She's undeniably smart and talented, but not the prodigy she was made out to be.
Society has an undeniable fascination with prodigies, to the point that every kid who shows some interest and talent can potentially be hyped up into a genius in some field or other.
There are 15 year olds out there hyped as blues guitar greats, math whizzes, hacking masters, and most of them, while talented, can't possibly live up to the label of prodigy. But we love prodigies so much, we keep looking for them, and if necessary, manufacturing them.
It seems (from the links you provided) that Sarah Flannery managed to keep things in perspective, but I have to wonder how many kids don't. The pressure we put on these kids to be the "real deal" can be huge (what if Sarah's algorithm had really been the huge improvement it promised, and it turned out to be her biggest accomplishment, at the age of 15 or 16?). It's also not fair to the adults who spend years mastering their crafts to spread the fiction that a kid can do the same thing, with just a gift.
I wonder if we emphasize the prodigies so much because we as a society really hope that it's possible to be "born great," without ever having to work hard at it. Is it just laziness that fuels our obsession with prodigies?
The overwhelming majority 15 year-olds on the 'Net aren't doing anything that tough, as has been pointed out. It's only the fact that many adults are too intellectually lazy to investigate a bit further that makes those teens seem like such whizzes, and so the myth of the brilliant teen hacker lives on. Not that these teens aren't bright; but they haven't done much besides read manuals and spend some time digging around.
I didn't address the monopoly issue before, but you make a sound point.
The USPS, if I remember, was founded by Ben Franklin. At the time, delivery of mail was a service that was essential to communication, which is essential to a free country. Hence, the argument might go, a postal service should be provided in order help ensure the free dissemination of information to the populace. Since part of the government's job is to protect freedom, it should provide an infrastructure for that purpose.
We would all agree (or else we wouldn't use/.) that the free exchange of information and ideas is essential. I would argue that the government (and the USPS) no longer has a monopoly on it. We have electronic mail, faxes, and other methods of shipping hard documents besides the USPS.
I make the case (maybe a naive one) that the government still needs to provide some sort of mail service, just to make sure that citizens always have access to it. This is a case where I think the government agency really helps protect basic freedoms. I have no problem with agencies competing with the USPS, but I do support the existence of a government agency that provides basic mail delivery. If the only way of shipping documents is in private hands, we have no control of any kind.
The more paranoid among us see the government as far less benign than Fed Ex or UPS. Maybe they're right, but the existence of a government agency guarantees that a privately held monopoly on information exchange is impossible.
In some sense, we actually do pay for the house numbers when we pay property tax. Someone else is not allowed to come along and build a house on the same street and put my house number on it.
I think that there is a very different attitude in the US in general about what a government should do for the population, and how that government should run. There is, in my opinion, a prevailing attitude in the United States that the government should not run in the red, and in fact should resemble a business where practical.
For example, the USPS does make a profit, and has spent a huge amount of time and money making itself into a more efficient organization. Considering the problems I've had with UPS recently, I have to say that the USPS is a real bargain for the most part.
As a taxpayer, I want my tax dollars used well. I do want a system, like ZIP codes, that allows me to pay less to have my mail delivered. I don't want to pay for the convenience of someone else needing an entire copy of the ZIP code database when I receive no benefit from that company or person's usage. The information is freely available, but the means of delivery (as others have pointed out) costs money. Do you really want to subsidize junk mail any more than we already do? I have no problem with the USPS recouping some of its costs directly from the person or company receiving the benefit from the product.
More generally, I have no problem with any government agency charging a reasonable fee to cover the costs of processing something that directly benefits me and only me.
Slashdot Mirror
Society has an undeniable fascination with prodigies, to the point that every kid who shows some interest and talent can potentially be hyped up into a genius in some field or other.
There are 15 year olds out there hyped as blues guitar greats, math whizzes, hacking masters, and most of them, while talented, can't possibly live up to the label of prodigy. But we love prodigies so much, we keep looking for them, and if necessary, manufacturing them.
It seems (from the links you provided) that Sarah Flannery managed to keep things in perspective, but I have to wonder how many kids don't. The pressure we put on these kids to be the "real deal" can be huge (what if Sarah's algorithm had really been the huge improvement it promised, and it turned out to be her biggest accomplishment, at the age of 15 or 16?). It's also not fair to the adults who spend years mastering their crafts to spread the fiction that a kid can do the same thing, with just a gift.
I wonder if we emphasize the prodigies so much because we as a society really hope that it's possible to be "born great," without ever having to work hard at it. Is it just laziness that fuels our obsession with prodigies?
The overwhelming majority 15 year-olds on the 'Net aren't doing anything that tough, as has been pointed out. It's only the fact that many adults are too intellectually lazy to investigate a bit further that makes those teens seem like such whizzes, and so the myth of the brilliant teen hacker lives on. Not that these teens aren't bright; but they haven't done much besides read manuals and spend some time digging around.
I didn't address the monopoly issue before, but you make a sound point.
/.) that the free exchange of information and ideas is essential. I would argue that the government (and the USPS) no longer has a monopoly on it. We have electronic mail, faxes, and other methods of shipping hard documents besides the USPS.
The USPS, if I remember, was founded by Ben Franklin. At the time, delivery of mail was a service that was essential to communication, which is essential to a free country. Hence, the argument might go, a postal service should be provided in order help ensure the free dissemination of information to the populace. Since part of the government's job is to protect freedom, it should provide an infrastructure for that purpose.
We would all agree (or else we wouldn't use
I make the case (maybe a naive one) that the government still needs to provide some sort of mail service, just to make sure that citizens always have access to it. This is a case where I think the government agency really helps protect basic freedoms. I have no problem with agencies competing with the USPS, but I do support the existence of a government agency that provides basic mail delivery. If the only way of shipping documents is in private hands, we have no control of any kind.
The more paranoid among us see the government as far less benign than Fed Ex or UPS. Maybe they're right, but the existence of a government agency guarantees that a privately held monopoly on information exchange is impossible.
Matt
Hey, it could be worse. He could be "the creator of Windows 95".
Matt
In some sense, we actually do pay for the house numbers when we pay property tax. Someone else is not allowed to come along and build a house on the same street and put my house number on it.
I think that there is a very different attitude in the US in general about what a government should do for the population, and how that government should run. There is, in my opinion, a prevailing attitude in the United States that the government should not run in the red, and in fact should resemble a business where practical.
For example, the USPS does make a profit, and has spent a huge amount of time and money making itself into a more efficient organization. Considering the problems I've had with UPS recently, I have to say that the USPS is a real bargain for the most part.
As a taxpayer, I want my tax dollars used well. I do want a system, like ZIP codes, that allows me to pay less to have my mail delivered. I don't want to pay for the convenience of someone else needing an entire copy of the ZIP code database when I receive no benefit from that company or person's usage. The information is freely available, but the means of delivery (as others have pointed out) costs money. Do you really want to subsidize junk mail any more than we already do? I have no problem with the USPS recouping some of its costs directly from the person or company receiving the benefit from the product.
More generally, I have no problem with any government agency charging a reasonable fee to cover the costs of processing something that directly benefits me and only me.
Matt