not these things"
if you need me to tell you who that was adapted from, you shouldn't be here.
Jon, you've lost touch with your people. You're so intent on starting a geek counter-revolution, that you've lost touch of the people you think you're leading. How many black-box programmers give $.02 whether Bush or Gore is elected unless they have other motivations. Geeks don't have a coherent political agenda... DUH. Of course they don't. Their grouping isn't formed out of a shared ancestry, skin color, sexual orientation, geographical location, or shared traumatic experience. They do what they do because they love technology. Laws don't affect them.
From the Matrix, the laws of the land are like the limitations of a computer game. Some you can bend, some you can break, and some you can ignore entirely.
No matter how many rules the government erects, the cyber-elite will bend and break them, render them outdated and useless, and affect the new social order. And the cyber-elite IS affecting the new political order. Look at how the Republican national convention had to adopt articles of security, privacy, etc. AND is having the entire convention simultaneously streamed over the internet.
How many of the politicians have had to espouse their standings on digital privacy and the like, along with their other standings on issues such as abortion, welfare, etc.?
I'm a geek, but I'll also be standing up for MY OWN INTERESTS in voting this year. Some of those interests will regard the internet, privacy, and security, but others will involve issues even closer to me.
If you think that the technologically knowledgable are not interested in real issues, then how do you think that the current movement is coming together?
How is it that the Seattle WTO protests were the largest in history when a year ago nobody even knew what the WTO was? Could it be because of the rapid spread of information over the net? And also becaus of the ability to organize and meet up with people from all over the world instantly?
Nah...
You should be aware of discrediting the growing movement. The damage you do could worsen your own situation. You're just adding to the mainstream media's din and ignoring the reality of america today. Here's something a little more hopeful from Howard Zinn a famous _historian_:
I think that the public in the United States is ready to listen to ideas about a new way of ordering society. I say ready because I think there's a general dissatisfaction with the american political system. There's an understanding among americans that the political system doesn't work. That's why fifty percent of the electorate does not go to the polls. And of those that do go to the polls, there's a distinct lack of enthusiasm. There's an understanding that the domination of the political process by the two major parties in the United States doesn't allow for different kinds of opinions, different kinds of voices, different kinds of political alternatives. Understanding of that. If you look at public opinion surveys in the United States over the last five or ten years, you'll find an interesting thing, and that is that public opinion surveys show that the american people as a whole are far more progressive than either of the major parties. You'll find again and again that the american public wants the goverment to intervene in the economy on behalf of people who are in need. You'll find that they want the goverment to tax the rich more heavily, that they're opposed to reducing the taxes on capital gains which benefit the wealthiest portion of the country. Again and again, the public has said , in these polls, that they would like to see a new independent political force other than the Democrats and the Republicans enter the contest for political office. So the system on the one hand, which goes along concentrating more and more wealth at the top and more and more power at the top and then on the other hand, there's this reservoir of opposition in the country which has not yet organized itself into a political force. And I think that i will take a lot more education and a lot more connections made among the millions of people in this country who want to change before something important and dramatic happens....
I think what sustains me is that I'm in contact with a lot of people around the country. I go around the country, do a lot of speaking, I go to all sorts of places all over the United States and wherever I go, I see people who are trying to do something about justice. Wherever I go I see people struggling: women struggling for equal rights, people working against racial discrimination, I see gay and lesbian people organizing for their rights, I see people protesting against foreign policy. Wherever i go I see this. And wherever I go I meet wonderful people and however small is the town that I'm going into, there's always a cluster of really good people who've devoted themselves to social change. Now this encourages me, this keeps me going. And this is in the immediate sense. But I think what also keeps me going is the kind of sense of history. There's a recognition that although cynicism and pessimism are sort of natural feelings when you look around at any given moment and see that things don't seem to be changing in the direction. That feeling of cynicism and pessimism has existed all through american history, in every period. And yet, at certain moments in history when people begin to speak up, when people begin to get together at certain moments of history, suddenly, there's a breakthrough and something happens. It happened in the thirties with the rise of the labor movement, it happened in the sixties with the civil rights and the anti-war movement and women's movement. And I think a little historical perspective would dispel some of the pessimism. People would realize that in the years before the rise of any of these movements, everything looked gloomy and then suddenly, things began to happen. Things can happen very fast when the indignation of the people overflows and when they begin to get together. I'll say just one more thing. And that is, one of the things that makes me continue to sort of speak out and to try to be active and involved is simply that it makes life more interesting and life more enjoyable, life more worthwhile. I think of Tolstoy and his story of the death of Ivan Illich about this very successful man on his deathbed who asked the question: "Have I done all the right things? I've become prosperous and successful and respected by the society. Why am I dissatisfied?" Because he hadn't really done anything important to change the world. And I think people who are involved lead more fruitful and more fulfilling lives. So that's what sustains me."
___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux
hyperpoem.net
In my years as a nerd, I've been called far worse, but at least for a decent reason...
This goes well beyond being a "tech elite" (or should that be tech 31337?
The fact of the matter is your average nerd has grief growing up, for reasons Katz and others have explored ad infinitum.
Then you get a job, and your worth to society goes up, at least in financial terms. In reality, you are being managed by an incompetant buffon, who was probably a good coder in her day, but can't budget, manage or run projects. So, you have a bunch of already alienated people getting paid good cash but with no respect from society. I earn more than my sister (a barrister, incidentally) who has defended and prosecuted cases at the Old Bailey, London (yes, _that_ Old Bailey). Yet who gets the most respect from society? Is processing the machinations of Law more important than processing the machinations of business, the results of which fund the legal system?
On people to people things, I'd like to think I'm quite a generous and caring person. But just about any tech support job requires the patience of a saint. So if we come across as being brusque and intimidating when we're fixing your desktop PC after you've just run "ILOVEYOU.vbs" again, after all the times we've told you not to, then aren't we entitled to a loss of good humour? Think about it - if you get told by a barrister (say my sister, for instance) not to do something, how much more do you take those words as gospel, over the advice I've just given you?
"The tech culture is becoming a elitist society with no coherent political values,"
Elitist because we gain little or no respect from our users or corporate masters, yet we know our own worth. No political values - so does this mean that people who all like strawberry jam should all vote socialist? Just because we're involved in various tech communities does not mean we all think the same.
And considering that most tech people I know are all quite intelligent, how does that explain our lack of interest in politics? Simple. It doesn't push our buttons the way tech does. And looking at the way politics is conducted today, do you wonder why? Politics is now soundbite orientated, opinion poll driven nonsense. When will we return to conviction politics? Because until then, politics holds no interest for us; it's all lies, deceit and clever manipulated statistics.
I never thought I'd say it, but I miss Maggie Thatcher in politics.
"Testosterone poisoned?"
Yeah, that's right, blame the victim... Screwed over, ignored, bullied, disregarded and sometimes persecuted, now that I have more clout and am prepared to use it, I'm "poisoned". Well, I'm sorry, but I've reclaimed my balls, I feel great and I'm sure as hell not apologising for evening the score.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
No, I don't know where it comes from either!
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Nope, I don't think you are. Plonking a few inActiveX components, drawing lines between primary & foreign key fields is _not_ hacking... The new generation doesn't have a clue - I had to explain what a register was to a CS graduate last year... Kinda like an auto mechanic that doesn't know what a piston is...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
That's neat - how do I go about registering as a Taurean?
You're right about the scariness of the masses, though... And to think - these people can not only vote, they can breed!!!
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
...but you have to think it all the way through.
Are you an individualist? or a socialist? How far will either perspective take you?
I understand the concept of "majority rules", and that fits nicely in a boolean logic sorta way. But that disallows for balance in anything that oozes to the legislative level.
I don't think that libertarians are wrong. They've got quite a lot to say. But I also think that socialist have as much validity to their perspective. Both individuals and the collective whole need to be considered in the government.
There're a whole lot of lame statements (IMHO) concerning: Katz's right to post, the governments "true" role, the mass' inability to absorb technology, etc... Those all miss the point of this book and the issue it represents.
When the resources aren't enough for everyone in the world, what are you gonna do? How wide will your sphere of influence/support grow? Will it include your family? How about your friends? Your town? Church? Soccer team? Neighbor?
Are you really gonna play libertarian towards everyone until the person next to you earns your support? That seems pretty callous. And distrustful.
I think that those are some of the values that this author is concerned with, and disappointed in finding within our society (at this time).
Sounds like Jon hit a raw nerve, here, doesn't it?
e -what-we-give-you attitude. I like commodity markets in which iron-and-silicon hawkers know that they exist to provide fast toys for software types like me to play with..."
"Not coddling idiots." "...the tides are turning" "Go bust your ass and then come talk to me."
Or how's this: "There aren't armies of geeks wanting to come to your door and baby your email when it doesn't work."
Probably not. But what's your point? Every one should be like you, or piss off? There are armies of policemen who will come to your aid and save your ass. There are armies of firefighters who will come to your aid and save your ass. There are armies of doctors who will save your life. There are armies of lawyers and lawmakers who will defend your civil liberties. And on and on and on.
But if someone needs some help with their email, they should kiss your ass? You are being an egomaniacal nitwit. You sound *exactly* like the insulated self-absorbed technocrat (please, Bruce, get a new domain name) this book and this article lament.
Moreover, geek culture, as you might know if you stepped out of your cubicle, is not the only meritocracy in the world.
And tell me, what do you mean when you say "good with tech"? You know C++ and UNIX systems programming? You can twiddle the fiddly bits on your compiler?
So what? Can you put your skills within the social context of what people using your work want to do? Judging by your disdain of everyone outside your little world, I doubt it.
Here's an example of what I mean:
"I dislike companies that have a we-are-the-high-priests-of-hardware-so-you'll-lik
-- Eric S. Raymond
Eric's got the right attitude about the hardware makers. I wonder, though, if he has the right attitude about the "software types". Why and for who do the "software types" exist? Themselves? And we should consider ourselves lucky to pick up the droppings from their playground?
Maybe it's time to forget about what happened in the third grade. Maybe it's time to go outside and look at something far away. Maybe it's time to connect with people who aren't just like you.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
As for what I think, I don't know, I haven't really digested it yet. :)
--
In case that wasn't sarcasm. I didn't write that, but read it a week or so ago and thought it made an excellent counter-point to Katz's glossy review. I think he found something he knew would piss people off and ran with it, no attention to detail or facts.
You dismiss the libertarian assumption that I belong to me, yet don't back this up or explain why your assumtion is correct.
I don't belong to the state. I don't owe anybody anything by the virtue of their exsistance.
Most intellectuals (self afixed title if I ever saw one) don't live on earth with me and my brothers. They live in a very bizarre universe. In the real world there is no such thing as tenure, you must continue to prove yourself relevant and useful at all times and we have to put into practice what we believe.
Cybersilly By Brian Doherty
Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High-Tech, by Paulina Borsook, New York PublicAffairs, 267 pages, $24.00
This is a bad book, unlearned in its titular subject, petulant, and poorly argued. It is tempting simply to dismiss it and move on. Despite its shoddy quality, however, Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High-Tech is not irrelevant. Far from it. The book is fascinating as a case study in the reasoning and psychology behind opposition to the mix of individualism and anti-statism that characterizes contemporary libertarian thought.
Borsook was a regular contributor to Wired magazine during its start-up period in the early-to-mid-1990s. During that time, she became alarmed at what she saw as the undue influence of libertarian thinking at the magazine and in the world it covered. As the dominant thought leader for computer industry culture, she suggests, Wired was a powerful vector for the libertarian "plague" or "parasite" (two metaphors Borsook uses for libertarian thinking at different points in the book). "It's worth trying to tease out what these mostly American, mostly West Coast inventors and programmer-droids and plutocrats are up to--for they have the big bucks, and cultural juice, that will be affecting us all as we head into the next millennium," she writes.
Borsook took her first swipe at the topic in a 1996 Mother Jones article. As an extension of that lament about the supposed dominance of libertarian thinking in the high-tech world, Cyberselfish can expect a sympathetic audience. Most intellectuals, after all, are not simply unlibertarian but actively hostile to libertarianism. They don't agree with the philosophy's vision of a state restricted to the protection of its citizens' lives and property (if that much--anarcho-capitalists sail under the libertarian banner as well).
What's more, most intellectuals tend to think there's something untoward about anyone who does embrace the libertarian philosophy. At best, goes this line of thought, such people are tools of moneyed interests. At worst, they are inhuman, atomistic drones. And while most Americans express sympathy for generally stated libertarian tenets (abstract visions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are A-OK), that sympathy tends to wear thin when rubbed against the sharper edge of specific policy applications (What do you mean, shut down the FDA?).
Borsook throws around enough names to suggest a knowledge of libertarianism, but it's clear she doesn't know that much about the political philosophy she's attacking. She cites Friedrich Hayek, for instance, but misspells his first name and gives a ludicrously reductive reading of The Road to Serfdom's critique of planning. "All government intervention of course," she summarizes, "irresistibly lead[s] to Stalinesque collectivization of farms." Similarly, she mistakenly identifies Ludwig von Mises as the inventor of anarcho-capitalism. (Mises was no anarchist.) She mentions Murray Rothbard, the actual intellectual father of 20th-century anarcho-capitalism, to say that he borrowed the idea from Mises and then adds, in a bizarre footnote, "Who knows if it was a conscious choice."
Borsook references Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1996, and claims the L.P. "routinely" nominates him for high office. (So far, they've done so exactly once, though they may well do it a second time this summer.) She says the Cato Institute was founded a decade before it actually was and that the Scaife Foundation was one of its original funders. (Cato existed four years before getting any Scaife money, and Scaife is mentioned just to gratuitously hang Ken Starr around Cato's neck.) She brings up REASON, in order to claim that Editor-at-Large Virginia Postrel is used as a "Token Girl" at overly male and sexist computer-world conferences.
For all the names she drops, Borsook doesn't seem to know what issues are actually the dominant concerns of libertarian writers and institutions--drug laws, education, foreign policy, and trade all go unmentioned. She has only the vaguest idea of the theoretical and empirical reasons why libertarians think what they do--not even enough to argue with them.
If Borsook were your only guide, you wouldn't think there was any economic or philosophical reasoning, any history or logic on which libertarianism is based. The only apparent motivation is a snotty adolescent attitude among geeks, who have a "wicked excitement about...the Hobbesian war of all against all." Her technolibertarians suffer from "a kind of scary, psychologically brittle, prepolitical autism." They "make a philosophy out of a personality defect" and, she insists, are disproportionately involved in "programmatic weird sex."
Borsook knows too little to contextualize libertarianism outside high- tech, and thus she equates it with "bionomics," cypherpunks, and George Gilder. Bionomics, a concept set forth by Michael Rothschild in a 1990 book of the same name, holds that, in the broadest terms, economies function like biological systems and can manage themselves. (Rothschild also created The Bionomics Institute, whose popular Bay Area conferences helped define high-tech's character and community.) Cypherpunks are radical opponents of any government restrictions on cryptography. Gilder is the great social-conservative cheerleader for high-tech, and Borsook is mostly interested in the biologically reductionist notions about sex roles and family life he has spun out in books such as Men and Marriage (1992), a revision of his earlier Sexual Suicide. Gilder is indisputably a high-tech guru, and his books Life After Television (1990) and Telecosm (2000) extol the liberating potential of technology like nobody's business. But his insistence on traditional male-female roles doesn't exactly play well in Silicon Valley. More important, such ideas have nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism, techno or otherwise.
No matter--any weapon Borsook can muster to bash the libertarian enemies she sees all about her will do. Hence she mocks Wired co-founder Louis Rosetto as a "neo-caveman" for entertaining sociobiological explanations for women's lack of dominance in high-tech, yet offers up feminist researcher Carol Gilligan's similar thinking as a rational explanation for the phenomenon.
Strangely, Borsook herself frequently and frankly brings up the thinness of the factual assertions behind many of her arguments. In a typical moment, she points out that "political scientists who study the demographics of the Net do not find voting patterns that differ much from the world outside" and that political scientists have done no work on the intersection of libertarianism and high-tech.
To another author, such facts might be cause for worry. But Borsook bravely pushes on. Even while acknowledging that she meets people in the high-tech world who aggressively deny being libertarian and others who claim not even to have heard the word, she nonetheless asserts that almost all techies--the deniers and the ignorant along with those who openly embrace the libertarian label--parrot the same simplistic line, her summation of libertarian thinking: "Government bad, market good; someone said it, I believe it, that settles it!"
It isn't so much that Borsook strongly disagrees with every element of the modern libertarian message, though she surely would have problems with much of it if she knew what it was. It's that she considers libertarians unpleasant people. They're selfish, asocial, too into Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein; they indulge in impersonal, perverted sexual games because they can't stand real intimacy. She finds them "nasty, narcissistic, lacking human warmth."
She peppers little insults like this throughout the book, and on some level this book could be seen as a personal lament: "Why is it so hard to meet nice guys in Silicon Valley?" Dotting the book are tales of bad dates with libertarian geeks who make snide remarks about bums and who send her unwanted e-mail, only to get riled when she explains she doesn't believe all that free-market stuff.
But it isn't clear that Borsook has strong intellectual objections to the "free minds and free markets" matrix that undergirds most of what libertarians say and think. She spends a chapter dissing cypherpunks, for example, chiding them for being overly concerned with government meddling in their lives (she thinks they haven't suffered enough to complain). Yet she agrees with their central goal of halting government interference in the sale, development, and possession of cryptography.
So what is Borsook's case beyond pique, beyond finding Bionomics conferences to be "little shops of horror," beyond lamenting that technolibs prefer Edge Cities to "real" urban centers, beyond finding libertarians "psychically exhausting"? Boiled down, she makes two arguments: First, high-tech people have no right to attack government since their industry would not have existed without government funding. Second, successful businesses are successful because they operate in a world where governments keep schools going, food and drugs pure, banks honest, and the like.
The first argument is simply a non sequitur. Government is involved with just about any commercial transaction or field imaginable, if only because it builds roads. But the fact that the government paves streets hardly makes it responsible for all the businesses that spring up alongside them. (There is, moreover, ample evidence that road building would continue even if government disappeared.)
The Defense Department's role in developing ARPANet, the forerunner to the Internet, was more as a customer than as an engineer creating something by design; it provided money for researchers doing early work on a decentralized computer network, but didn't plan or anticipate anything like the Internet we use today. Indeed, the essentially unplanned way in which the Internet developed is an example of the biologically informed models of growth and self-regulation that libertarians celebrate. It's also worth pointing out that the Internet's huge growth, both in terms of infrastructure and customers, came about due to commercial investment, not government financing.
As for Borsook's second line of attack: Anyone advocating a smaller role for the state is by necessity thrust into the realm of historical fantasy, of imagining the way things could be. Government has arrogated so extensive a role to itself that it's understandable that many people might imagine that nothing the government has a hand in could possibly have happened without it.
One of the key insights of libertarianism revolves around the notion of the "spontaneous order," the idea that social orders and markets can, do, and will develop to meet human needs without central direction or control. For instance, just because government has taken it upon itself to finance and run schools does not mean that no one would be educated if it didn't. Nor would restaurants start poisoning their customers if municipal food inspectors disappeared overnight.
But Borsook doesn't understand what libertarians mean when they talk about spontaneous order. Thus she asserts that such a theory of "self-organization" appeals to "engineers' physics envy" and that "the reason for the rise in technolibertarianism is that engineers are practical and like to fix things and get things right, so of course only the sensible political choice of libertarianism would fit."
In fact, the engineering mentality, which presumes a single best way of doing things in accordance with unchanging "natural" laws, is the exact opposite of the spontaneous order mentality that pervades libertarian thinking. That's why Hayek specifically identified the engineering mentality as the mind-set from "which all modern socialism, planning and totalitarianism derives."
But Borsook hasn't thought about libertarian philosophy hard enough to make fine distinctions. To her, anything and everything anti-government--from militiamen obsessed with what they consider a Zionist-Occupied Government to people who want more foreign tech workers than current immigration laws allow--is tossed into the libertarian stew she finds so distasteful.
The root of Borsook's problem--and perhaps of libertarianism's problem with mainstream writers and thinkers--is encoded in her book's title: Cyberselfish. She spends most of a chapter musing over the well-known "fact" that people who get wealthy from high-tech are unprecedentedly stingy with their corporate and individual giving. When I presented this thesis to Ann Kaplan, editor of Giving USA, one of the prime data collection sources for American philanthropy, she told me there are no accurate macro data to support that contention.
In fact, even the "data" Borsook cites don't support her contention. She notes that the regional United Way goal in Silicon Valley has not increased during the '90s and that, although San Jose has double the average U.S. per capita income, local charities do not receive twice the national average in donations. (She doesn't say how much they do receive and doesn't cite any sources for the data.)
Additionally, she notes a survey by the Community Foundation Silicon Valley (CFSV) of area residents across all income lines that indicates they give to charities at a level similar to the national giving rate (about 2 percent of annual income). What's more, in Silicon Valley, "the percentages of those giving in each income bracket are somewhat above national averages."
Such data are her main evidence for the oft-bruited assertion that the high-tech world is uniquely stingy. Borsook simply assumes that Silicon Valley can be equated with the entire high-tech sector and that United Way is a reasonable proxy for all charity. And if you look at the CFSV report that she mentions, you find that 83 percent of Silicon Valley households donate to charity, compared to 69 percent nationally, and that Silicon Valley adults volunteer at a rate exactly equal to the national average (49 percent). But 40 percent of Silicon Valley charitable giving goes outside the immediate area, which might help explain the local United Way situation.
Borsook's problem with an inherent "selfishness" that may not even exist is part of a general negative feeling about people who don't want as much government as she does. She doesn't feel spiritually akin to these espousers of libertarianism; their strongly expressed belief in a philosophy she only half-understands but associates with stinginess disturbs her. That kind of sociological prejudice rests on a false supposition, reflected throughout Cyberselfish, that "social" and "governmental" are coterminous, and that anyone who is against governmental action is therefore essentially "atomistic." The libertarian insight that the state is the nexus of legalized violence and coercion--and awareness of the special moral and practical dilemmas that its use thus involves--escapes Borsook entirely; she never even mentions it to try to refute it. Ignorant of the philosophical and intellectual background behind small-state thinking, she condemns it for being against cooperation. In fact, libertarians rely on uncoerced transactions and charitable fellow-feeling as the web holding civil society together--cooperation on mutually agreed terms at its finest, without force entering the equation.
Why do Borsook and other anti-libertarians miss this? Willful, ideologically motivated blindness no doubt plays a role. But libertarians themselves must share a good deal of the responsibility. In public debate, they should be less negative and spend more time pointing out the ways in which a culture can survive and thrive by relying on spontaneous orders and voluntary exchanges that make all the world richer, cleaner, safer, and saner.
Libertarians can perhaps take some solace that in over 200 pages Borsook fails to make a coherent case against "terribly libertarian culture." But they would do well to rely less on defenses of the right to be left alone, which can be interpreted as mere selfishness and hence something easy to dismiss. Recognizing that may be the key to understanding why so many are likely to agree with Borsook despite her inability to actually prove her case.
Brian Doherty (bdoherty@reason.com) is an associate editor at REASON.
Well, IMHO, programming an operating system requires a significant amount of technological power. And many of the 'techno-young' who you stereotype (of which I am perhaps one), are little interested in 'power' in the corporatist sense (i.e. money).
It tolerates an alarming amount of hostility and abuse, both of which make any political communications -- at least those in public -- nearly impossible.
Don't be rediculous. The Internet is a means for communication; the occaisonal, easily avoided flame war has little impact on the rest of Internet.
The techno-world eschews even the most marginal understanding of the tortured history of technology, the awareness that periods of technological advancement are always followed by periods of fear and retrenchment.
You mean the period of 'technological advancement' that started with the Renaissance, and continues, in one form or another, today?
JOEB7 doesn't seem to know that the vast majority of people have never even heard of encrypted e-mail programs, let alone used them.
I agree. JOEB7 is alarmingly ignorant; everyone has a right to privacy on the Internet, even the proles. :-)
'We' build more power stations.
I see the point that you are trying to make but the fact is, to use the cliche, 'the genie is out of the bottle'. Computer technology has been unleashed and will never be contained again. Why will it never disappear? Because many humans have a pressing need for efficiency and speed (not to mention warfare/defense).
You look too superficially at computers and fail to see places where, while we could do without, we certainly do NOT want to do without. Bridge building, car manufacturing, power regulation, etc. all are key infrastructure areas that benefit greatly from computer technology.
They also aid us in our curiousities which will never become "uncool". Science and exploration are in the blood of too many people.
I'm not too blinded by anti-Luddite sentiments to see that technology has it's negative sides but taking the Luddite stance is certainly not (imo) a well-grounded choice. I believe the point of the article is largley that technology and technologists are so focussed on where they are going and where technology takes them that they don't look around or take time to partake in the general 'human experience'.
That's what I believe this selfishness refers to. Certainly it's not a rule amongst people but general perception is such.
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
You know, I think someone out there wrote something very similar to this, about how technology will be the end of us... oh yes, it was Ted Kaczynski, the unibomber.
It's easy to blame everything on 'society' or a faction thereof.. but the truth is, none of these arguments are supported, it's just one big rant about how our current technological era... sucks.
Jon is just trying to confuse us with a 1984 style feature with big words in the hope that we won't realize that this in one huge unsupported rant.
Because people online can legally get away with use of things.. copyrighted material, services, phone use,etc, that they would normally have to pay for, and are now *being* asked to pay for, we are a selfish and intolerant bunch?
HUH? Sorry.. but the ones yelling and screaming about Napster going away are *NOT* the techno savvy geeks out there that this is aimed at. We have all moved on to other, less known, and unstoppable (for now) ways to get our MP3. We will always find ways to skirt the system. Again, this isnt necessarily morally correct. I mean, if I climb an electric pole and do my own hookup, will I scream if they find out and try to charge me for the electricity? No, because I knew that was a possiblity when I did it.
I think there is a problem when just because people could get away with it, it apparently sets a precedent that is later used as justification. I mean, the guy who wrote PKZIP put it out as shareware.. just because you *COULD* use it for free forever doesnt mean you *SHOULD* use it for free forever.
Basically, there are end results for every action.. I dont think we are Selfish, Intolerant, or non-politically active. Face it Katz, most of us have too much to do to head to Washington and join the great unwashed in the million chiphead march on the mall. We would rather use our right to vote, our right to inform, and our right to influence to see the people *IN* those positions changed.
lets face it.. who opens more eyes and ears and gets a better reception? THe screaming sweating mob that gets a two minute blurb on the evening news in DC, or the group that puts up an attractive web-page explaining their views and *WHY* their views are superior, and makes sure lots and lots of people see it?
I'll admit.. I am kind of scared when I search for MPAA or DMCA and get porn pages listed in the hits *before* I get to a page with actual content about what I'm looking for.. but that just goes to show.. the things that *make* money do better. Until that changes, unfortunately, we are still going to be fighting an uphill battle, and instead of whining about it or decrying it as unfair, we must educate ourselves and each other on how to *fight* it legally. (and no, I dont mean burning a million copies of Metallicas last great album and sending them out to people.. I mean getting representation in court.. A LA 2600.)
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
social darwinism is prevalent in modern society in general. not in a specific area of the techno-elite. just look at office powers.
also i dont really see the "techno-elite" as all that elite. yeah, the geeks got the control over the machines, and make mad mad money for it, but then the more money you have, the more you need to maintain your lifestyle... surprise! comsumer culture takes hold and your kids are screaming for pokemmon. you are stuck on call 24 hours a day to fix the machines that only you can fix, if you get a poor performance review it will be hard to get that good paying a job again, so you work as hard as you can. but what do you lose?
the truly elite are the corporate managers who dont understand the technology but understand how to squeeze more work out of people to make themselves richer.
society right now is at a dangerous crossroads, with one branch leading to unabated apathy, limited intellect, and addiction to whatever the large corporate conglomorates feel like throwing us, and the other path to a utopian environment. but getting to utopia means letting go of the need for consumer goods. this is hard to do with so many whiz bang gadgets, but simplicity is key.
individuality is important but human beings are social creatures, and when you work as a community the results are like using a beowulf for numerical approximation. if you isolate yourself, you are at the mercy of your own limits.
the reason the net culture right now is so sucky is the dumbing down of it. once aol opened the floodgates and geocities let everyone have a web page, no technical experience was needed....
remember when your favorite local restaurant was discovered by a local newspaper and suddenly EVERYONE went there, and it started to suck? same thing has happened with the net. it was not meant to be this commercialized. the net culture at the stage it was at with HTML 1.0 and Gopher was very different, mainly as more people were the same... and more people were likely to know other people.
the sad thing is those who bitch about the dumbing down and commercialization of the net are branded elitist and snobbish.
Way to go Jon.
Ignorance (or contempt) of history and the institutions and subcultures that rule "meatspace" are fatal whether we know it or not. Things like DMCA and the Napster ruling will continue to blindside us, and even as workarounds and new breakthroughs are achieved, the accumulating mass of legal precedent and popular opinion will lay an increasing burden on our very freedom and prosperity.
What to do?
Teach. Spend some time with those who know less than you do. It's not only fun (!) and, now, prudent, it engenders a welcome humility. Nothing reveals your own ignorance like teaching.
Pay attention. This is particularly hard in the legal and political arenas, 'cos we despise corruption and intransigence so much. But it's more needed there than anywhere else.
Look to the future, realistically. Things change slowly. We're used to ingenious surgical solutions that take effect upon implementation: well, that rarely happens outside the digital realm. Get used to the possibility that change may be on a generational scale, ie. we'll have to wait till the codgers and curmudgeons die off and are replaced by us, our kids, and those we teach. (See above.)
Ok. Enough is enough. I can only handle so much Katz. I think you guys at /. need to give this man a post limit. Say maybe one column a week. That way he might actually have enough time to edit his columns so that they are actually interesting instead of whine, whine, whine!
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Katz is on a philosophical rampage. Here's a link to a better review of this book.
Yes, I second this - Cyberselfish, which I'm in the middle of now, illustrates quite clearly that most of the Libertarian movement seems to think that every political and corporate institution formed to date is fundamentally silly and unnecessary, and therefore should be criticized endlessly. One senses a profound lack of understanding of why or how any of these institutions came to be, and I'd be willing to be that if the Libertarians got their way and managed to vanquish the evils of organization, they would end up recreating them in the end out of their own ignorance of history. It's sort of the same as the school vouchers solution - "We don't like these public schools that are run by incompetent dummies, so we're going to start our own parallel school districts run by different incompetent dummies. That should solve it!"
There is litle to be served by ignoring the system, because the system is there as a result of human nature and will continue to be there so long as society is run by humans. If you are clever enough, you can effect much more change by working within the system and building credibility to the level that the powers-that-be will respect and respond to. But if you present yourself as an individualist who prefers to be removed from mainstream culture and disrespect the existing structures, however inefficient and moronic they may be, you are doomed to the fringes of relevant discussion.
I'm not claiming to understand exactly how the system works, or what is the best way to advance the agenda of the techno-intelligentsia. What I'm suggesting to the Libertarian contingent is that they don't either, and they shouldn't criticize what they don't understand.
Was that out loud?
They say those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. However things are much different now, just because making a right turn 20 years ago proved a disaster doesn't mean it will today. In some ways not knowing that history leaves us more free to make an uninfluenced descion. As to the well the other parts of the world don't know about encyrption (whine whine) guess what neither did I, no one came to me and said here let me take your hand, I know what I know because I had the drive to find out. We aren't intolerant of the people who know less, we are intolerant of the people who choose to know less through there actions or lack of actions. If you don't know LEARN, but its not my job to teach you!
Before I started replying to this post's grandparent I checked to see if there was anything that had already summed up what I had on my mind and I found it on the post above with Score:0
Yes it's flamey but it's a very valid on-topic point made well, particularly the last line. For every kid who was bullied in school and then went on to be a nerd, there are 10 others who were also bullied and didn't and you don't hear THEM whining. I've had just about enough of the Geek Inferiority Complex ; if you want the Grown-Ups to take you seriously you have to start acting like one.
The conclusion of your syllogism, I said lightly, is fallacious, being based on licensed premises
Katz is opressing geeks. (Score:1, Flamebait)
That's beautiful - nothing like quality flamebait :)
The conclusion of your syllogism, I said lightly, is fallacious, being based on licensed premises
In fact, prosperity and the acquisition of technology have become this society's hallmark; it doesn't really have any other principles.
Very broad generalization. I know a lot of "young techs" who have a lot of principles. They're hard working and work because they love the work they do. They just happen to get a crap load of money for it.
Since this particularly gifted society..
What makes this society so much more "gifted" than any other?? I know how to program, but I don't know crap about fixing a car. Or perhaps he was comparing this society to ones of the past. In which case the argument still doesn't hold. He's implying that we've evolved somewhat into a higher form of intellect. Humans haven't changed, we're just riding a high. Is it this high that is the "gift" he's talking about??
The are others, but I think you get my point. Is this Katz's opinion? Or is he just rehashing about what's going on in that book.?
Maybe I just don't get Katz, but it seems the more he rambles, the more I just tune him out. He could have some very good things to say, if only he didn't sensationalize everything and overdramatize things.
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
They are a kind of elite. Not everyone can be a doctor. And even if you have the smarts to be one, you can't become one if you don't have some kind of finicial background (yes, there are exceptions). Remember Baldwin's line from Malice?? "You ask me if I have a God complex? I AM God!" I know some techie people who feel that way sometimes.
My point is that doctors always have been and always will be an elite group. They are given a kind of noble status, because of all that hard work they put in to become a doctor. Also with what they have to go to. You want long hours? Try being an emergency room doctor.
Are tech people reaching that same status? I realize that there are differences. If a doctor fails, people die. There's even a split among doctors. Emergency room doctors work their asses of saving people's lives. Yet a family doctor comes in at 8am, treats people until 4pm and then goes home. He doesn't really work THAT hard. It's just that he knows a whole lot of stuff and trained hard to become that way. It's the same with techie people. They did have to work hard to know what they know, but then again they liked what they did. No one forced them to spend hours taking apart a computer, they did it themselves because they liked it. I find it hard to have empathy for those people who posted here earlier about reading all those books and learning all they know as being hard work they should be rewarded for. You wanted to do it! No one forced you to learn how to install Linux.
I'm sorry if it doesn't seem like I have a definative point. I'm just writing off the top of my head.
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
This is not my own idea, just one that a co-worker infected me with, but one that I am begining to like, the more that I think about it.
It is well known that language and environment have tremendous effects on the way the mind thinks. Spend some time talking with someone whose native language isn't your own and you will find interesting and subtle differences in how they think about the world.
Well working with computers is different than people. We have our own languages, like perl, different interfaces. Admin and programmer work requires a specific set of thought modes for problem solving.
Perhaps its not that "geeks" are attracted to computers, but rather that dealing with these systems constantly changes how we think. We learn to work in these "modes". Most people arn't required to think in terms of raw logic, cause and effect, flow control etc at the level that we do on a daily basis.
This has led to a whole sub-culture of people who think in these modes. To the outside we may apear bizzare and different. Like any culture we tend to accept those like us, and reject thopse who arnt. They are foreign, they don't think like us.
Honestly, talking with someone who hasn't spent alot of time doing what I do is painful. Really truely painful. I realize that nothing I say will be understood without ALOT of explanation, and its very easy to lose them in the explanation....even people with a good aptitude for it. They don't think like me yet, I can't express my thoughts on the subject in their "language" (normal social english versus technical english).
I think we will find this to be a real problem. Another factor, especially when talking about government, its the same situation. Law makers have their own language. Its not english! its "Legal English". They think differently, they have their own culture. They are just as elitist as us.
I think that this is one of the fundamental problems with government in fact. Representative governments cause elite cliques to form. Sub-cultures, like our own, which have their own customs and their own ways of thinking, and thus they become separated from the people who they are suposedly serving.
I think this is a problem that requires some thought. Its also a good example of why strong central government is such a bad thing. It separates the government and the people into seprate entities. I personally think that it is that separation which is the problem much more so than anything else.
Ours is a subculture which cause ssome conflict, but in the end has little real world power. Theirs is a subculture which has an army of men with guns who will drag people from their homes and throw them in cells if told to do so.
The question is, how do we solve the problem that this creates? On an individual level, being in conflict with "the law" isn't bad, a person can slip under the 'legal radar' and live a peaceful life. As a culture we can't do it though, so somehow we must work with the legal culture to stop it from happening, in any of the forms which conflict could arise (be it napster or encryption regulations or what not)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I think part of the problem with the system that we have, now that I think some more about it, is that we don't have "Democracy". We have "represenatative Democracy".
Why? Well I know the answer, real democracy isn't scalable. You can't have a town meeting style government that encompasses all of the USA. Hell, even all of england, or even all of Maine or Rhode Island.
Good government just doesn't scale well. If we truely want a fair system thats going to work, it needs to be local, where the separation between the people and the government doesn't exist.
This is why I am no longer a libertarian. I think even the libertarian ideas are just wrong. If they have their way, big buisness will replace big government, and we will be right back where we started, possibly even worst.
Thoreau said "That government governs best which governs not at all". I have to agree. As long as we are putting individuals into positions where they make decisions for large swaths of population and have no real contact with the masses themselves, we will ALWAYS be in the situation that we are in.
When it comes to running a community, I think democracy makes sense. However when you try to scale it up to the level we have, it becomes WORST than monarchy. At least monarchs can be groomed from birth to rule. We, instead, have the worst of both worlds. We have rulers, chosen by popularity contest and how well they can manipulate the masses.
This is, at its heart, a scalability issue.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Either way, the masses have control. The masses go to Wal-Mart, it prospers. The masses buy Disney DVDs and watch NBC. The masses buy RIAA-endorsed CD and watch MPAA-approved movies. The masses buy PCs with Windows pre-loaded.
These companies all make it pretty much impossible to have alternatives. Go find a high-quality PC without Windows at the same price as a Dell or Gateway. Go watch a DVD that doesn't have CSS on it. Listen to a CD that has no involvement with the RIAA or its member companies. It's hard to do, and getting harder as companies consolidate power. And there's nothing that the masses can do except continue to consume and increase the power of these coroporations.
This isn't to say I'm a socialist/communist, but I do believe that a certain level of government oversight and laws are required for a good balance between the good of the consumers and the quest for profit for corporations and their shareholders.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
As a child of the sixties, I gotta say in my grump y old man voice "You think you had it tough? Bah!"
</humor>
Meritocracy Rules!
Growing up in a lower income family, I never heard of health care. You had to be virulently sick to get to go to the doctor as opposed to present day where insured employees go in for a head cold. And my dad worked extra to pay for his kids' prescriptions (Thanks Dad). But having used my brains and applied myself in school (yeah overcrowded so what, you had the textbooks, who cares if you did not get teacher attention for every little stumbling block, the answers are available if you look).
The recession of '86 caught me in the petro-related software industry (bad timing/choice) so I existed as a menial Xerox operator for 6 months while learning Oracle. So nowadays I'm in the top percentile of Oracle DBAs and proud of my trek to this point. Why, I MERITED it, the big bucks, big house, fast car, you name it.
And this is no different than other Geeks, who post here, we earned it just like our grandfathers who went to college on the GI Bill post WWII and built the economic growth of the '50s.
Maynard wants a Social Net, to catch us.
Clinton's plan was just like Johnson's (Welfare); a net that was too easy to remained confined in and drag your kids along with you. Remember just vote Democratic like all the generational welfare lifers who can't be bothered to compete.
And no I don't have health insurance as I also troubleshoot the Medicaid Fraud Abuse Detection System for Texas. comprende?
Reality is just a clever Hack, and the Planck constant is the refresh rate.
Software is by no means the only meritocracy around. Consider sports. We have all experienced the sports meritocracy. You think it is easy to be a standout football player? You think all those jocks never work hard? They face a meritocracy just as strict in its own field. They get a daily win/lose report. Everyone can see who is good at sports and who is bad at sports.
Does this lead to maturity? What words do you think of when discussing the jocks in school? Don't words like arrogant, insensitive, intolerant, testosterone poisoned, and selfish come to mind? Given your experiences with jocks, how do you feel about a world where the jocks have all the power? You've probably had a taste of that at some time.
The outside perspective on programmers is similar. Being a meritocracy does not lead to maturity, wisdom, leadership or organizational skills.
is that reagan administration didn't really give much money to the tech industry when it was in its early days. Reagan just refused to allow them to be heavily taxed/regulated and that allowed the upstarts to keep their capital and make advances.
I have been lucky because my situation/family/background/financial situation enabled me to have the opportunity to use computers. Some people aren't so lucky. Some people may have been able to afford a computer but without having any guidance or inspiration, they have been shown what their potential could have achieved using computers. I originally trained to be an engineer but switched to computer science after I realised that this is what I truly liked. Some people can't afford to do this. My two cousins live with their mother who is an elementary school teacher yet their mother wanted a REAL computer (for back then at least) and bought a top of the line PII 300 with 64mb of ram, 6gb hard disk and a decent video/sound setup. She paid top dollar for it. It is all about priorities, she saved up her money for a while cuz she knew what they wanted and she went out and bought it. Excusing those making >$20,000 from being able to own a decent computer (look at how much lower prices are now compared to what they used to be for a kick ass computer) is like excusing them from having decent medical care. They may have to sacrifice some luxuries like your cable tv with every premium channel, but when you have the basics like healthcare, utilities, house/car payments done.... then save for the bloody computer!!
Anyone else suspect this article is a little barb back at all the slashdotters who have criticized katz in the past?
I am getting sick of your views on soiecty, the geek-culture, and on how we are all incompetent to live as regular human beings.
You know nothing, you see one side of us, all you do all day is sit infront of your computer and read /. and your email. When you look outside, look through your small windows you see people walking around, you say those people are the outsiders, the ones not belonging to the geek culture, you say those people are out to get us, you ssay those people can never be our friends.
Now look at this statement from a minute.
he Social Darwinism of the tech culture, at its lack of empathy for human beings -- especially the technologically primitive and impaired.
The lack of empathy for human beings. Like duh. You have missed the point totally here. The tech culture doesn't care about human beings, they care about the ideas of human beings. Instead of being classified by what friends you have, or what clothes you wear, or the way you talk, you are classified by the ideas you express. So if you have technologically primitive you can't express your ideas, and therefore are a nobody.
And when we go out into the real world, we are classified by what friends you have, what you are wearing, and if you stutter or not. We exist in the real world, and we may even act like people in the real world, but we still have ideas and that is what counts.
Apathy -- The state of numbness of the mind. When you are apathic, you can think.
What people who complain about the disproportionate influence of interest groups miss is that the government is still ultimately responsible to the voters. The power rests with the people. If they choose not to use it by remaining disinterested and un-involved, then the power vacuum is filled by interest groups and lawyers et. al. But the reality is we have no one to blame but ourselves for the present situation.
Not surprisingly, this techno-civilization has little interest in the political systems that still dominate society, so it radically underestimates their power and has an inflated sense of its own.
This seems like a generalization or stereotype. I personally am double majoring in polticial science and computer science, and most of my friends from the CS side of things do take at least a passing interest in politics. At least as much as anyone else in this country does, but I will try to avoid ranting about that for now. I would also mention the very successful OpenLaw group, which has submitted briefs and advised legal teams in several high-profile tech law cases, including the suit against 2600. The technical people involved with that could not be accused of not caring about politics and law.
Having known only one reality, the young and techno-savvy can't quite imagine any other.
It seems to me that we can easily imagine other realities, which is why there is always so much howling when something like Carnivore is announced. Everyone can see that we must not take technological freedoms for granted and must fight for our rights. If we could truly not conceive of other realities no one would pay any attention to Carnivore et. al, because we would be convinced that it could not effect us.
The techno-young correctly grasp that many of the country's seminal institutions -- politics, journalism, education -- have failed them and the larger society. But nobody seems to have given much thought to what might replace them,
Here, Katz finally admits how silly many of his previous articles have been. We have heard him going on and on for months and years about how Open Media was going to replace closed media, the young were building a new culture on line, blah blah blah, and now he tells us no one has given much thought to what is going to replace the "old order!"
I usually refrain from Katz bashing, but this article is just a bit too much. He takes a single book and two emails and from that data set presumes to make generalizations about all of tech culture. Ordinarily, this would be par for the course where Katz is concerned, but in this case it is even more annoying than usual because he is contradicting virtually his entire body of previous work.
Then: "Tech empowers the geeks! It lets them be individuals! Gives them power!"
Now: "Geeks are too individualistic! They have no values and don't know what to do with their power! Everyone should be nicer to each other!"
I too would like to see tech culture become a little less elitist, but I don't think the problem is anywhere near as bad as Katz is making it out to be. If I got an email claiming that anyone knew where to get encryption software I would think it was silly, because it should be obvious that not everyone does. The problem that that particular email shows is not with "tech culture", it is with the writer. (No offense to whoever wrote it, but go talk to some non-techies on occasion. It will be a good experience for you.)
This could have been a really good, interesting article, but instead Katz has used a tiny amount of data to create a huge problem out of a fairly minor issue.
I feel that I need to chip in my $0.02 to the discussion.
I think as a whole, we have forgotten what truly matters most in society, and that is people. The average person does not care about what we know, unless we can show them how much our knowledge can help them.
I feel that once in awhile, we should leave our computers, and go out and interact with the rest of society.
As for the issues presented, this is how I feel about them..
Napster/RIAA -- Napster should be allowed to continue to operate.
DeCSS -- I would say that the US government is to blame, by not allowing stronger encryption to be exported. If the courts are going to issue subpoenas to people/sites distributing the DeCSS source code, they might as well subpoena the whole Internet, as they could not stop the distribution that happened after the original sites were asked to cease distribution. It's hard to stop a wildfire once it starts spreading.
Enforcing existing laws on the Internet -- I would have to say that as a community, we should voice our opinions to the government, and have them either revise the old laws, or write new laws with everyone's interest in mind. We may not have the lobbying power that the corporations have, but we do have our voices, and they need to be heard.
On what's to come in the future -- I have read a book by an author who believes the next depression will be in 2010, when the baby boomers cash in their investments and head into retirement. In the US in 2010, I could see an excess supply of cash as a result of all of the investments being cashed in, a working class working like mad to pay for Social Security, and the corporations losing profits to match what the employees pay, living expenses going up due to the excess supply of cash and increased production costs to cover rising expenses. If the US economy is in this bad of a shape, just imagine the ripple effect on the rest of the world. Better to prepare now, or pay dearly later.
"The tech culture is becoming a elitist society with no coherent political values, poorly prepared to deal with real politicians, who pass real laws like the DMCA."
'Zactly backwards. The real questions is:
"Political culture has long been an elitist society with no coherent understanding of technical issues, and is poorly prepared to deal with real technological advance, such as distributed filed sharing, like Napster, Freenet, gnutella."
Anyone remember the "digital decency act"? Yeah, that really cleaned the Pr0n off the internet. Nice work guys.
Yes, various governments have boot-stomped a few indivuduals, but lets face it: all the hot air in the world hasn't changed the day-to-day reality that the internet is still vast, and untamed.
And we like it that way.
Politics will never react as quickly to change as the world's best information distribution system can.
god, i hate katz. so ignorant, it's a waste of time to enlighten him. and i know others feel the same.
so then he calls us arrogant. sure, he attempted to disguise it as a book review, but we all know the truth.
"...well, it certainly does _suck_"
I know this is heretical. But here goes.
Fire destroys the forest. Yet the forest grows back, lusher and more dense than before.
A new open-source program will be criticized, hacked on, screwed-up, and reviled for the thousand bugs in it. Yet, in the process, truly useful software comes into being.
You do a bench press with more weight than ever before. Your muscles are stressed, damaged and wind up sore. Yet, in a couple of days, you are stronger than ever before.
It is stress that defines limits and helps move them. It is the stress of being tested that makes anything grow, improve, and achieve a greater percentage of its potential. Without resistance, there is no forward motion.
Conversely, no system - biological, social, political, or any other - can survive the atrophy that a lack of stress causes. Parasites and diseases, opportunistic creatures that they are, move in and accelerate the downward slide of any system that is not constantly moving forward and being challenged.
And a society or culture that is untested cannot truly understand what about it is weak, evil, negative and unnecessary because those bugs will not have been revealed during the rigors of testing.
This is what we're seeing now. We have a bunch of tech-savvy folks who think their knowledge of arcane languages is somehow admirable. Because their knowledge possesses some value in the marketplace, they delude themselves into believing *they* have value.
It ain't so.
These "cyberselfish" folks aren't any more valuable to the world than the least-educated homeless person in America. They are, in fact, just lucky to be born in a certain place at a certain time. Nothing more.
And they shouldn't delude themselves into thinking anything else.
Don't agree? Think you're hot stuff? Then answer a few simple questions...
What ideas and principles are so important to you that you would unhesitatingly die for them?
What person is so loved by you that you would unhesitatingly die so that they might live?
Do these questions seem unreasonably extreme to you? If they do, you don't know crap. Was your first instinct to answer "Well, I'd find a way to not have to die"? If so, you don't know crap.
It was just a few short decades ago that men (and yes, in that day and time, it was mostly men, even though I use the term properly to apply to both sexes) left their families and their comfortable lives in droves so that they might die on the sands of foreign beaches, spilling their blood so that a great evil could be beaten back. And it was in the aftermath of that world war that men reached to the stars.
And yet, wishing as all parents do to spare their offspring from excessive stress, that generation gave birth to the first super-selfish generation that gave birth to the generation that doesn't even have enough gumption to view selfishness as an ideal. Instead, they just view it as one more component of the way the world works, a mechanism that functions against a background of little more than apathy toward their fellow man. Give 'em their Napster and their dotcom money and they trick themselves into thinking they're happy.
This situation will not last. I don't know where the break will come, but it will. Political sharks already smell the blood in the water and are circling for the kill. Mistakes with certain nasty virii currently contained in human-run research labs are all too foreseeable. The bomb is now small enough to fit into a basketball or maybe smaller. All these and a thousand other things hold the potential to stress all of society to and beyond the breaking point.
The human race will again be tested on a large scale. It's inevitable. Good and bad people alike will die. The selfish tech gurus who live in their own little world will be forced to look outside themselves, will be forced to decide what they are willing to die for. And those who refuse to decide will die anyway, though for no purpose.
The big decisions in life aren't "What language should I learn next so that I can make more money?" The big decisions are "What will I do that secures life and liberty for my fellow man?" If you aren't asking yourself those questions, if you haven't ever thought of them, then you're just a waste of skin, no matter how smart or rich you are. If you haven't thought of them, you are not ready for the tests, the stress that will inevitably come.
All of this is not to say that the ability to manipulate data isn't power. It is, of a sort. But when that power is wielded without guiding principles, it serves no ultimate purpose and is, in the end, meaningless.
Don't be meaningless, people. If you know tech stuff, that's fine. But you also need to know who you are and what you believe in. When you know those things, you can use the tech stuff to make the world a better place.
That's the legacy you should be pondering, not anything that's affected by estate taxes.
I believe that we can most definitely draw some direct relationships between the progression of technology and the "general" demeanor of society. Yes, most people in high paying tech jobs could be regarded as selfish in a matter of materialistic standards. Everybody wants a palm pilot, right?
I think we can also draw the conclusion that because of these standards we've become more self concerned about our well being as an individual, rather than as a populous. I haven't met a programmer yet who wants to give away of small portion of their large pay check for any sort of thing that doesn't benifit them directly. He's gotta have the car, the house, the computer, etc.... the women ;-)
----Quid
----Quid
Less talk, more caffeine
There are many different types of people who could be considered Techno-heads or whatever. There are the marketing guys who have their palm pilot, web enabled cell phone, laptop desktop etc. But that's it. They really don't undestand how anything worksk, they want the latest and greatest toys. Then there are also people who could build a palm pilot out of duct tape and a radio. But they understand technology,but they don't feel the desire to always have the latest and greatest, you would find them to be much more polically responsible. To say every geek out there is self-centred or even the majority is nuts. I went to H2k, (H.O.P.E. or Hackers On Planet Earth). I went there expecting to be 99% hacking this or that, it was 90% about polical activisim.
OK, stop the presses. Anyone who would say "How could they take my Napster away" is not a tech-savvy person. What you have is what used to be obscure technology (i.e. computers & the Internet) becoming more mainstream as they also become easier to use. Thus, that quote is something a mainstream person, ignorant of copyright laws, bandwidth consumption, etc. would say.
So, if that is not a tech person's quote, then the whole subject of this story should be changed. It is not that tech people have become selfish, it's that mainstream people are as selfish and ignorant of underlying issues as they always have been.
I'm personally offended that JonKatz would try to confuse something like this.
Since this particularly gifted society created its social revolution quite apart from politics, education, even most adults, it has no sense of history and little memory, which creates another point of vulnerability; to be ignorant of the past is to be defenseless against the future.
This rather assumes that those of us who are part of this 'elite' society (even that sounds patronising and loaded with superiority complex - yuck) live life without ever taking note of what happens outside the walls of our cubicles. In fact much of this review seems to think that just because we can 'grok' Unix and 'frob' things left and right we never see any other part of life. Which seems to be continuing the Jon Katz theme of the alienated tech society. Well, yes, technically able kids at school get picked on, probably for precisely the same reasons that the science swat gets picked on or the math prodigy gets picked on - they have something which causes envy and resentment. However, most of us escape school still alive and kicking and get on with our lives in society, at which point we don't suddenly become outcasts who only communicate through wireless LANs to our neighbours or use our Palm Pilots to beam infrared requests to the milkman.
From the Greeks to the the Enlightenment philosophers to Thomas Jefferson to Albert Einstein, some of the world's greatest thinkers have argued that to have knowledge is to struggle to understand the relationship between what you know and what you do. If they're right, we're in trouble. We have no common agenda. We stand for nothing.
Speak for yourself. There is great danger in assuming that just because we work and play in the tech culture, that is all we ever see. With the exception of cults, and I would not describe the tech culture as a cult by any means, people may belong to many schools of interest and interaction. We do not live life in a vacuum and we cut ourselves off from the rest of society at our own individual peril.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
hey, i love being ignorant about the past and the future. if we knew the future, what would life be worth? and: i prefer owning hundreds of high-tech gadgets to being interested in history and politics. i guess i'm just another techno-moron...
Some posters to the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup copyright their postings. I don't think it slows down the Sci. organization from playing with the posts; power annuls copyright law. So, if you aren't part of a rich or influential corporation, forget it. The law is only for those who can afford it. (How would you take an infringer to court? How much cash and time do you have?)
Get this: Ford Expedition driving through Palo Alto one day with bumper sticker: Solar Energy Now
Personally I think we're just waiting. Biding our time. Some of us realize it, some don't. High technology is spreading like wildfire--first you could get the weather...eventually you could order pizza..soon you will be able to vote. Nearly everyone seems to encourage this spread..especially corporations. Yet, few people seem to realize that as this technology spreads, they begin to lose little bits and peices of the control they have over their own life. From the half-wit (i'm not making an overgeneralization, plenty of tech-support people are qualified) customer support guy, to the system administrator, to the software developer...control over the things you do are slowly slipping beyond your grasp. And as Katz said, none of us (IT professionals / techno-savvy) have any real interest in giving any more power to politicians, businessmen, etc..nor do we have any interest in giving power to the everyday layperson. We build our systems, our networks, our software..with our own knowledge, for our own use. We effectively construct a massive infrastructure that only we, the techno-elite, can even begin to comprehend. Sure, on the consumer end, we hire artists and Gooey designers to make nice little gadgets and interfaces that make use of the infrastructure. And those gadgets can give the "haves" a clear advantage over the "have-nots". But the real advantage lay in the system behind the gadget..as people begin to depend on their hordes of little web pads, wireless PDAs, web sites, etc..they begin to hand over control of their life to the infrastructure that we have constructed. And yet, they don't even realize it! They *can't wait* to get their hands on the newest little life-automation tool. They'll pay big dollars to let a little machine handle another small facet of their life. Yet, they're giving a peice of their life to a machine that they can't take apart...they have no idea how it works..if something goes wrong, they can't fix it. They are at the mercy of someone..from the tech-support guy up to the designer. Basically, my point comes down to the simple fact that knowledge is power. But not just any knowledge. The things we know about systems, networks, and the entire infrastructure, would mean nothing to anyone but us if it weren't for the user. Our knowledge gives us direct control over the user. And now with every passing day, more and more people want to be users. When everyone is a user..when all of the governments and all of the corporations are users..who then will have the real power? And Katz is right. We don't care about politicians, or the past. All we see is a group of uninformed old men infrigning upon our rights. When we finally control the majority of their daily lives...what will we do with that control?
"The tech culture is becoming a elitist society with no coherent political values..." IS BECOMING? It's always been that way. It's just that information is the commodity of the "133+" instead of $$. Well, except in Silicon valley where your car determines your "status", but it's always been a status thing, no matter the commodity that determines the percieved status. I can't think of ANY non-political group that has coherent political views. Even religious groups usually have fallings-out because of internal political conflicts, and religious groups are the most coherent type of groups that I can think of. I could go on, but I sense an author with a lot of space to fill, and not enough new ideas. Oh, did you hear that it's recently been discovered that not only is ice cold and hard, but it melts in warm temps? Imagine that! I hear that some underground group in Alaska is trying to reprodece the stuff; I'll post to /. when it's confirmed.
Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
It's a wee tad condescending to suggest that it is only an issue of coolness, doncha think? Do right wing republicans consider their anti-abortion stance to be one of coolness? No, I think that the anti-DMCA, anti-RIAA, anti-fucking goddamn suits is just as political an issue as the above issue that so consumes the xtian right wingers. And just because a readership is young doesn't imply that it cannot be political. And some of us aren't as young as you might think. At 40 I'm probably a pretty old fart in this neck of the woods.
BTW, don't you know that it's just a cool fad to use semi-colons?
<;)>
:wq
This is possibly the most interesting statment I've read on /. for a long time. What if you place a bootup message on your system proclaiming all information contained on this system, unless specificly copyrighted by another party is copyrighted by me and further any encrypted information is protected under the DMCA. Also make your tag line on all your email read something similar.
The most interesting part of this is it is using Big Governments/Big Business own laws against them in order to protect my own privacy. I realize this is very silly and would never hold up, however I wonder how long you could keep a court tied up while your lawyer tried to get your encrypted laundry list declared a trade secret. I'd still end up in jail for contempt of court but at least I'd get some entertainment out of it.
-Numbersyx
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Is it me, or can our good friend Mr Katz not resist a mention of 'Jefferson' or 'Corporate' in here each week ? I'm sure there are others too, but it immediately stops me from reading as soon as I see that....
Perhaps he should 'vi katzarticle.cpp' and modify the code chunk marked 'buzzwords.h'
M.
Duh.
That's generally how I feel about Katz's stuff. Of Course we're selfish & narcissistic. Probably 99% of us were tortured by our peers growing up. We hated school with a passion. Not because of the books or the homework because we had all of ours done before we left school. We rarely had to take a book home. It wasn't the teachers, they let us get away with bloody murder. It was the student body that made us hate life. Everyone either bullied us or just ignored us. Only the few geeks in large school districts could find anyone else to hang out with. We fear people. We snap back at them. We don't trust them. Why should they? Our own lives tell us to never actually trust a non-geek. Not even siblings can be trusted to not dig knives into our backs.
So what'd we do? We turned to boxes. Little black boxes called guitar amps or bass amps, or Little putty, grey, or tan boxes called computers. We poured ourselves into our hobbies. After all, no one was going to invite us to the mall, or the movies, or anything else.
Then, we grew up. We graduated high school, some of us from college. We started looking for jobs. What? Someone wants to pay me to play with computers?? I get money to make these boxes not crash?? If I'm sysadmin, you'll leave me alone?? You'll let me do my job and when I need new toys you just hand me the money because you don't have a clue what I'm talking about but I say you need it???
And people wonder why we're selfish, power hungry, and greedy. We don't see ourselves as such. We just know what power you've given us. You've let us take over you lives. We have the gift of making fire, and your tribe doesn't. Do we have to give it to you? Do we want to?
So, Duh, Katz. I'm selfish, narcissistic, greedy, and proud of it. I want all of the knowledge I can get my hands on. I don't care about other humans having that knowledge. They never did anything for me. In fact, they only hurt me. Why should I care for them? Remember good old Doc Frankenstein? He created a being and gave it life. Then he lost control of it. Society created us when we were children. During our "formative years" society shunned us. Technology in some form or fashion stretched its arms to us and embraced us. We grew up. We didn't change.
And all the
In my opinion, part of the reasons why us geeks have just a passing interest/understanding of political issues is because of the high level of BS that seems to go around in *ANY* level of discussion on the topic.
A lot of "knowledge" (possibly the majority of knowledge) we humans exchange has such a high level of dogma, misrepresentations, and pettiness included within it that you can never tell what to believe, no matter how much time one spends on the topic.
Now Mathematics, Physics, and so forth, are much more certain prospects. I don't give a shit what your personal opionion is on the Pythagorean Theorem. I know the proof, so any opinion someone offers otherwise I can ignore without a second thought.
Programming is the same sort of thing. Don't believe my algorithm will work? Well here's the program I created, notice how it works, now get the fuck out of my face.
It's disturbing the type of subjects which get the word "science" put after them. Political "Science"? Don't make me laugh. Social "Sciences"? Please! Give me Physics. Give me Math. Give me Chemistry. Give me Computers. They're not always correct. But they give you definite theories and experiments to test said theories. What politician can posssibly offer me the same?
Happy people make bad consumers.
-- But that's precisely why they're interesting to non-geeks (and especially interesting to geeks with social skills on a par with normal people; eg, the kind of geeks who "get" what it means to be a social being) - because you don't have fixed theories that X is 1 and pKa is .00479: you
have fuzzy things like voting patterns and perceptions and other characteristics that, if you can't see them, seem like religious poppycock ("why would people vote for a charismatic but unqualified candidate??"why, indeed...)--
It's not the "why do people vote the way they do" type of stuff I consider religious poppycock. It's the arguments/tactics that politicians use to get votes that I consider religious poppycock. Any idiot can tell you why people have voted the way they do. It's because the reason why they make their choice is often so poor that my social conscience tends to wilt. It's difficult for me to sympathize with a society that makes choices based on irrational motivations. (And then have the nerve to bitch after they find that their political decisions didn't pan out).
--Science may be more precise, but at the same time, it's a limitation that bores a great many people... it's too bad most geeks such as yourself think that that's the end, not the beginning.--
I agree that it's a beginning. But barely anyone even bothers to begin there. Actually, I think many people aren't interested in Science or Math because they don't like a subject which can prove that they are wrong. It's tough for some people to admit their mistakes. And because of that, we get politicians who can twist and double-talk until they make it seem like they are right without even knowing what they're doing. IMHO, people who are interested in science/math/computers would be a lot less likely to do so.
Happy people make bad consumers.
I have translated the authors comments into standard techno geek:
These young whipersnappers! They are so full of themselves. [Who is the author? The angry old man?]
These techno geeks are mostly male and have a chip on their shoulder. This is true because I quoted someone else here.
These young kids don't know what work is, why in my day I had to work 18 hour shifts, two a day! And we only got paid with dirt.
This new generation sold out for security. [Ignore all the GNU software that they are giving away for free.]
I don't like techno people because they know more about computers than I do and make fun of me for it. [*pointing* Look at the funny lady... *Ha Ha Ha!*
These techno people have no political issues. Oh yeah, they believe in freedom of speech.
Technoids think that all the institutions have failed them, but haven't come up with any new institutions. [what about slashdot? usenet? email? pgp? openssl?]
The techno culture doesn't use traditional institutions, they made up their own and this means that they have no understanding of history. [The Luddites are comming! The Luddites are comming!]
We are talking to ourselves while the old ignorant old men who actually run things are doing what they want. [Those old men will do what they want anyway.]
The unwashed masses are caught between the ignorant old men and the techies. [Those poor ignorant people, why won't anyone help them? ]
We don't contemplate our own navels enough. [Can't we just criticise each other? Isn't that almost the same thing?]
Traditional political agendas aren't flexible enough for the mass of individuals who make up the internet. [Duhhh!]
Technology and Corporations [those who create the technology in the first place?] are the leading political powers.
The techno savy don't understand that the techo ignorant won't take the time to learn. [Those poor people. Maybe we can just pass a law or something.]
Most computer users are so ignorant that they think gnomes carry the data from their hard drives to their TV thingies. And this is the fault of the techies for not being better teachers. [I appologise. *Sob*]
Individuals are vulnerable to organized groups. [Duhh!]
People who run around like Chicken Little are ignored or even made fun of. [Baiting fanatics is my favorite sport!]
I think that we can use technology to make individuals who don't agree on anything more policially powerful than organized groups. [I don't think that this is ever going to happen.]
Life is politics. [Life is what you make of it.]
-- Never make a general statement.
On the contrary, many people here are trying to stand up to greedy megacorporations (M$, RIAA, MPAA, etc). It's the public at large that has in general 'rolled over' for them.
Granted, we only seem to be standing up to those corporations which directly affect us as a group, but at least we are doing something.
Oh please! Who is John Galt?
I'm tired of people wanting us to apologize or feel guilty for talent, knowledge, and ableness! There is no guilt in being competent, nor is there guilt in reeping the benefits of your own competence.
The cheese culture is becoming a elitist society with no coherent political values, poorly prepared to deal with real politicians, who pass real laws like the DMCA."How could they take my Cheesester away?" lamented one recent cheesemailer.A new book by journalist Paulina Borsook takes an even sharper look at cheeseno-narcissism and hostility.The cheese culture, she says, is at times self-centered and selfish.
In Borsook's Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through The Terribly Cheesy Culture of High cheese, published by Public Affairs, Borsook takes aim at the Social Darwinism of the cheese culture, at its lack of empathy for human beings -- especially the cheesenologically primitive and impaired.In this world she finds much hostility and paranoia, a world of "testosteroncheesepoisoned guys with chips on their shoulders and too much time on their hands." Ouch.
She has a point, and it's hard to write for Slashdot and not wince at the above description.This is a narcissistic civilization with a mean streak, fat and lazy and arrogant from years of uninterrupted opportunity, innovation and peace, thriving from years of neglect by unknowing and entrenched institutions.Values and political systems are often forged in turmoil and difficulty, but people who've grown up in and around cheesenology have seen an almost unbroken stretch of growth, innovation and prosperity.Jefferson wrote that in times of peace and prosperity, there is little need for politics.Not surprisingly, this cheeseno-civilization has little interest in the political systems that still dominate society, so it radically underestimates their power and has an inflated sense of its own.
Having known only one reality, the young and cheeseno-savvy can't quite imagine any other.But the political systems that dominate society have a keen interest in them, as a host of new laws, regulations and legal initiatives are already demonstrating, from the FBI's cheese-sniffing program "Dairyvore" to the Digital Millennium Gouda Act.
As a social grouping -- despite the handful of protestors who made their way to Seattle and struggle to form public interest groups online and off -- this culture has by and large rolled over for greedy megacorporations in exchange for full employment and cheesenological capital.That makes it a vulnerable society too, unprepared for the assaults just around the corner."How could they take my Cheesester away?" as that cheesemail wailed."Who did it? Where did they come from?"
As a culture, it mistakes mechanical skills -- like using a milk machine-- with cheesenological knowledge and power.It tolerates an alarming amount of hostility and abuse, both of which make any political communications -- at least those in public -- nearly impossible.
If it has any common ideology, it honors innovation, economics and freedom -- the freedom to speak openly and to be prosperous.In fact, prosperity and the acquisition of cheesenology have become this society's hallmark; it doesn't really have any other principles.
The cheeseno-young correctly grasp that many of the country's seminal institutions -- politics, journalism, education -- have failed them and the larger society.But nobody seems to have given much thought to what might replace them, or to how they might defend themselves against increasingly encroachments from the off-line world.
Since this particularly gifted society created its social revolution quite apart from politics, education, even most adults, it has no sense of history and little memory, which creates another point of vulnerability; to be ignorant of the past is to be defenseless against the future.The cheeseno-world eschews even the most marginal understanding of the tortured history of cheesenology, the awareness that periods of cheesenological advancement are always followed by periods of fear and retrenchment.
From the Greeks to the the Enlightenment philosophers to Thomas Jefferson to Albert Einstein, some of the world's greatest thinkers have argued that to have knowledge is to struggle to understand the relationship between what you know and what you do.If they're right, we're in trouble.We have no common agenda.We stand for nothing.We take actions based on tiny nodes of specialized information.Granted an unprecented opportunity to speak, we have not bothered to learn how to listen.Our freedom to speak out becomes illusory when most of us are shouting into a void, because nobody really cares what we say.Meanwhile, the real social and political agendas are being set by older people with little knowledge of cheesenology, working out of l9th century institutions corrupted by grocery store money.
That leaves the average citizen -- the prime user of cheesenology -- caught in an intolerable position, between a cheesenological elite moving rapidly past them on the one hand, and an ignorant power structure making foolish laws and uncomprehending responses on the other.As a society, we have no means of grasping the bigger picture, the purpose being the things we do, the moral rationale for the way we live and work.
In 1159, a philosopher-noble named John of Salisbury helped revive the then- dormant notion of individualism.He challenged his society to achieve self-scrutiny and understanding."Who," he asked, "is more contemptible than he who scorns knowledge of himself?"
It's a great question.Cheese Hording and conservatism have been discredited, Cheesyism seems rigid and stagnant.In fact, conventional political ideologies seem far too narrow and inflexible for these times.Individualism seemed the right idea for John of Salisbury's time, and it might be even more relevant to ours, given that it fits the Net ethos like a glove, from the hackers to the cypherpunks to the open source progrmmers.And it's the only possible antidote to life in country evolving steady towards a grocery store rather than democratic republic.
Cheesenology has become the world's most interesting and ascending social force.No ideology -- with the possible exception of breadism -- is stronger or spreading more rapidly.The frequently idealistic generation that designed the Internet -a diverse collection of dairymen, cheese-gurus, philosophers, milkmen, herds, geeks, communalists and freecheesethinkers -- is yielding power and influence to the inhabitants of the Second Generation Internet, the first generation to grow up with networked computing.This new cheeseno-generation takes for granted startling realities -- the ready availability of much of the archived information and entertainment in the world.
This cheeseno-elite, taking sophisticated knowledge of cheesenology for granted, has lost touch with the vast numbers of people in the world -- the elderly, the poor, foreign-born -- who don't share their skills and confidence."Anybody can get an blue cheesemail program," JOEB7 cheesemailed me last week."Why all the whining about privacy?"
JOEB7 doesn't seem to know that the vast majority of people have never even heard of blue cheesemail programs, let alone used them.Such people dominate the most powerful and vital subculture in the world, but have no coherent political values beyond a nearly universal contempt for the one in place.
We think the individual's primary responsibility is to speak freely and become prosperous.Neither of those are small or inconsequential things, but as a cultural or social philosophy, they ring hollow.They promote cynicism, hostility, alienation, superiority, and most of all, they leave this culture vulnerable to better organized and powerful elites -- media, Congress, corporations.This may be inevitable, but it's worrisome.
We hear political truth daily -- we are vaguely conscious of threats to privacy, the looming menace of genetic and other cheesenologies, poorly made, unnecessary and overpriced cheesenology, challenges to the environment, human dignity, etc.-- but don't much want to deal with them.People worried about these issues are derided -- in this cheeseno-culture as crackpots and extremists.We either laugh at them or dismiss them.
Democracy and freedom aren't about prosperity.You can be poor and quite free.Democracy is about the legitimacy of the individual, whose voice and vote should count for more than any other single interest or group.cheesenology can either be the vehicle through which those voices are rcheesedemocratized, or it can provide the tools through which breadism can generate even more money.
This is an intensely political choice -- a decision -- even if many of the people most involved have no idea they are making it every day of their lives.
love is just extroverted narcissism
This is an executive summary for those that fell asleep after the first paragraph.
"Blah, blah, blah, nothing meaningful."
Geez, I'm starting to agree with everyone about Katz.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
"last time I checked, the housing market was open in SF to whoever could afford it"
That's exactly it. Few native San Franciscans can afford it anymore. And those dot-commers don't care about the neighborhoods they live in. Damn gentrification!
joel
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
"And few New Yorkers cannot afford Manhattan. "
Don't get me started on Manhattan. I used to live there. Giuliani's just about made Manhattan a theme park for rich people to live in.
When we couldn't afford to live in Manhattan, we moved to Brooklyn. Now, Starbucks and Barnes&Nobles is popping up on every other corner of Brooklyn.
Me? I totally sold out. Got a tech job and bought a condo in Jersey. Sure, it's noble to be a starving artist and eschew crass materialism, but there's no future in it. So, I got all Tyler Durden and live on swedish furniture.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
What I find interesting is that because we (geeks, engineers, whatever) work with computers, we are creative, we understand the value of independent knowledge and thinking, we value skills and innovation, and we have (mostly) explicit standards of judgment. Thus we (often) do not belong to the crowd who deny the correlation between freedom, innovation, productivity, integrity, rational self-interest, and independence (mostly what so-called "libertarians" care about).
Please do read a very cogent review of cybersilliness at Reason -- starting thus: "This is a bad book, unlearned in its titular subject, petulant, and poorly argued. It is tempting simply to dismiss it and move on. Despite its shoddy quality, [it] is not irrelevant. Far from it. The book is fascinating as a case study in the reasoning and psychology behind opposition to the mix of individualism and anti-statism that characterizes contemporary libertarian thought."
Then make up your own mind.
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson
Sure, doctors have the AMA, lawyers have the BAR association, and I am sure every profession has organizations that are involved in politics. But these professional groups mostly look after their own interests and are not selflessly pursuing a just world. Why are geeks held to such a standard? Doctors are not criticized because not everyone decided to make the years of sacrifices needed to get through medical school. Some people are willing to sacrifice some present indulgence in order to learn useful skills and knowledge, whether it be IT or some other profession. Often, people who are willing to make some sacrifices are rewarded financially. Those who want instant gratification and are not willing to devote themselves to learning something useful are likely to suffer financially. That is the way of the market. It is not any more reasonable to expect geeks to have a unified front fighting for social justice then it is to expect any other profession to have such a front.
Which laws should be enacted?
Who should benefit, and at the cost of whom?
These are the questions people argue about, but never cut to the true core of the problem.
The leftish, Democrat-ish types will argue for a stronger state to implement social programs, greater tax rates on higher income levels, government spending on environmental programs, etc.
The rightist, Republican-ish types will argue for a stronger state to implement tax cuts and breaks for corporations, development of federal land by developers and industry, etc.
The problem is that government should take NEITHER of the above roles. The proper function of Government is to act as policeman - protect people from criminals, domestic and abroad.
When you have a situation where 51% of the people can vote away the rights of 49%, because the government has wide-reaching, long arms, then you are in for disaster. The way to protect people from abuse of Governmental authority is to remove the authority.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Right. And then a buncha Silicon Valley geeks and dot-commers raised housing prices so high they all had to move out.
I agree with almost everything you say but I have to take issue with one of your statements:
"Americans are lazier than most cultures"
I don't know about that. I rather thought we were workaholics. From what I understand, Americans work more hours per year than just about anyone else in the world. Americans often work to the detriment of other aspects in their lives (caring for their children, vacation time, etc). If anything, Americans probably need to work less.
Then again, I've never lived anyplace besides America. Can anyone with a broader perspective shed some light on this?
PS: Good point about getting another job within hours if you decide your monitor isn't big enough... I forwarded it to all my friends. True, true.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
For some reason, the whole thing reminds me of a joke that went "If you remember the '60s, you weren't really involved." But is it really a joke in this case? Or is this actually a masterful bit of insight?
Has anyone actually READ the whole thing cover-to-cover? Someone who can goive an objective review? (Ya, right, look at the crowd I'm asking!)
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
I agree with most of what you say - I'd moderate you as Insightful if I hadn't been handed 0 modpoints to do it with :-(
Back to the topic of how computers improve our lives: You make many good points but unfortunately, all is not well. While most peoples' lives have been improved in many ways, some parts of our lives have been made worse. I'm thinking about government bureaucracy (sp?). Today it seems like too many systems have been replaced with nested if-statements, leaving little or no room for civil servants to make their own call about some situation. True, there have always been narrow-minded civil servants, but nowadays it seems like the norm. "Gee, your situation, as horrible as it may be, doesn't fit any of the 5 choices in my listbox - I can't help you!" is all too common. Naturally, it could be argued that the program is seriously flawed, which is probably true. That's not the point. The point is rather that to the non-geeks running the real world (they do, actually) the computer is/becomes
- A menace, since they don't understand them
- An authority that they're told is never wrong (sometimes by people like you and me)
- An easy way to cover their asses - "the computer told me to do so, so I can't be blamed even though common sense tells me to do the opposite"
So from time to time, I silently wonder if not the world would be a better place if some people used their minds instead of their keyboards.BTW, I'm not as old as it may sound - 31, in fact. And in case you're wondering, deduce which government I'm referring to from my email address :-)
Black holes are where God divided by zero
Few Americans have even the most remote concept of what it is like to earn a living in a "third world" country. This nation is great in some ways and lacking in many others. It is perhaps the most narcissistic of countries, and yet, it is a country whose foundation was borne of immigrant labor. Few surviving people are truly "Americans." We all belong here because no one (with the exception of Native Americans) is really from here at all. And not one fucking person here is better than anyone else. God, I hate ignorance.
heidi
First paragraph of the review:
"This is a bad book, unlearned in its titular subject, petulant, and poorly argued. It is tempting simply to dismiss it and move on. Despite its shoddy quality, however, Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High-Tech is not irrelevant. Far from it. The book is fascinating as a case study in the reasoning and psychology behind opposition to the mix of individualism and anti-statism that characterizes contemporary libertarian thought."
I quite astounded really, JonKatz has actually written a very informative, thought-provoking piece of political apathy of geeks/hackers/whatever. I find the constant libertarian stance taken by editors of both this fine news site, as well as others involved heavily in technology (the editors at hackernews.com seem particularly fond of Ayn Rand) to be quite annoying. Many people call those of socialist/communists/leftist persuasion idealist, just take a look at what the libertarians want! A world dominated (even more so) by gigantic corporations because the 'open markets' would benefit humanity? Bullshit! Haven't you people ever read Animal Farm? Dissolution of government would only create a plutocracy run by those with deep economic pockets. When are people going to realize that the greatest tool for freedom is not the computer/internet/crypto but *democracy*. You geeks want to protect privacy, free speech and all of your other inalienable rights? Get off the keyboard and go take charge of your government and your life.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
I agree with the description, but not the implication that we are nasty no-lifes.
;-)
I'm selfish when I decide what projects I work on, but those projects have a high level of re-use unlike most non-techie hobbies. So I think it's unfair to label techies as selfish because they don't directly help people. Witness the vast number of FAQs, HOWTOs and forums. Look at all the game mods and freeware available? Call that selfish?
I'm hostile to newbies who expect me to do stuff for them. It's a one-way street guys! We do stuff because we like to. It's cool if you happen to benefit from that as well, but don't ever assume you are entitled to anything!
Given the techie demographic, I'm not surprised that Ms Journalist has decided to use us for her politically-inspired headkicking. I dare her to front an audience of female geeks and call them selfish and ugly. Now that would be hostile!
The very first sentence of this piece begins with the phrase: "The tech culture is becoming a elitist society with no coherent political values". It is right here that Katz's argument begins to fall apart for me.
First of all, is this suggesting that there was a point in time in which the tech culture did have a set of distinct political values, but have since disgarded them? If this is case, I sure as heck don't remember it.
Also, I'm not certain that the solution to the very real problems that Katz refers to can or should be solved by the "tech culture." Many of the problems of selfishness, political ignorance, apathy, and the like are elements of society at large, and certainly not particular to folks that work with computers. What is the point of singling out the computer culture, here? Isn't it a little arrogant to say to the Slashdot crowd "we should no better." Why should we be expected to know better than anyone, else? Doesn't this sort of attitude stink of the sort of elitism you were criticizing?
I would love to see the Tech Culture become politically conscious and active, just as I would love to see everyone else in the country do the same. I think, however, that when you expect a group as large and diverse as the "Tech Culture" come together with a single set of coherent political values, you may be asking a bit too much.
In this world she finds much hostility and paranoia, a world of "testosterone-poisoned guys with chips on their shoulders and too much time on their hands." Ouch.
I had to start with this. It sounds like she is envious, but doesn't understand that we work for a living. [sarcasm]We all know that geeks are "tesosterone poisoned"[/sarcasm] When was the last time you heard of a geek beating his wife?
I also love how Katz is lameting the fact that we have no unified philosophy/politics. The truth is neither does any group. Unlike those of us on the internet, their individuality gets subverted. Katz is basically complaining we are individuals.
This techno-elite, taking sophisticated knowledge of technology for granted, has lost touch with the vast numbers of people in the world -- the elderly, the poor, foreign-born -- who don't share their skills and confidence.
WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN/MINORITIES/(insert some other group here)? That is what Katz is basically saying. If the "foriegn born" aren't using technology, then how come so many of us work with them or are them?
There are plenty of references to corporatism just like any other Katz article. I would be suprised that Columbine wasn't mentioned somewhere, but Katz suddenly decided to attack geeks this time. The KatzBot is either malfunctioning or was trying to gain our trust first.
She has a point, and it's hard to write for Slashdot and not wince at the above description. This is a narcissistic civilization with a mean streak, fat and lazy and arrogant...
We love you too, Jon.
xxooxxoo
I despise Katz and his poorly-considered rants. What gives me hope is the sheer number of people who flame him. So long as every Katz post is met with the criticism it so richly deserves, that means good taste is alive somewhere in the world, and I can sleep easily. And wtf did he mean by asserting that kernel programming is a mere mechanical skill, implying that it has no more creativity involved than fixing a faucet? I think it is an open question at this point if the man has ever written a line of code in his whole life, which would be sort of rich considering how he's trying to claim to understand "geeks" so perfectly. There's art in coding, Jon - go read "The Mythical Man-Month" and flip to the part where programming is described as "building castles in air." That is the best description of the intrinsic beauty of programming that I've ever seen. -Patrick Hearon
Honk if you've killfiled JonKatz!
I've never hears such a steaming pile of B.S. Geeks/technologists are selfish? WHAT? Considering this is a Katz essay, I'm surprised there is no mention of the "corporatist" types, as well as the typical stock-buying citizen, who is/are comparatively technologically ignorant but far, FAR more greedy and self-centered than your typical technologist. As Robert Bly once said, "Most people spend their lives stumbling from one McDonald's to the next." Most people don't think, most people are Homer Simpson, most people want the lolly being dangled in front of their face because they can't see any further, and that lolly is currently the "Internet economy," whatever that is ... hey Joe, ah reckon ah better grab me up some o' that Amazon stock, so'in ah kin git me dat new big screen TV in a couple years. It seems to me that labeling the technological community as selfish is a lame response by people (such as Ms. Borsook) who don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to tech issues, who feel lost and left behind, but who still want to gather up the lollies. Sick and disgusting.
we need to organize, and be heard, the first step would be to represented in government, there must be a couple of nerds out there with some people skills, it should be easy to get a representative from the valley into the house, and maybe one in the cal state legislature, one smart geek could spoil the bunch, if all this congressman did was hang around with the speaker, teach him how to use a linux box, and give him handhelds, then it would all be worthwhile (hey the greens have a party, what about the techs) as for the thing about history and our demise, we are in denial, because if we dont charge forward blindly, we arent moving at all
"Sorry, but I don't there's anything charming about ignorance and carelessness." -LordNimon
Maybe some people get lucky, but it's the exception.. If you have the right work ethic and bust your ass you can go from the street to being a millionaire in a matter of a few years! My best friend didnt even graduate highschool! He did/sold drugs and hung out... he got a tech support job one day... loved it... learned HTML... now he does sys admin and codes and makes over 6 figures... 3 years later!!! from doing dishes and selling drugs to making 6 figures in 3 years! Its all about the person, not some bullshit luck or fate..
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
I really feel for Jon. He's trying to teach to a group of people who are really just waiting for their chance to talk. Its getting so I can predict exactly what people are going to say in their posts after reading of of his article. Are they going to:
a) pointlessly debate some small detail while ignoring his overall point.
b) rush to point out some trivial inacurracy and use it to prove their own self-worth and Jon's lack of same.
c) make some comment about Jon's general views and how pompous he always is, while ignoring whatever the subject of the particular article is.
Or some combination thereof.
I'm tired of this. I often agree with a lot of what you say Jon, but find somewhere else to editorialize from. Slashdot isn't that place anymore. Maybe it never was.
Spyrral
Oooo, a Nietzsche quote! And he picked such an underused one, too!
I would like to point out that having less to do, generally speaking, has not really improved the life of most Americans. A large portion of the population under age 25 don't know what to do with themselves if they aren't working or going to school.
At some point in the next few hundred years, the majority of the world population will probably have very little to do. Perpetual summer vacation.
No doubt there will be legions of artists and plenty of explorers pushing at the frontiers, but what of the rest of humanity?
At this point much effort is dedicated to improving the world around us, but not much toward improving ourselves.
I just hope that our education plans for the future will focus more on teaching children how to think and reason, and to think about why they do what they do, and what they ought to be doing. Perhaps they will learn that life isn't necessarily always about working less, but often about enjoying the work (of course, finding better ways to work is work in itself, but there is a logical end to the progression of reducing human workload).
I'm not expressing anti-technology sentiments here, I think it will be a great day when all people no longer have to work to survive (as opposed to working solely because they like the work), I'm just concerned that when that time comes, people will not be ready for it.
First, it should be obvious that anybody that calls another group selfish only believes this because that group isn't doing what the person that called them selfish wanted them to do. Second, Paulina Borsook writes "testosterone-poisoned guys with chips on their shoulders and too much time on their hands." but yet complains "tech culture, at its lack of empathy for human beings". Yes, I can see how us "testosterone-poisoned guys with chips on their shoulders and too much time on their hands." need to learn empathy, maybe she can help. Of course Katz agrees with this reasoning by "She has a point, and it's hard to write for Slashdot and not wince at the above description. This is a narcissistic civilization with a mean streak, fat and lazy and arrogant from years of uninterrupted opportunity, innovation and peace, thriving from years of neglect by unknowing and entrenched institutions." Very Nice. There seems to be complaints about techies lack of politics, this is what the world really needs more politics. Politics effect *us* techies, but we all know techies bring in the bread. And because of this politics will never go as far as to cause irreversable damage, DMCA is bad, but it isn't critical. Katz writes about techies lack of principals, well if having two principals such as freedom and tolerance (techies seem more tolerant of non-techis than vice-versa) is lacking then they are also the most important. ???? And that techies don't give to charity, well look at the current economy. Seems techies are a little to busy improving the standard of life to give to charity.??? Katz pendulum has shifted, first it was the poor maligned geeks now its "This is a narcissistic civilization with a mean streak, fat and lazy and arrogant..." lonine self-centered as can be
Jon suggests that individualism is one cure to the purposelessness of the technical community, but perhaps the problem is too much individualism. The technical community lacks a common political ideology to make it a cohesive political force. Nerds (and I count myself as one)can't work together in any group larger than what it takes to make an operating system. When it comes to something like Linux this can be impressive, but it can't match to political force of the Democrats or Republicans. The technical community is too cynical to follow any charismatic leader who can successfully present and pass reasonable legistation. Bill Gates, like many in the technical community, simply chose to ignore the government. The government didn't appreciate that, and brought down the hammer. The same thing is happening with Napster. If the government is ignored it will enslave you. Perhaps if the technical community could try to find a common bond and put aside some of its famous cynicism, it could make a difference politically. But this requires a little less individualism and more teamwork.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Borsook @ Keplers
For all you San Francisco Penisula /.'ers, Borsook is speaking about her book at Keplers independent bookstore, TODAY, at 7.30pm.
Winton
i can just see the flames coming to katz for this one...
but i think it is quite true.
although i go to a lib arts college, i still see in my comp sci classes people who are totally ignorant and apathetic to current political situations... that is, until something that directly affects them comes along.
being one of the leaders of the glbt (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender)-straight alliance at my school, i see this in other political areas as well. next to maybe the business students, the students in the math & science building are the least interested in our events or causes. we frequently take part in poster hanging throughout the buildings, and next to the student union building and other "public" areas, posters and flyers in the math & science building are torn down faster than any other academic building. (and we do anticipate people tearing down flyers with any non-straight themes, but it is disturbing nonetheless).
with all of this supposed anti-geek witchhunting going on since (and before) columbine, i cant help but think of the problems the gay community has endured... imagine having laws that bar geeks from marrying? imagine being pistol whipped just for being a geek? imagine people picketing the funerals of geeks with signs saying "social inepts deserve to die!!" its sick.
i always complain that for the most part libertarians upset me more than the hardcore conservatives because the libertarians, if they cared, might be somewhat supportive on social legislation, but they dont.
apathy is a terrible plague. and its even worse when the only times a person isnt apathetic is when something directly affects them. its greedy and selfish and unfortunate.
i cannot help but remember the story ive heard numerous times in regards to the holocaust and the man who wouldnt help the jewish people when nazis were taking them away, and then finally when they came to take him away, there was nobody left to help.
thank you katz for finally calling the slashdot community on their selfish politics and elitist attitudes.
-jason ronbeck
Wow, most of the responses to this article actually proved the point of the article. Its sad to think one of the few breaths of fresh air around here get yelled at with such dimwitted responses. One of you responded that "Geeks have wildly diffrent views on freedom (BSD vs. GPL). " if this guy thinks that the differing views on the GNU GPL, and the FreeBSD software licence constitute an interrest in democratic freedom I should just shoot myself NOW and get the suffering overwith. My god you people.
So every sub(group|culture) should have a coherent political values to be considerat non-elitist and ok. One of the major good points with the internet is that anyone that want can become a accepted member even if they are black, jewish, porr, rich, with, gay, whatever and keep their political values, cultures and so forth and still be able to communicate with everyone else.
Does this mean that the author of this book want to force everyone to have his/her values? Or is he/she just ignorant and only listens to scripkiddies and other "new" net-people that are good att making themself heard?
He/she maybe should read the Jargon files..
Be careful
The techno-elite are young. We grow up and get wise.
I am one of these elitists that you claim is selfish and arrogant.
I admit. At times I am arrogant and selfish. I was written off by the educational system. I was labeled as retarded or slow. I was never "popular", had glasses, pimples, long greasy hair, social outcast, and grew up in the 70's.
I am older and wiser now!
I now have a BS in Information Systems and Management. It took 10 years to achieve!
I'm married and have adopted children.
I work for an engineering firm designing wireless networking hardware.
You say "Big deal!".
I have worked hard. Harder than 98% of you out there.
I have a learning disability and have busted my ass all my life to learn a trade and how to be a part of "society". I have taken my place in "society" as a productive, caring and contributing citizen and more. And just think your generation had written me off as retarded and slow and of no worth.
I think you have mislabeled self confidence and pride in ones accomplishments as arrogance!
Yes I can be arrogant. I have a right to be! I have worked hard! Really hard!
I think you are afraid of "the next generation".
We have watched and learned.
We will be the ones in power.
We will be the ones making and passing laws and controlling your destiny when you are too old and crippled to wipe your own but!
You have taught us well. Through your own intolerance and impatience.
Don't expect mercy when none was shown!
"People need reset buttons"
"People need reset buttons"
There are only two things that can destroy a nation.
Peace. & Prosperity
Without conflict we become lazy and placid.
"People need reset buttons"
Libertarians truly disappoint me. Some of them pretend to be anarchists (with the label "individualist anarchist") but are really too chicken and too intellectually vapid to understand what anarchism is really about (anti-authoritarianism, and being against any form of power structure; corporate/psychological/state/etc.) Others are people recovering from fundamental Christianity who've turned to objectivist/rationalist and atheist ideology (an extreme reverse) to fulfil the same pathological craving for a dogma to be impassioned about. That's pretty lame, too, IMHO.
Shit, if you're going to be anti-government why not be anti-corporate? And if you're going to be logical and clear thinking why embrace the irrational values of Rationalism? And if you're going to read fiction as a basis for your political beliefs...well, you might as well go back to the Bible or Dianetics, for that matter. Get out of the psychological backwater of Colonialist Rationalism! And stop handing out those stupid charts, because I'm not on it!
Anarchism Links from DMOZ
[pink beam of light]
Even more ludicrous was her essay in Salon regarding the supposed fall of San Francisco - Borsook seems to forget that hippies and art types hijacked the city only a generation before - she's simply annoyed with the fact that this time she's on the receiving end of the boot. The bulk of San Francisco's history is that of a rough western town - not a glorified art colony.
Rand was a great thinker, but perhaps the worst published novelist of the twentieth century.
This 'new culture' they claim us 'geeks' are creating is just a way that soceity at large can classify what they don't understand. So they put us in a seperate flock, generalize us, and, depending on the person's expeirences with tech people, that person will either see 'geeks' as saviors of a failing old world, or mystics here to bring doom. When in reality, we mostly just want to be looked on as the people we really are, not some pawns in an e-commerce game.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Democracy and freedom aren't about prosperity. You can be poor and quite free. Democracy is about the legitimacy of the individual, whose voice and vote should count for more than any other single interest or group.
Crap.
Democracy and freedom are barely related. Democracy is just a way of choosing leaders. As Churchill said, it's the worst possible system, except for all the others. America isn't about democracy, it's about freedom. That's why the Bill of Rights begins with the five most beautiful words in the language, "Congress shall make no law..."
As you said, you can be poor and free. Most folks would find that preferable to being comfortable in chains. I'd rather be a starving artist with the freedom to do what I want than a postal worker with a guaranteed (dull) lifetime job.
I'm distantly related to a family of hunters and woodsmen whose entire concept of human worth is built upon outdoor survival skills. They won't waste a minute of their time conversing with anyone who can't kill and dress game, find shelter in the woods, reload rifle cartridges, or identify which of hundreds of species of plants are safe to eat.
I used to know an auto mechanic who lives in total contempt of people who can't rebuild an engine. Honestly. He sneers at his customers as "stupid," mocks anyone with less knowledge of automobiles than he possesses, and generally carries on like automotive knowledge is the end-all, be-all measure of intelligence.
A buddy of mine introduced me to his Marine Corps drill sergeant, a gung-ho bull of a fellow who can barely conceal his disdain for "civilians." He'll use any excuse to steer a conversation toward his military experiences, at which point he'll hold forth for hours on how only military service teaches the perspective necessary to make adult decisions. Anyone who disagrees with his views on this or any other subject is "soft" and needs "discipline."
Notice a pattern forming here?
What Borsook is commenting upon in her book is not the entirely appropriate pride technical people take in their skills, but the tendency we all have to exaggerate the importance and applicability of what we know. She's not busting on techies for valuing what they know, but for the naked contempt some members of the fraternity show towards those with less (or no) technical expertise, and for the arrogant assumption that technical knowledge grants superior moral authority to comment on how technology should be used.
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
cast not your fruit before swine
Listen -- those who wish to be active, healthy participants in society will do so, regardless of their occupation, interests, or hobbies. I'm beyond tired of hearing about geeks' inability to socialize, their unwillingness to pitch in for the common good, etc.; this is simply a sad but true observation for the better part of modern society. Where are the statistics to back up such sweeping, condemning statements? I have yet to see a single study that actually showed that those who worked in tech were more likely to be assholes that those who worked in, say, high-end sales, or law, or any other potentially lucrative field.
So take your random whining elsewhere, and come back when there's something other than your righteous indignation to justify these offensive generalizations.
People have discovered the Net culture. They don't like what they see. There is much bitching and moaning. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
There's very little chance to be an individual in the /. herd. You are either a karma whore, troll, or just a waste of everyone's time. That's all people see here anyway. Listening to Katz will just further the brain washing and make you all subjects to his pseudo-world! He sucks!
Jon Katz - the worlds biggest waste of time and bandwith.
>Don't worry, Jon. She didn't mean you. :) Yes she did, he's an ass.
Jon Katz - the worlds biggest waste of time and bandwith.
Andy Rooney's commentary about his aches and pains are far more insightful and interesting than anything that Katz has ever posted.
Jon Katz - the worlds biggest waste of time and bandwith.
And don't forget: Katz sucks! | | V
Jon Katz - the worlds biggest waste of time and bandwith.
Actually, democracy is about mob rule, or pandering to the lowest common denominator. Individual rights are granted through a constitutional republic, not a democracy. What you said is a contradiction. Democracy directly subsumes individual rights in favor of group rights. A small, but important distinction if you ever actually try to use your rights instead of theorize about them.
And, the "democracy" codeword is used wherever corporate imperialist interests are focused (read "Global Capitalism"). Remember, the more democratic the world is, the safer it is to make money off your fellow man through whatever means possible.
Further, most of your "techno-elite" don't live in the real world, but a virtual one. Until they get their collective head out of the sand and actually use their freedoms, they will never know why they should fight for them. I'm betting that they don't (here in the USA). And, whatever freedoms they loose in the real world will just show up in the next shrink-wrapped version of reality for just $49.99!
Shut her down Clancy...She's a pumpin' mud!
Sure, maybe useless trinkets have become a minor social force. But the major inventions have always driven society. Something like, for instance, the Roman Empire, could have never have been built to its full extent without the technology that they developed, the aquaduct, the system of roads, etc. In the same way, computers will build our society.
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
"How could they take my (TV|radio|soma) away?"
Well, enough with the pointless comparisons. I have a couple of issues with what JonKatz says:
- Technology hasn't "become" a social force. It's been a social force since the beginning of what we call "civilization", which is really technology-based. Look at games like Sid Meier's Civilization. You can't play without tech development.
- Libretarianism and individualism are only professed by this collective because it's what suits them. It's about the group needs of the people:
Issues on Slashdot tend to be driven by this group ideal as much as anywhere else; it's a place where it's cool to be anti-Echelon and anti-DMCA. What if I'm anti-Echelon, but pro-Carnivore? What if I think that the DMCA ain't such a bad idea? Individual thought needs to be embraced in any society where we wish idealistic progress to happen. We can't have two straw-man positions.- The need to look "cool", to impress specific peers
- The need to be in a "in crowd", to impress a group
- In general, the need for group acceptance and conformaty, to impress all of your peers.
These needs are what drive people to do things like download songs off of Napster. Some people do GB's of MP3's as a self-worth comparison. When people ask me how many GB I have, I'll tell them 0 - but would you like to look at my CD collection?Where's the complexity of your thoughts? Where can I express that Open Source is good in some areas, but in others some Closed Source software is better, and that Free Software might not ever be the best? Where can I truly be an individual? Certainly not slashdot, despite the hidden references in Katz's essay. Individual thought needs to be sustained, but making straw-man sides out of an issue suits nobody.
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
Ms. Borsook, who incidently is from the Bay Area, reminded me as the impetus for some of the Northern Calfornia "intellectuals" who attacked Randy in Neal Stephenson's "Crytonomicon". In an interview with her in the NYT she decried how much San Francisco has changed with the growing number of dotcom employees flooding the area. Too bad, honey. Alot of prissy whitefolks got mad when blacks moved into their neighborhoods (perish the thought!) and changed the landscape of America. Freedom of movement is one of those pesky little rights we have and the last time I checked, the housing market was open in SF to whoever could afford it, not to those who had your shared political viewpoint
Paulina Borsook is an old, media warthog who cannot wake up and smell the coffee and adjust and adapt to a changing world.
After reading this book, I came to the conclusion she wrote it after a particularly bad experience with some ISP's tech support department.
Fortunately, her audience consists of a gang of like-minded media elites who will slowly dwindle away. Watching the news lately, I realize more and more how little they grasp the world around them.
Why in the world SlashDot has an article on such a one-dimensional, cliche of a person's published works is beyond me. Perhaps we can discuss some of the rantings and Andy Rooney, next?
Heh-heh. Here's Emmett playing the accordion. Cmdr Taco bought a Who CD. Roblimo has a new girlfriend. Look at Jon Katz dressed up like a gladiator. heh-heh. We're so cute. Our little world must be so interesting to all of you. Look at all the little slashdotters who want to submit articles. heh-heh. let's make em beg a little bit. We are so elite. everyone wants to be like us... wouldnt it be neat if we had a slashdot building and we had free sodas and a foozeball table and a dog named slasher or dotcom or something like that? and we could take the website down for like 30 minutes or so a day and put up a page that says something like "CLosed while we play Quake III". it would almost be like we are working for a real company or something, heh-heh.
I was just speculating, no need to take it personally.
Why, when I was your age, we didn't talk back at our elders like that, sonny. (Kidding! Just kidding!)
In some cases, we've rescued old machines from the trash to get at their guts and get some sense of where our overpowered little toys came from.
It warms my heart to learn that kids are still "trashing" for gear like we did "back in the day". :)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
My point was that she was criticizing the "tech culture". Katz may be many things, but his columns at /. have more than fully demonstrated that he is not a techie, just somebody who writes about geeks from an outsider's perspective. That puts him clearly outside the scope of her comments.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Don't worry, Jon. She didn't mean you. :)
We have no common agenda. We stand for nothing. We take actions based on tiny nodes of specialized information.
I feel very strongly that this is a Good Thing.
Liberalism and conservatism have been discredited, Libertarianism seems rigid and stagnant.
It has not been demonstrated that either liberalism nor conservatism have been discredited, both thrive in modern culture. Also, Libertarianism does indeed seem rigid and stagnant, but it only seems so. Argue with somebody about Libertarianism in a coffee shop sometime and see how many people start getting interested and evesdropping.
Technology has become the world's most interesting and ascending social force.
After Sarah Michelle Gellar, yes.
No ideology -- with the possible exception of corporatism -- is stronger or spreading more rapidly.
Didn't you just get done explaining that technology is not an ideology? You were correct about that, why go back on it now? This is the paragraph where your column seems to have left the rails.
This techno-elite, taking sophisticated knowledge of technology for granted
Is the generation that grew up with all these toys in place really the techno-elite? Or is it the twentysomethings and thritysomethings that were hacking on 300-baud modems back in the 80's? I don't see a lot of geek culture among the set that grew up with Windows 95... but I could be wrong about that.
Technology can either be the vehicle through which those voices are re-democratized, or it can provide the tools through which corporatism can generate even more money.
Hmmm... Money or freedom, eh? I'd rather have both.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The defensive posture of many of the respondents to Jon's article is quite instructive. Indeed, his point "...to be ignorant of the past is to be defenseless against the future..." is bolstered by the feverish reactions of a very priviledged sector of the world's population (I myself am among them).
One respondent asserted how hard we geeks have worked to gain our technical expertise. "Tough Noogies" he says to those who lack an understanding such as his, because they are obviously lazy or stupid if they don't understand email encryption programs.
Most of my tech friends are white, male, middle-class 20-somethings, who benefitted from access to a CS department in some university, parents who paid for their first Commodore, and life in an advanced capitalist economy which values their tech skills. All too often they are unaware of the blood and sweat from which they directly benefit. Arrogantly, they talk of how hard they worked to get where they are.
I don't agree with Jon's praise of individualism, as it ignores the weight carried by those who toiled in some sweatshop to assemble everything from the boards in your PC to the shirt on your back to the coffee your drinking. There is an egregious arrogance in the tech community about the historical role of colonial subjugation, military brutality, and fierce labor exploitation in bringing us to our current state of technical comfort.
What is needed in the opensource community is not a focus on more individualism, but rather an emphasis on how our feelings about freedom of speech and information are directly related to realities of the global economy. What Jon described as a handful of protestors in Seattle was estimated by some to be almost 50,000 mostly peaceful demostrators who were taking to the streets in protest of what the corporations are doing to the planet.
Those of you concerned about freedom and democracy have a lot in common with the people protesting in Seattle, DC and now Philadelphia.
I'm not making any value judgements about whether this is better or worse, just pointing out that it's nothing really new, just on a much larger scale.
They really suck, but they do have a way of eroding one's illusions.
I don't have much faith in the welfare state. It concentrates too much power in the hands of the government. I've seen too much of human evil to ever trust a great concentration of power. I'm against both big business and big government, and people call me inconsistent. Huh?
I've got relatives who survived the great Depression. They taught me a thing or two about frugality and toughing it out, which was some help to me during the Ford and Carter era. But I'd rather learn how to be rich.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
Don't worry about Katz. He can dish it out, and he can take it too.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
No, really. Frequently the obvious needs saying, because everyone's managing to miss it somehow. I don't know why, exactly. Maybe people ignore the obvious on purpose.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
I had a recent conversation about a topic very similar to this on usenet. It is the lack of respect given to the technological elite. It started when a Windows user told a Linux/Unix person he was a geek because he understood some random bit of shell script. And it quickly degenerated....
Why does society insist that all people with technical knowledge are 'geeks', 'nerds', and other undersirable names. Society is quick to point the finger at the techno-elite when something goes wrong, yet they don't hesitate to grab up every last bit of new technology developed by the same techno-elite people. And this whole attitude that technology is driven by testosterone overdosed males is absurd. Technology is driven forward by people asking questions. We ask questions and go out of our way to find an answer. For this, we are frowned upon by the rest of society. We are labeled geeks, and told to lock ourselves in our server-rooms, network rooms, labs, etc. and to leave alone the 'normal people' unless we have something they can use.
What Katz seems to be saying here is that it is completely justified. That being someone that can understand technology is all the reason anyone would need to label us outcasts. That we should all just give up on being 'geeks' and normalize ourselves.
Frankly, I'm sick of it. Society frowns on me because of my knowledge. Yet this same society looks up to strippers and the morally depraved. And somehow we are considered 'beneath' them because we spend our time learning things that aren't considered 'normal'. Yeah, thanks everyone. It's great you consider me an ass for having some knowledge you don't consider necissary. It's necissary to me. And I'm sick of being told I'm a worthless bastard because of it.
At some point we will have to face the fact that the techno-elite of society are not always the most depraved and selfish of society. And the trend of the techno-elite becoming more selfish is simply a reflection of society at large. We are not so different from the rest. And some of us are different from eachother.
Sorry, another worthless rant to counter a worthless story about a worthless topic about us worthless geeks....
Bite my yammer.
I'm not sure I understand why libertarianism "seems rigid and stagnant," but I guess I'll take your word for it JonKatz.
Enough sniping. The governments we're dealing with here are far from ignorant. They appear to be so because it suits them. In reality, if you look at the gradual encroachment on privacy and individual citizen's rights, you can see that the government is not ignorant and certainly is not stupid. Rather, they are motivated by their own self-interests, and are slowly clenching us in an iron fist.
I've written about this time and time again: the government is not your friend. Large corporations are not your friend. Yet we routinely hand these organizations incredible amounts of power and expect them to use it to help us? Forget it. They are parasites, interested in keeping the host alive and nothing more.
The ignorance comes from pseudo-pundits who can't understand that this is the case. Their confused writings can only interfere with the clarity of our vision; rarely can they illuminate, rather than obscure.
Fight the Power.
www.alarmist.org
no matter what the scum trolls think, i still think jon katz is a very good journalist, and very thorough.
---
Believe it or not, keeping the quality of the content on Slashdot isn't up to Rob or Jamie or one of the Geeks in Space.. it's up to us. Just happy with what I see for a change...
First I want to say that I when I read Katz's articles I try not to allow them to rile me up because of the off base statements of fact he makes but this article really got to me. So I am going to start from the top of it and go.
In the first 2 paragraphs Katz talks about how are Cyber-Society is hostile, impatient with people who dont understand technology, and we have a chip on our collective shoulder. Katz says, "this is a narcissistic civilization with a mean streak, fat and lazy and arrogant".
As a response to that I would say that we were taught by The Best and we learned quickly from the tough lessons. We, the tech-heads,(or as my Father calls my friends and I: you nerds) did get raised by a generation of people who showed no care about the future we would live in, the environment, or the state of the nation when it would get passed to us. Instead they were more concerned about who had the biggest nuke and who could accumulate the most wealth. Or an apparent all time favorite of this nation's, see who we could oppress. I had the unique pleasure of being raised in a very religious family where I got to see how people in the conservative right feel about people that dont agree with their views. Quite frankly I am glad that I did not turn out like them and all the other 30-40 year olds complaining about how this generation doesn't respect them. What's there to respect?
As far as our political views and aspirations, you are right that many of us dislike politics. I don't think we dislike politics just to hate it. I personally like politics just not American politics, the people involved in it are almost allways thiefs and liars and that is why we dont like it. One thing about are generation and culture is that we do like the truth. Previous generations grew up being lied to by the government and dont seem to have any problem with. The politicians blatantly lie to them on the campaign trail and yet you still vote for them instead of choosing others or supporting others to run against them. I personaly would like to serve in Washington D.C. but the way the system has been set up you have to be a millionaire to have a chance to break in against the controlling incumbants and even then just 1 of us on the Hill won't make a difference and you older people of the previous generations don't listen to us because we are young and so how could we possibly be intelligent, understand the issues, and have any good ideas?
In the final 3rd of your essay you talk about the vast majority of the users of technology not really understanding it or using it to its full effect. Well that happens with most new and radical inventions.
As an example: A story my Grandfather told me that happened in the early 1900's prior to the use of home refrigeration everyone got their ice from a local plant that would make the ice and then deliver some to each home. Well my great-grandfather and his brother when they were in their early teens saw how the factory made the ice by useing fire to heat gas and then release the preassureized gas to make the ice. When they told their father he did not believe them because everyone KNEW that you CANNOT make ice from fire. He threatened to whip each of them for telling lies until they dragged him to the factory and showed him. He still didnot understand but he used the ice.
Hopefully from this response you can see why we the new generation dont really show any empathy for your generation Mr. Katz, we dont want to be like our parent generation because they represent almost everything we have come to hate: lies, discrimination, politicians, and mistrust.
Rich
About the getting a new job thing, it's true. I get at least two voicemails at home a day from recruiters trying to get me in to interview me. I also have picked up some skills that are really marketable that allow me to get a job easily without any certification or a degree.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
There are a couple fallacies in this statement. There are no jobs to protect since there is such a deficit of people working in the IT field. As I stated in my original post that you replied to, I get at least 2 calls a day from recruiters. There is such a rediculous shortage of people to work on computers that anyone that wants to hire me has to treat me like a king before I even consider interviewing them. The other thing wrong with your statement is this whole "Us vs. Them" idea of other countries. The U.S. is not at war with anyone right now, and these people come here to build a better life for themselves, not to hurt Americans. The only reason they are able to come here is because there are not enough Americans able and willing to do the jobs that are needed. If you had bothered to read my previous post you would understand a small portion of how difficult it is for people to obtain those visas. It can take years and is a very humiliating and expensive process. It's very often that people do not get their visa. It's also very true that the government tries to make it as difficult as possible for people to get. The other thing is that the U.S. was supposedly a place for people of all nationalities and backgrounds to come. Why are you against making the U.S. a better and more powerful country?
AS for Americans being lazy compared to people from other countries, that's also so much bullshit.
I do wish I could go back and remove that from my post. I do know that Americans work a lot more hours and with less vacation than people in most 1st world countries. My mind was running in many directions when I posted this. I was actually thinking of the people that work on farms and as janitors and in fast food: places that most Americans refuse to work due to reasons such as low pay and being treated badly. The fact is that people here would rather collect welfare or beg money on the streets than to get a job at McDonalds. A lot of the Americans that do get a job at McDonalds will be lazy and disrespectful. On the other hand, in the I.T. industry, you do have some of the most hard working, underappreciated people in the U.S. That goes for all the people in those jobs. I really should not have stated the lazy part.
Sure, workers from other countries may seem harder working, but they either must work the demanded hours or get their H1B yanked and they go back to India, Pakistan, China, or wherever.
You can't tell me that wasn't a racist statement. You are making vague generalizations about millions of people you know nothing about. To most people, their reason for working is to support their families and give them a nice life. It's not because they don't want to lose their SUV or get behind on their mortgage, it's because they want their family to survive. I don't see that as a bad reason to work, because personally if I had anyone other than myself to provide for I'd work a bit harder too.
I dunno about you buddy, but if I deal with a tech at another company I ALWAYS ask for a non-H1B visa holder.
Tech support is a different issue. I don't really consider that to be really working in the information technology field any more than a salesman. The purpose of a tech support person is to speak in a clear and concise manner that the customer can understand, and at least be able to relax them, then comes the part about solving problems and being able to transfer them to higher support if necessary. I agree with you that I don't want to talk to someone that can't speak my language in a tech support environment. That is because their main job is talking, and if they can't do it right they need fired. It would be the same as hiring someone who answers the phone with, "Microsoft Tech Support, this is Bob and you can kiss my ass!"
There are plenty of Americans in America to do the job without using imports.
This is where I tell you that what you said is bullshit. I have proof to the contrary. Just go to www.monster.com and see how many jobs are posted daily, a good number of which end up unfilled. And finally, you have to use imports to fill the majority of jobs. The Europeans killed most of the natives here so that leaves mostly white, black, oriental, arabic, etc. people to fill jobs here in the U.S.
You see, you are one of the people that this article was about. An elitist that doesn't really have a grasp of the world around them. If you really want to know what's going on, get to know some of these "foreigners" and you will see that they are no more foreign than yourself.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
In the I.T. industry, it is mostly people from India and China that I see coming to work in the U.S. from other countries. First of all, there is a very real I.T. worker shortage. If there wasn't, I would not be getting 2 to 3 phone calls a day with people wanting to interview me for a job. If one day I wake up and decide that the monitor I have at my current job isn't big enough to read slashdot in the size I want, I can go quit and have another job that afternoon. That's not bad for an white American male that dropped out of college and is not certified in anything. If you can't get a job in the I.T. industry, it is your fault by some other reason. Perhaps you need help working on your resume.
The other fallacy in your comment is that the people coming to work here from other countries are second-rate employees. Americans are lazier than most cultures, and from working closely with people from India, China, etc I see that they are very hard workers and very intelligent. You probably think they are stupid because they are not masters of the English language, but a lot of them have spent a lot of time studying and learning about computers and picked up English to come here. It is true that they usually get paid less than those of us originally in the U.S., but it's because the companies know they can get away with it. Whoever you work for is going to pay you as little as possible. It's not evil, it's just a way of saving money. However, bringing people here results in other costs that most Americans won't see. It is pretty difficult to get a visa to work in the country very long, nevermind getting citizenship. The companies that hires these people put a lot of money into lawyer fees and such because they have to convince the government that no American is qualified to fill that position. If the foreign person already has the job, the company will have to re-post the position and try to hire an American to fill it. We are at no disadvantage to anyone from other countries.
Don't forget that the IT industry is not all based in the U.S. also. I've done some work in Mexico, and also know of a lot of work in various countries in Europe. There's a lot of I.T. work to go around in any country with enough money to use computers. I doubt somewhere like Somalia has a big need for tech work, but if you go to Germany you can find a lot.
The point I wanted to make from all of this is that the I.T. industry is different than factory work and such. We are not just white males from the U.S., but diverse people in numerous countries and countless cultures. Try and show some respect for those you know nothing about.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
You are quite correct in saying that our society worked "fine." What you left out was that it worked fine for the time. Without computers today unemployment would be the least of our problems.
Computers don't just play cool games like CIV.
Computer make our society(economic, political, environmental and industrial) function.
The argument could be made that we could go back to less techy times but you would probably have to go back to sharpening your straight razor with a leather strap, or having your kids die from cholera or small pox.
"Not likely to ever happen because technologists have managed to make people fairly dependent on computers and whatnot."
This is a lot like saying everyone is dependant on electricity or the internal combustion engine. While the dependency it true; no individual or group of individuals made it true. It came to be cause it was the next step in our socioeconomic development.
"Everyone still learns math and writing and reading in school so that we can subsist without the aid of that computer or high speed comm line to pass our info to another. "
I am not sure what you were taught in school, but other than basic math, things like algebra, trig and calculus where taught, not so you were able to do algebra, trig and calculus for the rest of your life, but to teach you to think logically and to be able solve problems.
"What will we do when all the lights go out? "
I for one will wait for the computer to kick on the back up generator. And while I'm waiting I'm going to be playing Civ on my Lithium ion powered laptop.
Its not so much the reality checks you have to worry about. Its those damn reality credit cards.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
A great quote from John Katz: "...because nobody really cares what we say." Here here!
Kirch
Diligence is the price of Freedom
Just wondering, but if we declare email we write to be copyrighted material and then encrypt it can we sue the government/big companies for breaking the encryption and circumventing our access control under the DMCA?
this makes me think about when i was watching jim carrey portray andy kaufman in 'man in the moon' and kaufman did all kinds of shit just to fuck with people's minds like the vertical rolling on the tv show to make people think their tv set was messed up, or the deal with the wrestling women and talking trash about them, or tony clifton dumping water on the guy's head and harassing him (the guy was paid). maybe katz is doing the same thing, writing this shit just to see what kind of hilarious reaction he'll get from the readers, and is sitting up there at the slashdot compound laughing his ass off.
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
Then, one day while pouring through manpages and cursing because I had to go through all the trouble when he could have just told me, I realized it was for my own good.
By going through the effort I actually learned something about how and why what I was doing was going to work, instead of blindly typing a command on the command line. Now I appreciate that he used such an attitude because it made me actually get up and work to get some skills.
Now, I can proceed with confidence when I'm sitting on a server, because I know what I am doing. If I had just let people slide me through every ordeal, then I probably would not be anything that I am today.
Everyone has to earn what they get. A mechanic is not just going to guide you through replacing a transmission in the same way a tech is not going to guide you through running a busy server.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
... when I first read the title of the article. Gee Jon, I think it's cool what you say and all, be most of the readers at /. usualy feel the same way and/or have already come to those same conclusions about socioty themselves.
So why don't you try and write your articles for something like mainstream media (or at least pseudo-mainstream media, like those free newspaper things at news stands) so you can enlighten the masses with your articles?
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
I can usually count on you writing something controversial, thought provoking, and wrong (intentionally so, I believe). This isn't even offensive, other than the quote "testosterone-poisoned guys with chips on their shoulders and too much time on their hands." , and even this is just the standard politically correct female response to anything they don't like or understand. In fact it fairly describes our founding fathers. Not that I'm saying the net, and computers in general aren't a male dominated society, but face it, most of us were the last one picked for the football team. Not a whole lot of macho here.
The only problem I have with the article is that you act as if this was something new. There has always been an technological/intellectual elite (though admittedly they are receiving unprecedented coverage by the media) and a political/power elite, who know little about each other, but depend on each other to secure their power base. And there has always been the vast majority who know little, and care less about either, and whose lives are controlled by both.
Katz has used a book review - in which we learn precious little of the book under review - as a springboard for a thesis that hackers collectively are "a nation of sleepwalkers".
Alas, the thesis is not properly developed. Were we to take it seriously and follow it to its proper conclusion, it would fall under its own weight, as it ignores the one absolute in human biology: People Age and Die.
With respect, Mr Katz, not all the conspiracies of all the capitalists in the world will allow them or any of them to do a corner in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Why does this ruin Katz's thesis? Because, in so far as it is developed, it is this: that the young and well-educated ("techno-young", in Katz's desperate floundering for a word other than "geek") in IT and allied trades are naive, shiftless and poltically numb to the wider implications of what they do.
Fine as far as it goes, but what of the situation twenty years hence? What, Mr Katz, when the political neonates you sneer at are older, wiser and taking an interest in the big picture?
It's going to happen, no matter how hard you blow now. Will Katz then be sneering at the next generation, masters of whatever the technological wave du jour happens to be?
Probably not, but someone will. It seems to me to be an inescapable fact of life that in all times and places someone will be ranting about the indolence of the young and the pampered idleness of Modern Youth. Remember Monty Python's Yorkshiremen? "When I were a lad, we 'ad it tough. We'd to pay't mill owner fer't privilege of coming in to work". Katz is exactly what the Pythons were satirising.
The earliest reference I can find to this sort of thing is in Plato's Republic, written just less than two-and-a half millennia ago, and I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there was a stele at Abydos moaning about the worthlessness of the youth in these soft times of the 12th Dynasty.
We could laugh Katz off, if he weren't so pernicious. Pernicious? Yes, because he's a rabble-rouser who gets column inches, and the more dangerous because sometimes he's on the money (as with the Pinkertons or Voices from the Hellmouth).
Pernicious especially because he's giving people a salve for the nagging guilt that arises from taking part in modern life (other than in the flinty hearts of lawyers like me). Don't worry! he cries between the lines, It's not your fault! The system, the culture, the corporations are the ones doing the evil!
Let us digress for a word from honest Bill: The pusher can always be replaced. It is the junkie who is the base of the pyramid, and if the junkie is cured, the pusher will vanish.
You'll see the relevance of that in a moment.
Because it's not the corporations, the lawyers, the courts, the legislators or Capital that screws life up. It's all of us: a democracy of guilt. The machine you're reading this on depended, for its construction, on a long, long chain of exploitation, gouging, double-dealing and other incidents of normal commerce which went to make sure that most of the cost of your hardware was paid in sweat and misery by thousands of people in far-off places that you'll never see or meet.
My solution? Don't do a damned thing - in the long run, all of us are dead and gone, and the sweated workers of the First Industrial Revolution begat the fat and happy consumers of modern times, just as the slaves of Rome begat the free(ish) peoples of Europe and the (less) free peoples of the Americas.
Indeed, Katz can only deliver his half-made thesis by the grace of the very corporate/government axis he rails at. This is why I chose the title of this piece - and why I'll close it with a quote from the poem whose title it is:
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
A couple more (slightly unsober) thoughts...
The RIAA is protecting it's Intellectual Property - and quite rightly. However, the RIAA didn't _create_ the IP - they're just administering it "on behalf" of the artist under a contract which I'm sure is written very much in favour of the RIAA. I'd like to see a music business where the artist had more say in how their IP was presented ("More advertising or I'm going to mp3.com where they've got real coverage") and not have to put up with whatever it takes to get a contract today...
The whole Napster/RIAA court case will, I hope, cause the RIAA to examine itself in the light of new technology (ideas & hardware) and evolve to a more sympathetic business model which encompasses the Napsterites/artists/distributors and record companies and their idea of how music should be obtained.
ian, Guitarist & Sysadmin
http://www.exmachina.freeserve.co.uk
This article is about a group that has a unifying bond - their excellence with technology - yet does not have a cohesive political disposition.
In this instance, an incredibly powerful group (the geek community) refuses to take an equally powerful part in the political process, which allows various other groups (RIAA, etc.) to dominate legislation. This is a Bad Thing.
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
Having known only one reality, the young and techno-savvy can't quite imagine any other
:)
He likes to make blanket statements about things he clearly has only the faintest knowledge of. To claim that there is no sense of real-world politics in the programming/hacking world is just plain idiotic. A better metaphor would be Prof. David Post's essay about Jefferson's Moose, and how people in the New World (be it physical or transcendental like the Internet) forge a path into the ensuing philosophical issues, like politics. If there is any hostility toward real-world politics in the Slashdotty community it is because it reflects exactly the same mindless tyranny espoused by George III over his Colonies. Such fascism is retroactive, not proactive. There is no need to look at the "real physical world" as some sort of more sophisticated place.
Not to suggest that physical issues don't matter, but I think the relationship Katz suggests is completely false. Take guys like Richard Stallman--he seems to have plenty of testosteroney motivation and his politics are precisely the opposite of Katz' description of the technocratic world.
This techno-elite, taking sophisticated knowledge of technology for granted, has lost touch with the vast numbers of people in the world -- the elderly, the poor, foreign-born -- who don't share their skills and confidence.
UTTER BALDERDASH. There are still liberal programmers. Jeez, doesn't everyone remember being picked on rather than praised for knowing computers? Didn't that turn anyone else into a Socialist??
I almost think this essay is more about getting holier-than-thou over his Slashdot detractors rather than making a real statement about, well, anything. Too bad it makes him look like a big idiot to anyone who pays attention to politics.
On the other hand, I notice that all my 'progressive' tirades that a liberal might find insightful are never marked up--whereas flames of my philosophy usually are. Maybe Katz is right after all and I'm the only person here who can code in Java and also support society instead of corporations.
Ah well. I'll probably get a -1 and prove Katz right after all.
A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush. Nader in 2000!
Why isn't there some tech guy showing up at the elections?
I have to agree that the mere idea of becoming a politician is somewhat horrible to me, but then, since the congressmen are supposed to represent the people, why couldn't a techie become one?
Is it because in the process of becoming a politian, a tech guy would probably loose his geekness and thus loose contact, a terrible idea?
Is it because everyone has given up having any hope in politics as we know it?
I know that if a [reasonable] tech guy showed up at the elections down here, I'd vote for him. After all, who can understand the tech world better than a tech guy?
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
It's interesting to note the disconect that exists between the so called internet or technology culture, and the rest of society. The tech culture of the US very often seems to ignore the rest of the country because it's "not advanced enough," "ignorant," or simply "stupid." All because they don't share our ability and fascination with technology, because they get their news from the local paper rather than /. Not only is this arrogant of us, it's also personally destructive. Regardless of what you think of the role of government, political parties, and politicians; they are how the US is run. The United States, and it's model of government is one of the most successful in the world: simply look at our Constitution, we're only on our second and even that document has only been ammended some 20 times; while many other countries have gone through a great number of systems.
The tech culture needs to recognize that the government is there, it always has been, and it isn't going to go away any time soon. We need to deal with government rather than simply looking at it and grumbling about it. When you post your opinion on Carnivore, the DMCA, or Echelon CC it to your Senator or Congressman or the head of one of the technology committees. While he might not know or care what that "Napster thing" is he'll certainly begin to care after enough constituents e-amil him. Because when it comes down to it, that's his job, and not all politicians are corrupt.
Even so, reading the news it is also clear that the people in government (especially those making the laws) have just as equally as great a tendency to ignore the tech-community. In a recent interview Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Dick Cheney was asked what he thought of the Napster trial. Cheney condecendingly replied that he "hasn't been following it." It's this attitude that new issues in technology are beneith the attention of politicians that is dangerous - this is how, almost by accident, dangerous precidents can be set now that will affect and perhaps damage things like personal privacy or intellectual property for decades.
In short I see an almost parallel disconnect between the tech culture and the rest of the population. We often don't want to deal with the political process that exists, which seems ponderous and corrupt compared to the fast, merit-based pase on which technology operates. At the same time politicians and the rest of the population seem to ignore advances in technology and their implications. I think we all need to meet somewhere in the middle, with the tech culture working within the political process (I already know of one CS person running for Congress in my district - I'm voting for him) and the government realizing the importance of technology and the internet. I belive that this is what will happen as the current batch of technological innovations and the Internet matures. We'll see...
credo quia absurdum
I don't think so: he doesn't seem to grasp the difference between free beer and free speech.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it, the Open Source concept exists because a large enough number of geeks wanted to enjoy the technical benefits of Free Software without the political strings attached. It seems to me that Open is rather more popular than Free among the geek community these days (even if I feel closer to Free's motivations myself, but then again I'm not really a geek!) What sense does it make then to cry "Geeks of the world, unite!", when they made it clear they wish to stay clear of politics?
No, I'm afraid Katz isn't RMS at all...
--
sig is gone.
We are not selfish by default, we are selfish by the teachings of society around us... why, because we are a generation with no purpose, guidance or even religous stance. We are this not by our do'ings, but by the do'ings of our parents, and their parents. They fought the "good fight" so we would not have to.. But what made us who we are was the fight. Technology has little to do with actual fact, Its just a fuel and our apatheic ways spread faster because of the techno jungle. Freedoms of self diminish everday, not because there taken from us, but because we don't fight for them. Why??? Frankly because we don't care, and we were raised not to care. For we are not special, and probably never will be for we have no great evil to rebel against, except for our selves
This obligatory and possibly offensive statement was bestowed upon you by the honorable reverend d.
jeb.
"Not surprisingly, this techno-civilization has little interest in the political systems that still dominate society, so it radically underestimates their power and has an inflated sense of its own."
It's not as much an underestimation as it is contempt (of that which is easily contemptible by anyone with half-a-brain). Further, I believe techies understand their universe is narrow, but it's a matter of most techies not having yet realized their true power to effect change in the real world. With the Internet, techies have a tool for change that wields incredible power and influence.
"Having known only one reality, the young and techno-savvy can't quite imagine any other."
Oh come on! These techies took the same tests everyone else did while getting their early education. To suggest that most techies only care about technology and not subjects like history or politics is quite a smear.
"As a culture, it mistakes mechanical skills -- like programming an operating system -- with technological knowledge and power."
Programming an operating system is an art, my friend! And certainly an ability to build an Internet concept and an organization around it again can wield tremendous political power, if the purpose is noble and grand (such as "direct democracy") and the applications therein, specific.
"It tolerates an alarming amount of hostility and abuse, both of which make any political communications -- at least those in public -- nearly impossible."
Quite the contrary. Have you ever had to deal with the public as a service employee? Heck, if I were a McDonald's employee, I'd *rather* deal with level-headed techies than most other people! Further, our innate ability to deliberate and make decisions through a thick air of hostility and/or incredible roadblocks gives techies a distinct advantage over traditional politicians or civic-interested citizenry.
"The techno-young correctly grasp that many of the country's seminal institutions -- politics, journalism, education -- have failed them and the larger society. But nobody seems to have given much thought to what might replace them, or to how they might defend themselves against increasingly encroachments from the off-line world."
When techies realize their full power, and I know they will (sooner, rather than later), this will all change.
"The techno-world eschews even the most marginal understanding of the tortured history of technology, the awareness that periods of technological advancement are always followed by periods of fear and retrenchment."
Except for now, since we've already passed into the age of Technopoly. Read Neil Postman's book (c) 1993. I don't agree with his conclusions, but the rest of the book is a great read and "oh, so true."
"Granted an unprecented opportunity to speak, we have not bothered to learn how to listen. Our freedom to speak out becomes illusory when most of us are shouting into a void, because nobody really cares what we say. Meanwhile, the real social and political agendas are being set by older people with little knowledge of technology, working out of l9th century institutions corrupted by corporate money."
That is, until techies _invent_ digital direct democracy.
"It's a great question. Liberalism and conservatism have been discredited, Libertarianism seems rigid and stagnant. In fact, conventional political ideologies seem far too narrow and inflexible for these times."
The vast numbers of independent voters in America will agree with this, and perhaps even some of those who are party members.
"[Individualism is] the only possible antidote to life in country evolving steady towards a corporate rather than democratic republic."
That's why any version of direct democracy must address not only traditional public policy, but also corporate policy insofar as it relates to the communities they reside in and the customers/consumers they serve.
"We think the individual's primary responsibility is to speak freely and become prosperous. Neither of those are small or inconsequential things, but as a cultural or social philosophy, they ring hollow. They promote cynicism, hostility, alienation, superiority, and most of all, they leave this culture vulnerable to better organized and powerful elites -- media, Congress, corporations."
Does freedom of speech and of opportunity detract from or add to our political power? Your answer will determine if you are a democrat (small 'd') or not. And to call freedom "hollow" is quite a hoot!
"We hear political truth daily -- we are vaguely conscious of threats to privacy, the looming menace of genetic and other technologies, poorly made, unnecessary and overpriced technology, challenges to the environment, human dignity, etc. -- but don't much want to deal with them. People worried about these issues are derided -- in this techno-culture as crackpots and extremists. We either laugh at them or dismiss them."
These concerned individuals are derided by the media elite, who continually decide "who's up and who's down," far more than by other techies.
"Technology can either be the vehicle through which those voices are re-democratized, or it can provide the tools through which corporatism can generate even more money."
It can certainly do both.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
You know, there is a why you see very little commentary in the philosophical community on Rand. That is b/c it is not worth their time. I remember a day when I was so sure of myself, that Rand was obviously right. Then I started to really think about things, attempted to address issues on their own ground and realized that maybe the world wasn't so simple. Philosophers are a little annoying at times- but when you take a closer look you realize that- damn- they're pretty smart. Most of them have a sufficient grasp of the subjects they're discussing to realize that the complexity of said subject exceeds even their ability to provide final answers. Rand is so sure of herself, as are her followers, that they either don't have or don't exercise the intellectual capacity to see that gaping flaws in her philosophy. No I won't discuss them here. One could not do justice for such a topic in a slashdot post. But read some other books in the community- maybe even take some classes and interact directly with the people in the community- and then maybe we can discuss it.
Intellectual do have reasons for this claim. Although things like freedom rank as pretty important in the American society, they are not the sole property of libertarian philosophy.
Libertarianism starts off with the assumption that individuals have the right to full self ownership. Which would seem appealing at first. This leads to individuals having a right to ownership over the fruits of their labor b/c they own themselves. But this also means that forced labor is morally equivalent to taxation. (As Robert Nozick has claimed) But I don't buy, and neither do most intellectuals.
Instead, most differentiate b/w full self ownership and autonomy/liberty. Essentially, it differentiates between forced labor and taxation. You are given the liberty to do as you will (w/ obvious restrictions), but you do not necessarily have a right to every economic benefit to your work. Thus taxation.
This is why intellectuals grow tired of most libertarians. Nozick is respected b/c he goes through all (or much) of the rigamorole (sp?) expected by philosophers. But most still disagree. And when some self-righteous boneheads start spouting off about liberty and how evil and oppressive taxation and the FDA is, the rest of can only sigh in disappointment.
Can't argue with your assessment of the copyright debate. I think that is a dog that's had its day. As we know this is an issue that has been done to death here on slashdot, I don't think copyright policy as it is currently enacted doesn't follow the 'true spirit' of the what its originators intended (then again, maybe it does?).
Also, I also think the government is entirely too gung-ho about the environment so I can't argue there either.
Now I realize I am proving your point about 'Libertarian logic', but you haven't addressed at all my point about government spending. Which means you missed a main theme of my original post. Or maybe you just ignored it. The money has to come from someplace to pay for all these wonderful humanitarian causes. Once they are entrenched in the bureaucracy they will *never* go away. And therein lies the problem. We keep upping our spending and never cutting anything out. And here goes both Clinton and the Republicans speaking of how 'fiscal responsibility' got us to this 'budget surplus' while in the same breath proposing dozens of new programs. Libertarians may be philosophical hypocrites, but people who look to the government for everything are feeding an already out-of-control monster.
Perhaps its not the arrogance of our peers that is causing this ignorance of the standard power structures, but the fact that many of our generation, geeks and non-geeks alike, simply do not care about the system. Many people fail to learn about politics, many don't know why such systems exist, how a law is passed, what a republic is, or what they are entiltled to do for their country as citizens of it. Techies jump into e-company start ups and IPOs without knowing the fundamentals of free market economies or the slightest clue of how to run a business. We're a generation of people who just don't care about the old ways. We're so secure in our superior knowledge and intellect that we fail to see why those systems came about in the first place, and why they must survive with or without us.
Of course, the obvious thing to do is to become part of the system, but not a part that sits back and watches things go by. We are the people who must change the way people think. Posting your opinions here on /. is all well and good, but do you talk about these issues with your non-techie friends? Do you expose different opinions and attempt to broaden their view on tech culture? Who knows, the person you are debating with at a bar may be the president of the future. The more knowledge spreads, the more the system has to change for the better.
"I live in a world of make-believe, with faeries and leprechauns and tiny little frogs with funny hats."
It seems to me as though materialism is the primary outlet for society's "disenchanted", right? So it's only natural that many choose to turn to technology. It's also a power trip - everyone either has to know more than their neighbor, since information is a medium in the information society with which to practice materialism, or must have the most hard-core hardware on the block. Thus, the "testosterone-filled" technocrats. The author is right, though: one need only look at the ratio of women to men in these high-technology arguments to see the reasons behind the problem - in general women feel less need to assert themselves through bravado and bluster.
I am a doctoral student in history besides being a UNIX sysadmin. The closed loop of the academic world is very similar to the closed loop of the computer world. Human thought works on the notion of myth. In order to bring chaos to one's world, one develops a myth, which may or may not have basis in "truth". This whole series of posts is nothing but a closed-loop community arguing about how to form their myths. Computer people as a whole are NOT hard-working, and computer people as a whole are NOT lazy. Computer people as a whole are nothing. Each individual is different. The narcissistic notion that one is somehow a harder worker and deserves what s/he gets if it is good but does not deserve it if it is bad is utterly wrong. Egotism and arrogance are never acceptable social interactions. To return to my original point, IT people are generally very sure that they are the Luke Skywalkers and that everybody else is an emperor or at least a Darth Vader. The truth is, the world is not that two-sided. There are a million different shades of gray, and IT people as a group cannot be categorized. A myth of computer people has been formed, and the vastly white, protestant middle class males who have formed the core of the culture will serve their own interests. Nearly everybody works hard for a living, and the ones who build cars or fill potholes certainly have more of a right to claim hard work than anybody who stares at a computer all day and types. I have seen this exact argument in the academic community. Admit it, your jobs are cushy, easy and fun. Same as academics. Your myth is only partly based in reality.
I did not design this game/I did not name the stakes/I just happen to like apples/And I am not afraid of snakes-AniD
In working during my college years at very pompus and stuffy club,(supposedly the social cream of the city, a lot of old money) to working with officals in state goverment, working with "top dog" sales people and headhunters, working with people in the investment community, and working with IT folks, I've got to say on the whole the tech nerds really aren't any worse than anybody else- take out the part about technology and it would apply to everyone. As selfish as web cyber squatters are, it's just as bad when the idiot nephew of the State Highway commisioner buys a block of land just before it's announced where the offramp that doubles lands the value will be. The sales manager to bounce an empty soda bottle off the head of a homless person thru the window of his Lexus is no less insensitive than the techie who does the same. The only difference is the salesman will have a suit on when he does it. A class action lawsuit billionaire laywer is probably going to be as big a butt head as Bill Gates. Walmart does to Mom and Pops the world over what Microsoft does to Software Co's. Any group of young priveleged people are going to be the same, if they made six figures from technology, sales, law, finance- hey it is all the children of the white rich educated people, and whatever major you declared just decides what area you'll be you totally self centered self in. It is just the ruling class doing what it does-join or be crushed.
i'm sure lots of people have already pointed out stuff i'm about to say, but i'd like to add a twist to it (later).
I must admit that i have feelings of contempt and loathing when i see others talking about technology when they obviously have no idea what's going on. and yes, i also have the "i worked hard to get here dammit" attitude...of sorts. you see, i'm still in college, working on a Systems Analysis major at Miami University of Ohio. College has really inflamed these feelings of jealousy and contempt. While all the business and finance majors are out every night drinking themselves silly and passing out in their own vomit, I've repeatedly had to deal with staying up until 2 or 3 in the morning just to finish various programming-related assignments. The fact is, you cannot have a blossoming social life and still dedicate yourself to a computer-related degree. Now, if it sounds like I'm bitching, I'm not...I love every moment of what I do. But still, it's obvious that there is a major decision concerning your social life that has to be made. From all this sacrifice, i think that a subconscious feeling that the world ows you something starts to develop. I mean, you worked all that time and wasted all that effort...so you deserve more money and recognition than that frat-boy that never goes to class, right???
Obviously, this attitude is self-centered and selfish, but it's easy to convince yourself this when it's four in the morning and that PERL script is just NOT doing what you need it to do.
The internet, in the past, has always been a safe-haven of like-minded people to freely express themselves and talk amongst themselves. It was their own private land...free of slackers and lesser-minded people to just redicule and humiliate the "computer geeks." You can compare it to a special bar or rock group that no one has heard of before. That was YOURS...no one else knew about it. But just like a rock group selling out, or a favorite bar getting popular, when you throw in lots of publicity and attention, you almost feel....violated. I mean, where did these people come from? Where were they a year ago, when only I knew about them? You begin to feel like no one else deserves the right to know about them. This is obviously what happened with the internet...pop culture opened its eyes and saw a medium that could be exploited. And exploited it was...now computers and various lifestyles have entered all forms of media, *everyone* is on-line...cause it's the cool thing to do. Where were these people five years ago? Back when e-mail WAS instant messaging and chat rooms were filled with conversations of source code, not cybersex? Being "on the net" is almost now becoming associated with being "techno-savvy" by pop culture...which leaves us code warriors feeling...well...CHEATED. things are being dumbed down everywhere you go, and "concerned" people are pushing for regulations on what we see and hear on the net to "protect our youth." and while i agree that porn is overtaking the net and that it should NOT be available to underage kids, this surge of "protection" is turning into censorship, especially for us "old folk" of the net.
My main point is that feelings of possesiveness is almost natural when it comes to this situation. There is a push in mainstream culture to be more "techno-savvy," which is something that i personally was getting ridiculed for all throughout my life. This is apparent here at my school, where these past few years have seen a large amount of Freshmen coming in as Systems Analysis students, only to see about TW0-THIRDS of them drop the major by the end of the year. The reasons for this drop concern people assuming that computer science isn't hard ("hey, i can make a web page...how much more can there be?"), seeing this surge of technology in the mainstream and HAVING NO DEDICATION towards programming in general. People begin to see firsthand that you can't go out every night and still "make it" as a computer science student.
So yeah, i get angry when i see some rich kid with his brand new powerful computer where the only thing he does with it is download porn off the internet. so maybe i see that that machine could be used for soo much more, like trying to boot as many different op. systems as that 40 GB harddrive in there will allow. and maybe i do get a bit peeved when i hear people bragging about the size of their mp3 collections (which is so very analagous to a "my dick is bigger than yours" contest). but i think i should have the right to be. i've grown up with computers all my life... it started with a commedore 64 and has now worked its way up to a 700mhz athlon tower (and by the way, i come from a low middle-class familty from a farming community...so i don't buy the whole "not having the opportunity" line that some people are saying). I've come to realize that superficial aspects of computing (faster cdroms, bigger speakers) are fine and all, but the true spirit of computing is that of communicating intamely with your machine...manipulating it to your will...turning your thoughts into programs that people can benefit from. and maybe some of us are just a bit peeved that this is exactly what mass culture is shying away from as they invade our once proud intellectual world.
but then again, what do i know?
--cw
"i can't stand standing here like this, and i can't take taking any of life serious" > Cap'n Jazz
As usual, attention-deficit geeks pour over Katz's article pulling out this sentence or that out of context and explode off in wild irrelevent tangents.
Geeks are getting their dicks pounded into the dirt left and right by Reno, Freeh, the courts, and Congress and geeks still don't get it. What does your mechanical know-how get you if your way of making a living, your company, e.g., Napster, gets shredded tomorrow by the political/judicial system? Why is it still a complete pain in the neck operation to use strong crypto software with email? Why do I still receive time-wasting spam? Geeks can spout all the Ayn Rand, libertarian, techno-anarchist babble in the world, but unless they get out from behind their monitors and take action thro' traditional political means, what they come to value will continue to fall prey. That's all Jon is saying.
Geeks need a stronger lobbying presence in Washington DC and internationally. They need to pony up some green to hire more lobbyists to make their voices heard where it matters. They need to organize political action committees to bundle their campaign contributions (They have to start making campaign contributions!) to make an impact with candidates who support their values (or who will switch to supporting them). Geeks need more lawyers. They should organize stronger, better funded legal foundations to fight their causes in the courts.
In order for geeks to get where they want to go, to get the type of online community with the values they desire, they will have to employ some well-known low tech means. If geeks continue to sniff about as if they are above it all, as they have, they will only accomplish the construction of a giant, well marketed internet prison for themselves, and everyone. Charles Buck
Playing both sides, Jon?
Kong
--
Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.
I'm sorry to flame like this, and I don't care much of the techno elitism that is rapant on slashdot either... BUT DOESNT THIS JUST CONTRADICT EVERYTHING YOUVE WRITTEN?
What happened to the poor, persecuted geeks who were isolated for their differences?
What happened to the tragic Hellmouth tales of the geeks who suffered for challenging the authority do to their 'above average intelligence?'
What happened to the faceless evil of corporatism and the use of Napster as a form of rebellion?
What happened to the rampant of abuse of artists done by record companies (who now are being robbed by this 'selfish society?')
What happened to free information and the urgent call for it (except in your writings of course, right)?
I don't like the growing zealot and elitist attitude in the tech sector, nor did I agree with your muckracking articles crying foul over the plight of the poor geek and of the need for open/free everything. I agreed with a fair share of the examples in this article, and experienced my own disgust at selfishness and elitism.
But you, sir, are in no position to suddenly 180 from your hyper-sympathy to the geek community and expect us to convenientally forget about all your other muckracking. At first I thought you were just a misguided soul who still had nobility in your adherence to your goals for 'free information and less isolation of the intelligent geek community.' Now I realize you are nothing more than a common troll. I think I will now be using my block filter for you.
Emerson Willowick: Thinker, Writer, Human Being.
Fairly eloquent, well thought out response. In spite of Katz's obvious trolling, I actually tend to agree with the subject article, but now I at least have some idea where many /. readers are coming from.
:) is invariably true. I think Katz is finally beginning to realize that the majority of the slashdot community does not need his frequent mollycodling, and thus dislikes him immensely.
The worst thing about this article, I think, is that Katz has probably predicted exactly what type of responses this piece of flamebait will generate. He posts an article about the rudeness of the geek community, and we (I guess even my reply) all respond with flames, thus making it look like his newfound point (which never existed in any of his other works
If you ask me, this is just Katz's way of bawling in front of the teacher because the other kids won't talk to him. I commend you for your good, thoughtful reply on the work involved with tech though... pity it was wasted as a reply to a blatent troll though.
Emerson Willowick: Thinker, Writer, Human Being.
Actually, I usually avoid responding to Katz's articles for just that reason. I've always disdained Katz, but I thought his 'ambition' made up for his reptetiveness and poor writing. However, after reading this piece of tripe (which I actually agree with for once oddly enough), it has become so clear that Katz is solely doing his schitck to get bullshit attention and draw flames, not make any relevant point or act on as "an ambassador to the real world." Perhaps it is common to most, but for me this is the boiling point, so I felt my post was necessary, if unread :)
Emerson Willowick: Thinker, Writer, Human Being.
"The British and the Americans are a people divided by a common language" (Winston Churchill). This narky thing (or is it gnarky? I think I hear a silent 'g') is just another example of the charm of the old language that never made it to the new world. Don't Bother the People - You'll Just Irritate them.
JB
First I have to say I don't believe tech culture is (generally speaking) selfish or narcisistic. Surely the massive successes gained through co-operation of the open source movement goes to prove this. Secondly, expecting a consistent ideology from people who have vastly differing socio-economic backgrounds is perhaps a little to much. Just because people use the same technology doesn't mean they should all be working towards the same goal. It's trite and obvious but technology is neutral and as empowering or restricting as you choose to let it be. I also note that Katz says communalism, surely that should be communism *you americans and your hang ups!)*
I do think that on the whole the technocrats are well informed and will run many miles discussing a wide variety of non-tech related topics - although they tend to mix in a few interesting tidbits about tech. But that's not the point either.
It's simply not a category of people that can be categorized as is being done in this article - as if they do not have certain characteristics, or tend to show arrogance, lack of interest in the social or political process.. quote narcissistic civilization with a mean streak, fat and lazy and arrogant from years of uninterrupted opportunity, innovation and peace. So how did GNU & open source software arrive?
But thats not really it either...
The only thing you can say about the tech generation is that they are well versed with computers. In this sense it is a group that spans the generations and includes larger portions of the population the younger they are. But more than that, if you take these people and make them into a social group then here you have the group that pretty much runs everything. Without their knowledge nowadays you can't get a potato through a distribution chain to the people that eat potatos.
I honestly believe the tech generation isnt the one face the big crisisl. Quote "...the real social and political agendas are being set by older people with little knowledge of technology, working out of l9th century institutions corrupted by corporate money." They're like species 9289 who toss lawbooks at the borg. Legislation is futile, prepare to be assimilated. Killing napster strengthens freenet.
"The techno-world eschews even the most marginal understanding of the tortured history of technology, the awareness that periods of technological advancement are always followed by periods of fear and retrenchment" Is this historical necessity? I think not. Technological advancements have been ongoing since Ug picked up a stick to hammer his neighbour with - or perhaps since the big bang when matter and energy started to form ever more complex structures. The only real period of fear and retrenchment that existed was in Europe during the middle ages who after a few centuries of Roman occupation totally forgot about really how all this neat Roman stuff was supposed to work. In the mean time civilizations in the near east, orient and the americas continued to thrive.
Ok but what now? First theres the scientific breakthrough, then there's a lot of pointless debate resulting often in legislation that fails to do anything but stimulate further development. "You're not allowed to use that wheel, or we grain carriers will all be out of business!" Even if a country succeeds in stopping a scientific process, then another country can be perfectly willing to assist in furthering it.
I've written Welcome to the technological (r)evolution era in an earlier post. We should be debating this a lot :)
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Internet, the web, is showing us, feeding us, informing us, as a collective we are learning at a far greater pace than any collective has had in known history. What a ride :)
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
*takes a breath john
Every time I read a topic like this, I give thanks and praises. Long time ago I've noticed the silent and implacable coup d'etat orchestrated by CTOs, IT chiefs et al inside companies in general.
Is it just me, or do we see a few dozen of these every time Katz writes an article? Not to invalidate the poster's point [for once, there's a bit of merit to the accusation] but its getting to be just a repetitious as Katz's use of buzzwords.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
there are a few things at issue here...
1. how did this get modded up to interesting? looks like flamebait to me.
2. I lived through two of the recessions you listed, so by your criteria I ought to know what I am talking about[strange criteria really, but let's play your game a moment]
3. I grew up with less than average income [my mother was single abouyt half my legal childhood, we spent time in shelters, with relaties, etc. till my mother could get things together] yet here I am, now writing this from a University, where I will soon graduate with a degree in computer science. [3.01 QPA, 3.45 in my major, for the curious] From my experience, if you want out of bad situations, there are OFTEN ways to get out. This is not as true for the older members of society, as it is hard to retrain, and get others to accept that you do indeed know what you are talking about, but for most of the 'geek' population, there are ways. It may be hard work, but if you want it, you will work hard. I did indeed have to dig for things to get me where I am, and I will likely have a lot to do to get where I want to be. Such is the price of prosperity.
4. Economics is not a natural phenomenon. It is man made, and therefore governed by man. The only reason there are shortcoming to our econmy are our own doing. Thus, while properity is not certain, neither is recession.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
Our whole society is selfish. In schools, self esteem is valued over achievement. In life, accountability has all but disappeared. We immediately reach out a finger of blame whenever anything goes wrong, never thinking we might be responsible for it. People endlessly jockey for promotions and postions of power, out of pure greed. 100,000 USD isn't enough for many, they have to become CEO's and get rich. to boil it down, we live in a capitalist society. Capitalism = greed. Greed = selfishness. Technology is just another tool to that end.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
"How could they take my Napster away?" as that e-mail wailed. "Who did it? Where did they come from?"
I find it very difficult to believe this quote is genuine.
Sure, I could sneer about how this topic was so -- this past May, and how ESR grabbed it for his own agenda months ago. But I agree with the premise that the tech community is too invoved in itself to deal effectively with the outside world. I reach some different conclusions.
/. a few days later.) Every time some new software comes out, Michael or Jamie find some site that they think it improperly does or doesn't block and pronounce that all filterware will be forever hopeless and that the idea should be immediately discarded. Look -- if you think the world is going to accept the YRO credo of "all porn access, all the time" you're kidding yourself. Filterware will be used and when shoddy software is the norm, the tech community will have itself to blame for ridiculing parents' concerns instead of trying to develop a reasonable alternative.
Reading Slashdot, you see people shouting the party line at each other and moderating each other up. It leads to lots of karma as well as to forgetting that what's obvious to the, err, "community" isn't really how anyone else thinks.
Look at Napster. Instead of thinking about how we can develop a music distribution that is efficient, popular and respectful of artists' rights, everyone here reminded each other how copyrights are evil, that the FSF says it's not really piracy because there are no puffy shirts involved, how the artists should all just sell T-shirts instead. That didn't lst long in front of a judge.
Look at internet filters. Libraries want to install filters and Michael and Jamie scream that parents should take responsibility. A rabbinical court in Jerusalem advises its congregants to restrict their children's net access and Michael writes a sneering, bigoted rant against parents who take responsibility. (Said rant vanished from
ps - i did it with linux
(-1 Dick)
(-1 Old and Tired)
(-2 Get a Life)
I think that this article was quite on target. Something we cannot seem to recognize through our antisocial ways is that in fact we occupy a very strong position in society. We are one of the most affluent groups in the country, certainly one of the smartest. While they will lump us into categories as Techies, etc, we have nothing but ourselves to blame for having them gloss over our opinions on events that most dramatically effect us. It seems to me that techies have not learned how to play "the game".
While we exist in a subculture of American society, we cannot forget about the superset. When we do, we (as the article says) end up having our Napster taken away from us, and our privacy invaded by ignorant people who are less capable to judge the technology than ourselves, and basically loose our rights because we have refused to speak out about it, and settled for using our brains to invent another technology that replaces the old one. How long you can go on doing that could be debated, perhaps forever, but the question must be begged, why would we have to?
If you want to affect change, you lobby the people who make the change, you don't just go and complain about it on websites. Yet there doesn't seem to be any concerted lobby effort out there for techs. Perhaps I'm wrong, if not I think we will continue to be abused by the system.
What I hate about liberals and conservatives is their game of forcing behavior through legislation. Geeks are busy and successful, we're not generally formulating extensive plans of stealing money through taxes to fund questionable causes, deporting homosexuals and anyone "un-Christian," or breaking peoples bad habits such as smoking...pot or tobbacco.
So of course we're going to piss off a lot of evil intentioned--power hungry people. Under the guise of empathy for others liberals attack us for not joining them in their quest to squash individual liberties for group empowerment. Republicans, the great wimps, chastise us for not joining them to accomplish the same goals that the liberals have...Both parties want to control you socially and financially, (if that sounds exreme I recommend any history book and graph liberty over the last 10 decades; simply measure it by individual freedoms, the right to own firarms, smoke pot, hire a prostitute, etc.)
Anyway...both parties suck for me, I love shooting guns and I love the occasional peek at some good porn, I'm an ugly white man who's atheist to boot .
Anyway, liberals can kiss my ass, unfortunately I'm prochoice on everything and not just on one thing. I will not pay any heed to them unless I absolutely have to.
Republicans can kiss my ass, unfortunately I'm prochoice on everything and very much so for that one thing. I will not pay any heed to them unless I absolutely have to.
And with that said, the author of that book, and Katz and go drink their nonfat decaf lattes and whine to some other group. GEEKS ARE NO VICTIMS!
But we will be when the elitists get sick of our apathy and FORCE us to be involved....
An excellent piece of writing. Our nose-to-the wall view of the world needs a little illumination from time to time. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is not made a King, but called a liar. -- D.Lee
Wow! It is truly amazing just how true both the article and the book (from what I have read of it) are, when I read what most of you people are posting here. Many of you fit the mold they are talking about exactly and you are so arrogant you don't even see this fact. You are all sitting here pocking fun at the issue that they are raising and "screaming into the Void." What the authors are trying to convey is that you all sit here whining about new law that smother technology and new ideas but you never get off your collective asses to do something about them. It is because you think you are above the laws and that they don't apply on "your web" or you take the stance that if they make new laws you will find ways around or through them. Know what happen then; the laws just keep piling up until we entirely lose the freedom of the web and the whole of technology. The government puppet with the master big business can and if we don't do something about it will rule the web. One arrogant post said "The government does not rule the 'net; it is subservient, it lives in its own little ".gov.uk" box just like any other net-connected entity." Well think again the government already has the power and the money to rule the web (along with the corporate powers giving guidance) and if we let them they will put laws in place that give them the authority to do so as well. We could very quickly lose the freedoms of the Web and technology. We need to stop sitting here pocking fun (or whining); thinking we are above the laws and rule of the government and get our asses in gear to make sure that the laws implemented are in the best interest of the Techno culture and society as a whole. We for better of worse living in a society governed by politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate elite. The first two groups don't understand us and the third group sees us as a threat to profit margins and would crush any ideas we have to keep from losing a dollar. These groups can and will put laws into effect that will govern technology for the worse if we all don't collectively stand up and start moving in a direction that benefits the whole of society.
"Sitting quietly
doing nothing,
Spring comes
and the grass grows"
Zen Saying
There have been a lot of comments stating that the "techno-elite" should become more socially "normal" or should learn to take a role in the shaping of society.
Prehaps what is happening now is the transition of an evolutionary step in society. The current society mind set has been in practically stagnant since the dark ages. Many people, both technologically inclined and not belive in different views to the curent social reality. Eventually society will change, maybee now is the time of that transition.
In the end a byte is just a byte.
http://www.reason.com/0008/bk.bd.cybersilly.html
excerpt:
This is a bad book, unlearned in its titular subject, petulant, and poorly argued. It is tempting simply to dismiss it and move on. Despite its shoddy quality, however, Cyberselfish: A Critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High-Tech is not irrelevant. Far from it. The book is fascinating as a case study in the reasoning and psychology behind opposition to the mix of individualism and anti-statism that characterizes contemporary libertarian thought.
There have been times in the past where the young generation has wished to overthrow the domineering older generation of the time. In fact, it was once said that every generation has wanted to tear down the institutions of the one before it.
.gov-sanctioned education of the masses. I'm talking about each and every Slashdotter and l33t hax0r and Linux Guru going out and teaching one other person about the issues facing our entire society. It should not be assumed that people are too stupid to care if nobody has bothered to inform them. To make a broad generalization, how many of the folks reading this understand all the issues facing the metalworking industry in America today? Unless that happens to be your particular job or forte, the number is likely low. The same follows for most all people; they learn about the things they need to know to do their jobs and live their lives.
However, only a few generations in history have had the right mix of opportunity and personality to effect real, lasting change. Revolutions take a long time to build up steam, even in Internet Time. There will come a day when an individual or a group of individuals will come forward before the tech-savvy and show them what needs to be done and where their revolution needs to go to be successful. The problem is, these people likely have no idea who they are or what their responsibility will be.
The solution to this problem is education, and not the
In order to reinforce my point, I repeat: educate everyone you can about the DMCA, and Carnivore, and anything else you can explain truthfully and calmly. Once everybody knows what problems exist, then the search for solutions can begin, and the people who will indubitably be the leaders of our Technological Revolution will have a whole world worth of knowledge to draw from for the battle.
People are a result of nature, nurture, and choice. To the extent that they work with (and sometimes overcome) the first two, the more they have of the third. Hard work is not guaranteed to pay off, but statistically speaking, it is more effective that coasting. I've made the choice to work hard to overcome my limitations and obtain the fruits of being a geek. Some of the fruit tastes excellent in many ways and some of the fruit is bitter and sickening. I try to maximize the good and minimize the bad, but some of the bad just goes with the territory. Then people who have chosen to eat from another tree look over and judge me. They don't like the bitter fruit on their tree of choice, and so want to force me to trade my good fruit for their bad. One way they do this is by carefully crafted criticism. Not having read this book, I cannot say for sure, but it kinda seems to be one of those criticisms. Some people cannot get into any tree, and some climb into what seems to be a good tree and are doing fine until it blows over and they have to start over. Those I am willing to share with. Others are too lazy to get into any tree, or knowingly climb into a tree that is over-crowded just because they like that fruit best. Geeks are in a huge orchard of very tall trees that can support lots more people. Because there is so much fruit, and so few pickers, we work long hours to gather it in. Some of us would welcome a little competition. Oh sure, we would get less of some good fruit, but we would also get a lot less of the bad. To all you non-techies, quit your whining, climb the tall tree and pick, but don't try to justify forcing me to throw down the best of my fruit because you are too lazy to climb this high.