I believe there are two factors the prevent geeks form speaking out about politics. The first is a belief that political intuitions are irrelevant to computer culture. As an example, for as long as I can remember there have been threats and laws against copying software, music, and movies but yet somehow we all have always been able to find a pirated copy of games and music. Growing up in this environment has lead us to believe that no matter what laws are passed there will always be someone out there one steep ahead of the law who will provide us with our contraband. This environment, which produced the "geeks will always win" mentality, might not last into the next generation. I am sure many of our parents' believed that the mentality of the 60s would survive in us but to a large degree it has not. We were also raised in a world where is it was relatively easy and safe to reverse engineer a piece of code; where the basics of programming and operating systems were all there was for us to learn. However, in the future fundamental access may be beyond many young future geeks, which would reduce their power and destroy the "geeks will always win" mentality - there might be no more geeks, as we know them.
However, computers are political beyond the scope of pirated entrainment. Why haven't we gotten really mad and loud about all the freedom of speech and privacy issues? Because wealth and power breed compliancy and as geeks become richer and more powerful, wealth and power simply become recursive. The "geeks" we may become may need to destroy much of what was created in terms of freedom on the net in order to maintain their positions of power and their possessions of wealth.
Well I will get off my soap box now. I recommend you all read Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace and ask yourselves - What I am going to do with my newly found IPO millions and what kind of computing environment do I want my kids to have
Science and Religion, History and Morality
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
I would like to make a few comments. 1- The only similarity religious and scientific questions share in this discussion is how they spell the word life. Biologists are intrested in the material componets that allow for life. Questions about the meaning of life are for theologins. An understanding of the basic genetics of life have no colflict with any religious questions. Genes encode proteins which can be thought of as functions that operate on biological matter. An understanding of the basic functions a genome must perform to sustane life is equlivent to the basic conditions and interactions that must occur to sustante any other physical reaction. Explaning what conditions are needed for some physical propertity to arise does not address any issues aobut why that propertity exists and what it means. Any scientist who claims to have answers to these questions is a con artist. 2- The creation of new species of plant or animal is not new to the human experience. Since the day we left our hunter gater ways we have sucesfully and safely engaged in breeding for both form and function. It is no more an inherent moral issue today as it was then. However, moral issues arise when amoral companies, governments or individuals engage in breeding/genetic engenering. We must address the moral issues of those who weild the power not the power itself. Thanks -Alan
Slashdot Mirror
I believe there are two factors the prevent geeks form speaking out about politics. The first is a belief that political intuitions are irrelevant to computer culture. As an example, for as long as I can remember there have been threats and laws against copying software, music, and movies but yet somehow we all have always been able to find a pirated copy of games and music. Growing up in this environment has lead us to believe that no matter what laws are passed there will always be someone out there one steep ahead of the law who will provide us with our contraband. This environment, which produced the "geeks will always win" mentality, might not last into the next generation. I am sure many of our parents' believed that the mentality of the 60s would survive in us but to a large degree it has not. We were also raised in a world where is it was relatively easy and safe to reverse engineer a piece of code; where the basics of programming and operating systems were all there was for us to learn. However, in the future fundamental access may be beyond many young future geeks, which would reduce their power and destroy the "geeks will always win" mentality - there might be no more geeks, as we know them.
However, computers are political beyond the scope of pirated entrainment. Why haven't we gotten really mad and loud about all the freedom of speech and privacy issues? Because wealth and power breed compliancy and as geeks become richer and more powerful, wealth and power simply become recursive. The "geeks" we may become may need to destroy much of what was created in terms of freedom on the net in order to maintain their positions of power and their possessions of wealth.
Well I will get off my soap box now. I recommend you all read Lessig's Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace and ask yourselves - What I am going to do with my newly found IPO millions and what kind of computing environment do I want my kids to have
I would like to make a few comments. 1- The only similarity religious and scientific questions share in this discussion is how they spell the word life. Biologists are intrested in the material componets that allow for life. Questions about the meaning of life are for theologins. An understanding of the basic genetics of life have no colflict with any religious questions. Genes encode proteins which can be thought of as functions that operate on biological matter. An understanding of the basic functions a genome must perform to sustane life is equlivent to the basic conditions and interactions that must occur to sustante any other physical reaction. Explaning what conditions are needed for some physical propertity to arise does not address any issues aobut why that propertity exists and what it means. Any scientist who claims to have answers to these questions is a con artist. 2- The creation of new species of plant or animal is not new to the human experience. Since the day we left our hunter gater ways we have sucesfully and safely engaged in breeding for both form and function. It is no more an inherent moral issue today as it was then. However, moral issues arise when amoral companies, governments or individuals engage in breeding/genetic engenering. We must address the moral issues of those who weild the power not the power itself. Thanks -Alan