Slashdot Mirror
Decentralization
jamesgregory writes "'Geeks make new stuff primarily because it's fun, because it's useful, and because they can. Suits make new stuff primarily because they hope to earn a profit. Yes, that is an oversimplification, and there's overlap between the two types -- there are plenty of profit-seeking geeks and geeky business folks. Still, the distinction is real.'"
Why just copy and paste the first paragraph when you could copy and paste the whole article?
Is it just me or did the "summary" give no idea whatsoever of what the article is actually about?
Geeks make new stuff primarily because it's fun, because it's useful, and because they can. Suits make new stuff primarily because they hope to earn a profit.
You know what? That's a load of crap, and you know it. I don't even care that you tried to cover your blatant generalization up in the next sentence of the write-up. If someone tells a racist joke, are they not a racist regardless of if they were "just joking"?
I'm sick of these "it's either this way, or that way" people. The computing field is full of a ton of smart people who have more than one ability. I can code with the best of 'em but still am confident that, if necessary and so desired, I could run a group of a dozen or two programmers, system administrators, etc.
The reason I get so upset sometimes is that people pigeonhole themselves into a specific career (major in computer engineering OR major in management OR major in English, etc.) before thinking "Hey, ya know, maybe I'm gifted enough to do both coding and project management and testing, and hey, maybe even a few interviews."
I love to see other fellow men and women reach their highest potential, but that can't happen when you segregate folks into one specific area.
Is this news? Must be a slow weekend at both /. and Salon.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
I'd have to agree. Look at how many seemingly useless sites there are out there. Look at Slashdot itself!
I know my website (www.sometimes.org (which is currently down for a redo, will return January 1st, 2003)) is much along the same lines. It's mostly an open forum for people to discuss and display their "art" (for which I have a very loose definition [there is a programming section, for example]). I am going to be spending tons of money on this venture in the next few months in particular, and although I have very vague plans in the back of my head to eventually turn a profit from this, I figure I'll figure that out when I get there.
In the mean time, I'm doing it for fun.
Sig.i>
As if that was somehow a lesser goal. They are isomorphic, in that they both consist of informational efficiency gains. Here's what I mean.
Geeks see a need for a device/program. They function as a evolutionary force to fill an "ecological" niche. The niche is the need, the device is the thing that exploits the niche. "Suits" do the same thing. They see a financial or economic inefficiency and they create a "device" (a financial instrument or business, say) to exploit it. They are money hackers. Profit is just another way of saying efficiency which everyone here knows is related to elegance.
Sure, suits don't care about the elegance of YOUR crap--but you don't care about yours, so why should they. And they are rightly in charge, since their feet are on the ground. Now if only those damn liberals in Congress would understand that people like Ken Lay should be praised for increasing efficiency instead of castigated.
That thought this was an opening for a Jon Katz article?
Something about grass being green and water being wet...
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Geeks make new stuff primarily because it's fun, because it's useful, and because they can.
Because they can is essential for making anything at all. I've personally never made anything that I can't make.
When it comes to putting bread on the table - something that geeks are intrinsicly poor at - I'd rather be a suit. What the geek culture fails to recognise is that there is a time and a place for this sort of thing, and this behavior is useless in the work environment. That's why the entire dot-com bubble burst, remember?
?-|||-----x<*))))><
Hmm, am I going too far afield here if I imagine we're supposed to pick good guys and bad guys here?
;-)
The geeks here sounds like creative types who still live with their parents and maybe have a nice car; the suits genderless soulless drones with 401(k)'s and more likely have a nice car.
If anything this article illustrates the uselessness of stereotypes. As soon as the writer concedes the existence of hybird strains, the binary distinction loses value. Better to talk about these different qualities and identify people who have interesting mixes. Someone else here mentions race; I wouldn't be so melodramatic, but yes it's analogous. Geek and suit are superimposed social abstractions that, as individuals, we should reject.
Now I feel like I'm working a little hard to make something interesting of a humdrum article that reads like something written on a deadline and a hangover. How come they never take my submissions?
"Suits" -- i.e., Microsoft, Sun, Apple -- create operating systems and software which appeal to wide swaths of people. They have to; they have something to sell and money to make.
"Geeks" -- i.e., most of the GPL community -- write software for the purpose of writing software. The end result is pure art in a way.
A good analogy would be the world of photography. Professional photographers take pictures for magazines and newspapers, or at weddings, etc. They need to be product-driven, they have something to sell, and it shows in their work.
Artistic photographers, on the other hand, are driven by purity. They strive for an artistic goal, which is very different from the commerical one.
The same thing could go for music -- say the wide world of "artistic music" and artists (okay, okay, that's a sensitive one here on /.) and studio bands.
Questions and comments welcome. Flames ignored. Post resonsibly
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Geeks make new stuff primarily because it's fun, because it's useful, and because others cannot. That's why most geeks become geeks. The best geeks are those who can do what nobody else can.
Sex - Find It
applications that directly compete with Microsoft etc. E.g. OpenOffice, KDE (I mean they even have a Windows style desktop that comes in the package). Ever think that these copuld be created with the submitter's intentions in mind and also to take profit away from "the suits?"
A libertarian like Nader would have given Enron just a slap on the wrist for lying and let them go about their business. Damn, I wish he and Celia Ward had won in 2000.
I think for things like software and web servers, profit will be secondary. Yes, I've witnessed the .com crash, but here me out:
Free software applications have to replace all common off the shelf softwate (except for stuff like games, which is more "content" than application). Simply put, time is on free software's side. Maybe not now, maybe not soon, but eventually, someone will have written a free replacement for every commercial off-the-shelf application.
Similarly, many web sites and web services seem to be too simple (from an application complexity point of view) to demand any kind of real subscription fees to users. People won't pay them, for the most part, so sites have to slim down and make due with ad revenues.
(shameless plug, check out the site on my sig for an example of such a web service)
Let me fill that in for you:
1. Make new stuff.
2. Karma whore.
3. Profit!
A geek writes some software/builds some hardware that takes off, and starts to become recognised as good/cool via word-of-mouth. Geeks everywhere start to chip in and help him, because that's by nature what geeks do. A bussinessman sees an oppourtunity to provide a service of some sort that will enhance the geeks' new toy. The bussinessman makes money, the geek gets recognition (and job offers), the consumers/users win.
While this is very simplistic, I can't see why this process can't be applied to most good, cool, or useful things. No matter what anyone says, if something is useful or entertaining, it is profitable, directly or otherwise.
So all technologists with or without dayjobs, make time to help/start geek projects. After all if you're a real geek, this sort of work doubles as play.
What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
Myself, I'm reading it because it's sunday night and I have nothing else to do. Everything is slow today.
I haven't worked in many companies (I'm only 23), but, there is an example here that I can draw from my tiny experience: web related technologies and their associated databases, and how that relates to Linux and open source.
In a large company like mine, database clients, the OSs to run them, and the databases that they serve are, together, big business indeed. To serve about 700 people of all manner of trade using one unified client system is tough. You have people that need to make hundreds of transactions a day, and people that need to use this data to connect to yet other clients to arrange services from yet other clients. You need increased IT staff that must manage it and use it themselves, and automation people that must keep it running and add needed and unforseen features. For such a solution, both my previous company and the one I work for now chooses PeopleSoft.
Companies like PeopleSoft and their associated vendors love Microsoft and other proprietary vendors. They push Win2k for the desktops, .NET for the developers, and SQL for the database. This is because with this combination, they can force you into a static model (predictable and simple for them) that is easy for them to control. The assured future upgrades of more Microsoft technologies will keep them involved, because their solution only works with it, and will "evolve" with it (I.E. they make their new products more efficient with future Microsoft technologies). They can also sell you these MS products and the consultation needed to implement them because they are vendors of them themselves. No need to go to the Microsoft salesman for "the latest and greatest" when PeopleSoft can just "throw it all in together".
My previous company was ready to spend 1.5 million on PeopleSoft, 500k for Microsoft technologies needed to run it, and hire three programmers and admins to keep it all going for the next 3 years. I saved them about 500k by showing them how I could replace the PeopleSoft "solutions" to run on Linux terminals and simple PHP/mySQL clients that could be used from a web browser. Many Win2k licenses were avoided, many PeopleSoft licenses were avoided, many SQL licenses were avoided, and any 1rst year CS student could tailor my code in the future (I.E. out source a programmer for a week at a time).
The reason why I only saved them 500k and not the full 2 million (plus new staff)? Because the PeopleSoft salespeople have very slippery tongues, and talked the suits into using it at about a 60-65% distribution model (compared to the old 100% model). The local PeopleSoft guy still hates me for showing my old bosses that, with just a little know how and open source, you could replace their crap with highly efficient and simple tools at a fraction of the cost. In this case, nothing, since I didn't recieve any extra money for my time - only my usual salary.
Such is life.
I keep reading all these articles on the job market and the direction some businesses are going. Where do they leave me? Clueless. As I get ready to graduate PSU next summer, I leave with one question... wtf am I ever going to do for a job? Decentralization. Great, so does that mean I should try to start some business away from a business? Or is it that when I get into a business, I won't have 50 bosses? Does anyone have a plain english definition?
When I think centralized companies, I think back to my Managing Quality prof from this semester saying how a lot of companies are flattening out their structures from having tall hierarchies to wide bases with a few upper people. Meaning, less people telling you what to do, but more people around you trying to work with you on everything...
Are the two totally related? Probably not. But when you're soon to be entering the job market, its food for thought, and leaves me more confused than ever... What do I want to do, and who do I want to do it for?
BTW notice the "damn liberals" dont have the majority in either the house or senate and the "racists" have the presidency as well.
I guess there will be no excuses (terrorism, or terraism/tourism as the president would say) when everything is still shitty in 2 years. Oh well, I guess they cut my taxes.
No one wants anything from the govt (society) until they are in need (ie medical healthcare), then every pathetic "racist" that lost their ass in the great stock market crash of 2000-2002 comes whining that they cannot afford to pay for health care. Fuck'em is what I say.
Since when did the "religious/racist" party give a shit about being hypocrites. Going to church every sunday and talking about how good you are and how you help so much (by giving to your "church/cult") for another activity center. When the fucking public school across the street doesn't have textbooks newer than 1983 and the building is falling apart. I fucking hate "conservatives/cocksuckers"
Notice my state of utterly moronic people. We voted all conservatives on the national level but all liberal on the local level. How the fuck does that happen? Welcome to DipShit USA. If I hear one more person say "I voted for him based on his character and I liked him better." I'm going to puke. All that means is "His commercial was more appealing than the other guy." Unbelievable.
Can't wait for my Flamebait.... so mod away assholes.
Many people these days tend to forget that Gates IS also a geek. Whether you want to admit it or not he was hacking some pretty good assembler code back when a large portion of the Slashdot readship was still wearing diapers.
It is probably a mistake to try to relate this "balance" to the future of Silicon Valley or our economy for the following reason: There must be tangible financial benefits for there "home-brewed" or "geek-driven" applications to really be exploited and capitalized on.
That was the case for the internet's early days (before the web) and still is the case for P2P; it isn't the first person who manages to come up with something new that benefits from it, it is the first person who figures out how to make a profit from it... and has incentive to market, etc...
"Geeks make new stuff primarily because it's fun, because it's useful, and because they can."
yes, much the the annoyance of receiving a $120 electric bill for a 810 sq. ft. apartment, where the air conditioning has to be run in the winter time to keep all of the equipment cool enough...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Geeks's model
1. Make cool thing
2. ???
3. Profit
Suit's model
1. ???
2. Market, Advertise, Sell
3. Profit
Yeah, they have a lot of in common. It's step 3.
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
The downside is that you have to abrogate your ability to take care of yourself to another party. That *is* what you are doing when you take a specialized job ( payed or volunteer) whether you look at it that way or not. Someone has to provide you with money to buy food/shelter/clothing or provide you with the food/clothing/shelter itself if *all* you do is code.
The American "job system" is really just a form of fuedalism in disguise. YOU do not provide for yourself and your family, your "Lord" does, although he wraps it in a pretty package to artfully disguise the true relationship.
This is no particular surprise. The system evoloved directly out of the British Fuedal system which merely replaced the agricultural Lord with a mine manager. The "workers" were, and are, serfs in everything but name anyway. The only added "freedom" is the right to change allegience to another "Lord," or starve.
Or make one's own way.
There are coders who are perfectly comfortable at the workstation AND in the board room. I can think of a particular example off the top of my head who is world famous for being a coder *and* a positively *rapacious* businessman. You may have heard of him. His name is Bill something or other.
And if you work for him you are *his,* and *he* makes the money in your paycheck.
There are even a few odd coders here and there who are good enough at business that they've managed to put a good many dollars in their pocket producing "free" code. The two are *not* incompatible.
Me, I think specialization is for insects, but that's me. Your milage may vary.
You may, as far as *I* am concerned, manage to find a living in any lawful ( and perhaps even a few select *unlawful*) means available to you that works for you.
This does not invalidate the point of the parent poster that the differentiation between "coders" and "businessmen" is bullshit. This is true even when the differentiation is between the production of "free" vs. propriatary software.
*People* ( as opposed to *you*) are more diverse than that.
KFG
In the first half of the 20th century, when mass production really got going, this was a clear distinction. Understand, throughout all of history up to then, making stuff took a lot of work on each item. Even simple items were expensive. Suddenly, in one lifetime, that all changed. Machines were developed for stamping, moulding, glassblowing, punching, rolling, and the other operations of manufacturing. Those machines got faster and more powerful. For the first time ever, the world was awash in manufactured goods.
The relationship between manufacturers, who put the machines and plants together to make stuff, and the financiers, who put deals together, was much like the "geek" and "suit" distinction today.
What's the point? This is a known. It's also part of the "everyone has a place in society" thing. Some people make the stuff, some people design it, some people sell it. Then some people scoop fries and some flip burgers and some make change. Then the overlap, some design, make and sell stuff (I can think of some law enforcement devices off hand...) and then some people not only scoop fries, but flip burgers and make change as well - depends on which grease joint they work at. In a free market economy such as that in the U.S. they are kind of dependant upon one another
Derek Greene
Geeks tend to be successful because they know they will be.
Businesses tend to look successful because they have been successful.
1-p is as valid a metric as p.
Pat Buchanan ran with the Reform party in 2000. The Libertarian Candidate was Harry Browne.
There are two kinds of businesses: 1) means to an end; 2) end in itself.
You can make goods, or provide services, because you can make money doing it. Or you can do it because it's what you like to do, and making money doing it is just the best way to pay the bills while you keep doing it.
Whatever the business is, computers, sailboats, farming, medicine -- if you're doing it because you love it, then you're a geek; if you're doing it to make money, you're a suit.
Clearly the two (geeks & suits) can exist in a symbiotic relationship. The suit can use the geek's love of building widgets to make money; the geek can use the suit's ability to manage finances in order to keep his operation funded.
Public corporations are primarily suit-driven. Sole proprietorships and family businesses are probably mostly geek-driven.
Well said! One of the most fundamentally important lessons that I ever learned was that not everything can be broken down into terms of 'yes/no', 'true/false', 'good/bad', right/wrong', 'right/left', 'win/loose', and 'this/that'.
I am also sick of the mentality of "it's either this way, or that way". I'm also very, very sick of the 'win/loose' people. Frankly, there are a lot of problems in society which simply cannot be solved with such a narrow minded, simplistic viewpoint as that. I agree completely with your comments!
Right on regarding pigeonholing and careers!
Damn. SteweyGriffin, I'm a fan.
This is just another manifestation of the fact that the domains of art and practicality lie, at times, seperate from each other. Yes, there are those out there who are mainly interested in creating things in order to increase sales. Yes, there are those out there who are only interested in creating things that enact change or communicate with others. Or perhaps things that just amuse themselves.
The truth is, both types are firmly entrenched in our humanity. Half a century of various failed or struggling communist social models bear out that there will always be those motivated by greed. Half the art hanging in MOMA bears out that there will always be those who couldn't care less about the vote of the common Joe's greenback.
Most of us have a little "suit" in us, even if we pretend not to. Developing GPL software, for example, is often just a form of apprenticeship, or self-teaching. Most people who develop GPL software would not be satisfied with working the stamp at a steel factory forever to support their hobby. Those who would are rare (but, notably, valuable to the world; while artists often only end up living a hard, poverty stricken life, they populate the cutting edge of human thought.) On a similar vein, one likely would do the world much more good by devoting their life to a project such as world hunger, as opposed to taking classes in electronic engineering and wiring up the l33test battle bot this side of TNN. Only with world hunger, you get to meet mankind, not Mankind.
The base problem here (if you call it that) is human greed and self-interest. Remove that and the ocasional division between art and usefullness is no longer relavent. Unfortunately, remove that and most of humanity dies of starvation and dolphins take over the world. Which is mostly like it is now, except with more dolphins.
This somehow related weblogs, web services and decentralization together. It does not make any sense. And saying Web Services has no business model or that is just a silly idea just lacks any amount of research to justify an article which bashes it.
In an economic slowdown would you expect innovation to also be stifled? That would be the best time to innovate since a truly good idea would be successful when others would die as they should. The whole dotcom era let every silly idea live for a while, with venture capital, and now the good ideas from the dotcom era are being sorted out to the top (XML, Java) and the 2nd generation will be the result.
From what I see it is a good thing. Head over to Apache.org and you will see lots of very useful projects which leverage lots of good ideas. This article is just crap.
Brennan Stehling - http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
YOU == Wanabe marxist 15 year old.
C'mon, I'm right arent I?
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
as a geeky business owner, I hate to tell you that the distinction is NOT real, it is an artificial border that you have decided to draw. It is more than an "oversimplification", it is a total fabrication.
There are many hardcore geeks who are also trying to make a profit -- so many that it creates an infinitely blurred line. You are trying to invent a definition of "geeks" and "suits." In real life there are billions of different people, all with infinitely differing shades of motives and values. I hope you get some more experience with real life very soon.
Gate's bought DOS...he didn't write it. That makes him a suit in my book....not a geek.
If he was as good (a geek) as you claim, he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to buy it.
> Sure, suits don't care about the elegance of YOUR crap--but you don't care about [theirs].
Characterizing it like that is a blatant attempt to make the suit-geek dichotomy go away, and its not working. For one thing, everyone understands money, geeks included. When a suit is concerned with the bottom-line, we can at least understand where he's coming from. The converse is (often) not even remotely true. In the extreme, suits understand money, and money alone. Geeks, on the other hand, hold the position that while money is important, in some circumstances, elegance trumps money. So while geeks understand both the ephemeral "elegance" AND the more obvious bottom line, suits usually only understand money.
Therein lies the problem. If anything, the Geek is more dedicated to the bottom line than the Suit, because a more elegant solution is a part of or even the foundation of a sound business model, especially in the long run. However, a Suit who typically has little or no understanding of the domain, or the humility to take the advice of those who do often cuts technological corners (like hiring MSCEs) with deleterious effects on the bottom line. A geek suggesting the use of free open-source software will get modded down in the board room because "Everyone uses Microsoft." The reason for the stereotype of the Pointy Haired Boss is because it is unfortunately common. Not the pointy hair part, the inept technological aptitude part.
"It's Dot Com!"
Yep. I'm working on a portfolio project right now, which happens to be web based, so I'm at my computer all the time. I figure that Slashdot has got another two or three weeks of 'VoidEngineer' posts all over the place before I find my next project which will require me to be away from my computer.
Yeah, I wish I had something better going on in my life that I didn't have so much time to procrastinate by posting to slashdot. Ah well. The glass is always half full, right? I'm improving by web authoring skills... (yeah, right...)
buying something takes money....writing code takes brains...
bg has loads of one and shards of the other.
Live at home? No, I moved in with your daughter....ooops...I promised not to tell. She says hi!
Linux was created so that there could be a truly free OS to play around with. Minix cost money, back in the day, and modifications had to be distributed in the form of patches, which got to be extreemly annoying, even for people who already had licenses. That was the reason Linus created Linux.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
And only history (and the lackluster sales of his books on the future) will tell if his business sense will live beyond the image of him that many of us hold today.
Too bad no one around him gets any of the credit....must be something in the coolaid.
Ok, lest I didn't make myself clear...you guys are defending/idolizing a criminal. I don't admire him for anything...zero. You're free to laddle on the adoration, but I don't have to get in the same reception line. Talk to the hand.
Basic: A toy language that has ruined more good programmers than sleepless nights. It should never have lived more than 6 months...thank gates for keeping it around, so it could stink things up, like a dead woodchuck, laying lifeless under the back porch in the hot noonday sun.
/bay'-sic/ n.
"BASIC
A programming language, originally designed for Dartmouth's experimental timesharing system in the early 1960s, which for many years was the leading cause of brain damage in proto-hackers. Edsger W. Dijkstra observed in "Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective" that "It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration." This is another case (like Pascal) of the cascading lossage that happens when a language deliberately designed as an educational toy gets taken too seriously. A novice can write short BASIC programs (on the order of 10-20 lines) very easily; writing anything longer (a) is very painful, and (b) encourages bad habits that will make it harder to use more powerful languages well. This wouldn't be so bad if historical accidents hadn't made BASIC so common on low-end micros in the 1980s. As it is, it probably ruined tens of thousands of potential wizards. "
Found this gem on the NANET Comedy Conference. If you know anything about
DOS vs Windows vs OS/2 vs... then READ IT.
How It Came To Pass...
Long ago, in the days when all disks flopped in the breeze and the
writing of words was on a star, the Blue Giant dug for the people the
Pea Sea. But he needed a creature who could sail the waters, and would
need for support but few rams.
So the Gatekeeper, who was said to be both micro and soft, fashioned a
Dosfish, who was small and spry, and could swim the narrow sixteen-bit
channel. But the Dosfish was not bright, and could be taught few new
tricks. His alphabet had no A's, B's, or Q's, but a mere 640 K's, and
the size of his file cabinet was limited by his own fat.
At first the people loved the Dosfish, for he was the only one who
could swim the Pea Sea. But the people soon grew tired of commanding
his line, and complained that he could be neither dragged nor dropped.
"Forsooth," they cried. "the Dosfish can only do one job at a time, and
of names, he knows only eight and three." And many of them left the
Pea Sea for good, and went off in search of the Magic Apple.
Although many went, far more stayed, because admittance to the Pea Sea
was cheap. So the Gateskeeper studied the Magic Apple, and rested
awhile in the Parc of Xer-Ox, and he made a Window that could ride on
the Dosfish and do its thinking for it. But the Window was slow, and
it would break when the Dosfish got confused. So most people contented
themselves with the Dosfish.
Now it came to pass that the Blue Giant came upon the Gateskeeper, and
spoke thus: "Come, let us make of ourselves something greater than the
Dosfish." The Blue Giant seemed like a humbug, so they called the new
creature OZ II.
Now Oz II was smarter than the Dosfish, as most things are. It could
drag and drop, and could keep files without becoming fat. But the
people cared for it not. So the Blue Giant and the Gateskeeper
promised another OZ II, to be called Oz II Too, that could swim the
fast new 32-bit wide Pea Sea.
Then lo, a strange miracle occurred. Although the Window that rode on
the Dosfish was slow, it was pretty, and the third Window was the
prettiest of all. And the people began to like the third Window, and
to use it. So the Gateskeeper turned to the Blue Giant and said, "Fie
on thee, for I need thee not. Keep thy OZ II Too, and I shall make of
my Window an Entity that will not need the Dosfish, and will swim in
the 32-bit Pea Sea."
Years passed, and the workshops of the Gateskeeper and the Blue Giant
were overrun by insects. And the people went on using their Dosfish
with a Window; even though the Dosfish would from time to time become
confused and die, it could always be revived with three fingers.
Then there came a day when the Blue Giant let forth his OZ II Too onto
the world. The Oz II Too was indeed mighty, and awesome, and required
a great ram, and the world was changed not a whit. For the people said,
"It is indeed great, but we see little application for it." And they
were doubtful, because the Blue Giant had met with the Magic Apple, and
together they were fashioning a Taligent, and the Taligent was made of
objects, and was most pink.
Now the Gateskeeper had grown ambitious, and as he had been ambitious
before he grew, he was now more ambitious still. So he protected his
Window Entity with great security, and made its net work both in
serving and with peers. And the Entity would swim, not only in the Pea
Sea, but in the Oceans of Great Risk. "Yea," the Gateskeeper declared,
"though my entity will require a greater ram than Oz II Too, it will be
more powerful than a world of Eunuchs.
And so the Gateskeeper prepared to unleash his Entity to the world, in
all but two cities. For he promised that a greater Window, a greater
Entity, and even a greater Dosfish would appear one day in Chicago and
Cairo, and it too would be built of objects.
Now the Eunuchs who lived in the Oceans of Great Risk, and who scorned
the Pea Sea, began to look upon their world with fear. For the Pea Sea
had grown, and great ships were sailing in it, the Entity was about to
invade their oceans, and it was rumored that files would be named in
letters greater than eight. And the Eunuchs looked upon the Pea Sea,
and many of them thought to immigrate.
Within the Oceans of Great Risk were many Sun Worshippers, and they
wanted to excel, and make their words perfect, and do their jobs as
easy as one-two-three. And what's more, many of them no longer wanted
to pay for the Risk. So the Sun Lord went to the Pea Sea, and got
himself eighty-sixed.
And taking the next step was He of the NextStep, who had given up
building his boxes of black. And he proclaimed loudly that he could
help anyone make wondrous soft wares, then admitted meekly that only
those who know him could use those wares, and he was made of objects,
and required the biggest ram of all.
And the people looked out upon the Pea Sea, and they were sore amazed.
And sore confused. And sore sore. And that is why, to this day, Ozes,
Entities, and Eunuchs battle on the shores of the Pea Sea, but the
people still travel on the simple Dosfish.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Hang on a minute. The article distinguishes (and criticises) the "turning a profit" motive from the "being useful" motive. But the only reason something turns a profit is because it's useful enough to someone for them to decide to pay for it. That's the whole market economy driver, and (I'm sorry) but it's responsible for the vast majority of your present quality of life.
In general, a good chindogu solves a real problem but creates a new one at the same time.
Like one of my favorites: The solar powered flashlight.
Ok, I'll take that as acknowledgement of defeat on your part :)
laugh...it's funnnnnnny....
The article is a report from the "Supernova conference" on decentralization - a currently perceived shift in the nature of the Net, back from few publishers and many readers, to something more end-to-end.
The two-page Salon report wonders what the business models for e2e are, and what the consequences of greater commercial interest in e2e technologies might be. The quoted introduction (and high-rated comments) are not very representative of the story. It doesn't say anything very surprising, but there's more there than the dubious geek/suit dichotomy.
--Anthony.
I was looking for the 3-page rant, for sure.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
(BTW I live in Norman, Oklahoma hence my name BoomerSooner)
#1
The republican party is racist. There is no doubt. The only reason they "act" inclusionist is because if they get 8% of stupid blacks/latinos to vote for them it is usually enough to beat the democrats. Remember it was the republican party that sponsored segregation and fought very hard to keep it in place. Mind you this was only 50 years ago (Strom Thurmond ring a bell?).
Why did JC "Uncle Tom" Watts (from my town) step down as the 3rd highest republican? They were asking him to essentially get the coffee for them. Notice the jackass Inhoffe trying to move to #1 by calling for a "vote" on Lott. Hell I hope Lott stays the leader and the democrats get some fucking balls and attack the assholes. What the fuck happened to the will of the democratic party? If they are pussy whipped because of Clinton they need to fucking retire. I'll take a president that gets a BJ (does anyone remember JFK?) in the oval office to a moron that cannot even say terrorist (terraist or tourist is what I hear). The republican party is a bunch of pandering assholes. If you don't believe it watch this:
The repubs will have the house, senate, presidency and supreme court. I will bet the first person with balls $1000 that there is No Anti-Abortion Law which based on their platform should pass with flying colors. Do you want to know why it wont? They would die a quick death in the next election. They just pander to the religious dumb fucks that can only focus on abortion as their "how I vote issue". Mark it down in 2004 there will still be legal abortion. Pussies.
#2
Every church in my town (of around 85-100k depending on if school is in or not) has expanded/remodeled their original building, bought neighboring houses and turned them into parking lots (this has royally pissed of some people on campus, frats/sororities have done the same), and build mutil-million dollar centers of worthlessness.
In a time where our schools are lacking funding (partially due to bad management but mostly due to fast growth of population and lack of funds) people bitch and moan about a new bond issue for the schools (note the funds only go to schools not general funds within the area) but will gladly give another $100 to their church every weekend because that is their new "high school".
Have you ever noticed 90% of the hypocrites that go to church are more interested in the gossip than the gospel? Being a child of an Italian family the Catholic church is a birth requirement. However, in my personal search for religion I have attended almost every available denomination and religion in my area (yes, muslum/islamic, buddhism, non secular, native american (kiowa, choctaw)). All I see is hypocracy in the Christian religions. It's not about being a good person it's about how much you "give". So all I can say is fuck'em.
The only exception is the mormons I know. I hold them in the highest esteem because even though I don't agree with their beliefs they respect me, so in turn I respect them. Also they are the nicest people I've met (in relation to attending services). They too have their tithing (10% or you burn in hell). At least mormons aren't hypocrites.
I have no problem with religion, I have a major problem with people who lie to themselves to feel better than others simply because they piss their money away on giving 1st Baptist more money so the PowerPoint presentations can be professionally designed.
You are correct, I did not read the article because it seemed like such froth that it would be a waste of time reading it. Total balogna marginalizing our intelligence (or lack thereof).
Real men don't need signitures!!!