These two paragraphs sort of struck me as a strange juxtaposition. In the first there is a strong antipathy towards the entertainment industry. But the second implies that the geeks seek out their "rich, diverse, and highly individualized" entertainment from these vendors of mediocrity. Odd that - I don't think that it's a valid complaint.
You forget that the Internet allows people to publish their works without having to go through a corporation to do it. MP3.com is the classic example, though the various online comics (User Friendly, Penny Arcade, etc.) should be considered as well. Not to mention the existence of MSTs of works of fan fiction that happen to be bad, IRCRPGs and their logs, and so-called "role-playing stories" such as NuRPG, all of which are unique to the Net.
I'm sure others here could name other examples of entertainment found only on the Net, including ones as obscure as the last two genres I mentioned, as well. That's the great thing about it; it allows the world to see ideas and products that corporations would never consider publishing. It has the potential to free the artist, provided the corporations don't manipulate things such that it's illegal to publish something without the possibility of a corporation making a profit from it... (Of course, if they do, it would serve them right if a "creativity drain" into countries with more favorable Net laws took place as a result...)
Your point about the purpose of copyright and patents and the corporations' desire to distort these in order to have complete control of and maximum profit from the content they sell is well-made, however. Would someone please moderate that post up to 2?
As long as we're talking about personality types..
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
...keep in mind that the whole point of temperament theory is that we don't all need the same things out of life. Just because the majority of people live on face-to-face interaction doesn't mean all of us do.
In particular, it's interesting that you mention INTJ -- after missing the point of such typecasting entirely. If you would look at the Keirsey Temperament and Character Web Site and read through a little more carefully, you'll see that temperament theory is about deep-set priorities in life, not manifestations of delusion as you seem to be painting it to be. Just because introspection and introversion aren't considered socially acceptable traits doesn't mean they aren't the right ones for us.
Personally, I never had much of a social life at all before I got online. I found it very hard to relate to anybody in school. After I dropped out, though, I got online. What a difference! Here were people who talked about things deeper than clothes and who actually shared some interests with me. Who cares that I wasn't there in person -- typing my thoughts out on a computer, looking them over quickly, and then sending them out was much more comfortable and natural for me anyway.
Can I honestly say there's no need for face-to-face interaction at all? No. But I'm more than content to save that for special occasions -- my natural means of making friends is from the inside out, not the outside in (or just sticking to the outside entirely, as some seem to do).
I agree; Slashdot is overhyping this one. If you read the article carefully, you'll see that 63,000 known defects does not necessarily translate to 63,000 (or 65,000) bugs. However, even if only one percent of these defects turn out to be real bugs, that's 630 bugs -- quite a few, maybe even enough to stir up a false advertising suit (thanks to the "standard in stability" hype)... Let's hope.
Excuse my tone, but what is the matter with most of you? I was reading through the various posts earlier this evening so as not to duplicate something already said, but I got frustrated somewhere on page three. While some good questions have been asked (most of which haven't been moderated up yet), the vast majority of what I see here is flaming, even trolling.
At the risk of posting something that could be labeled off-topic, allow me to formulate responses to this whole mess. The essences of the flames themselves will be in boldface, my own responses plain:
Jon Katz isn't a geek. The main argument made for this one seems to be that Katz isn't a technical person. I suppose this depends on one's definition of geek; while Katz certainly isn't a traditional geek, I ask you to consider this broader definition for a moment: While a normal only wants to use a thing, a geek strives to understand that thing. Consider for a moment what Katz writes about. It's not the technologies themselves that are the point of his articles. It's people: morality, society, freedom, all that heady stuff. Is thinking about the workings of humankind any less valid than thinking about the workings of the Linux kernel?
Jon Katz doesn't write particularly well. The main sub-points here seem to be that he supposedly uses run-on sentences and takes too long to get to his point. While Katz does write long sentences, they aren't run-ons for the most part; if they were, being something of an English-oriented geek, I'd notice. (Note: before anyone flames me about my toying with the rules, let me say that I'm not trying to write particularly formally.) This is just his style. If you don't like that style, that really isn't Katz's problem. As for the question of whether Katz takes too long to make his point, I fear that perhaps too many people have grown accustomed to simple sound bites. This aspect of his style is a relic of, IMO, a better time -- a time when people didn't just blurt out opinions, but presented them in such a way that people were given a chance to think, to see the writer's point even if they didn't agree.
Editorials don't belong on Slashdot. Where, then, do editorials belong? Must they be sequestered in some obscure corner of the Net where no one will read and consider them? Note that newspapers have editorial sections even though editorials are technically not news. Why? Because newspapers exist to help people form opinions, and hearing those of others can facilitate that. While Slashdot is hardly a newspaper, it does seem to be attempting to fill the same role the Internet way. It provides links to news and allows people to talk about it. Certainly editorials are a valid way to make people think in the Internet age as well. However, one good point has been made about this by the flamers: why is Katz the only one who posts editorials? Is it simply because he has written them (and continues to write them) in other forums and publications? Perhaps another person or two should be invited to write editorials here as well.
Jon Katz is stuck-up and pompous. Katz expresses his opinions. Nothing more. That's the definition of an editorial, after all. Opinions, by definition, show bias. Are these flamers simply angry because Katz presents his opinions formally rather than in a flame, as they've learned to? Has flaming somehow become the "polite" way to express an opinion in the Internet age, while anyone who takes the time to express one's thoughts more precisely is only doing so to make himself look superior? Perhaps it's what Katz expresses opinions about that's the problem. He questions the morality of things. He points out what he sees as the problems in society. He wonders about where the Internet is going, and puts his imagination to work trying to find some direction. Is that so wrong? Must we limit our range of thought to how to fix this bug, how to defeat that threat to open source, and how to stop the other thing from getting patented? The day that one is considered to be stuck-up and pompous just for saying something more than "* sucks" is a sad day indeed.
Jon Katz presumes to speak for all geeks. When, may I ask, did Katz ever claim to be speaking for anyone but himself? In which article did he ever say anything like, "Geeks all share this opinion"? Sure, he's expressed perceived facts about how we're treated or how the world is changing because of us, but I can't remember one time when he claimed to understand how we all think. Ironically, most of these flames seem to carry the very tone that the flamers themselves claim Katz uses -- an assumption that their opinion is that of every geek. What a sad display of hypocrisy.
OK, now that that's out of my system, I suppose it's time for me to ask an actual question. Here it goes:
I've noticed that there seem to be three distinct flavors of piracy:
Piracy for the sake of saving money, sometimes even the sake of "screwing corps over";
Piracy for the sake of convenience, with no concern for anyone else's interests;
Piracy for the sake of convenience, but with concern for the original creators.
Corporations, of course, are only interested in money; they'll even hurt their own customers and artists in order to reach that goal. Certainly nothing can be done about the first variety of pirates, but the second and especially the third shouldn't simply be labeled as thieves; it's not quite that simple.
With all this in mind, what do you suppose the ultimate result of this battle over how creations should be distributed will be?
I hope this interview turns out to be as insightful as I hope.
Having read your page as was recommended before posting here, I couldn't help but notice your interest in education. However, in my opinion, the current system of education used in the United States is, to put it gently, faulty. People with talents and interests that lie outside the one-size-fits-all curriculum -- and even ones whose interests lie in less mainstream parts of the curriculum, such as phys ed or computers -- are singled out as unintelligent or unmotivated. People who try to make friends in unique ways, or who don't try to make friends at all, are seen as unstable. People who -- heaven forbid -- don't want to sit still and/or pay attention are drugged such that they do. People who have a life outside of school, whether social, employed, or otherwise, are frequently penalized for this, albeit indirectly through poor grades. I won't even get into my own experiences...
In short, Mr. Wozniak, our school system is not designed with the needs of children in mind, but with the needs of mass-producing "educated" people who will meekly do whatever is asked of them. It's not even good at doing that invisibly -- the system clearly fits neither the younger children whose instincts are to go out and play and explore nor the teenagers who need the freedom to discover their own identities, desires, and places in the world. The school system's role as a driving force towards conformity has become particularly clear in the wake of Columbine, as Jon Katz has already pointed out.
Do you see any solution to this problem? What can be done to give everyone the start they need and deserve in life?
Everything that needs to be said, nothing that doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
You forget that the Internet allows people to publish their works without having to go through a corporation to do it. MP3.com is the classic example, though the various online comics (User Friendly, Penny Arcade, etc.) should be considered as well. Not to mention the existence of MSTs of works of fan fiction that happen to be bad, IRCRPGs and their logs, and so-called "role-playing stories" such as NuRPG, all of which are unique to the Net.
I'm sure others here could name other examples of entertainment found only on the Net, including ones as obscure as the last two genres I mentioned, as well. That's the great thing about it; it allows the world to see ideas and products that corporations would never consider publishing. It has the potential to free the artist, provided the corporations don't manipulate things such that it's illegal to publish something without the possibility of a corporation making a profit from it... (Of course, if they do, it would serve them right if a "creativity drain" into countries with more favorable Net laws took place as a result...)
Your point about the purpose of copyright and patents and the corporations' desire to distort these in order to have complete control of and maximum profit from the content they sell is well-made, however. Would someone please moderate that post up to 2?
In particular, it's interesting that you mention INTJ -- after missing the point of such typecasting entirely. If you would look at the Keirsey Temperament and Character Web Site and read through a little more carefully, you'll see that temperament theory is about deep-set priorities in life, not manifestations of delusion as you seem to be painting it to be. Just because introspection and introversion aren't considered socially acceptable traits doesn't mean they aren't the right ones for us.
Personally, I never had much of a social life at all before I got online. I found it very hard to relate to anybody in school. After I dropped out, though, I got online. What a difference! Here were people who talked about things deeper than clothes and who actually shared some interests with me. Who cares that I wasn't there in person -- typing my thoughts out on a computer, looking them over quickly, and then sending them out was much more comfortable and natural for me anyway.
Can I honestly say there's no need for face-to-face interaction at all? No. But I'm more than content to save that for special occasions -- my natural means of making friends is from the inside out, not the outside in (or just sticking to the outside entirely, as some seem to do).
I agree; Slashdot is overhyping this one. If you read the article carefully, you'll see that 63,000 known defects does not necessarily translate to 63,000 (or 65,000) bugs. However, even if only one percent of these defects turn out to be real bugs, that's 630 bugs -- quite a few, maybe even enough to stir up a false advertising suit (thanks to the "standard in stability" hype)... Let's hope.
At the risk of posting something that could be labeled off-topic, allow me to formulate responses to this whole mess. The essences of the flames themselves will be in boldface, my own responses plain:
- Jon Katz isn't a geek. The main argument made for this one seems to be that Katz isn't a technical person. I suppose this depends on one's definition of geek; while Katz certainly isn't a traditional geek, I ask you to consider this broader definition for a moment:
- Jon Katz doesn't write particularly well. The main sub-points here seem to be that he supposedly uses run-on sentences and takes too long to get to his point. While Katz does write long sentences, they aren't run-ons for the most part; if they were, being something of an English-oriented geek, I'd notice. (Note: before anyone flames me about my toying with the rules, let me say that I'm not trying to write particularly formally.) This is just his style. If you don't like that style, that really isn't Katz's problem.
- Editorials don't belong on Slashdot. Where, then, do editorials belong? Must they be sequestered in some obscure corner of the Net where no one will read and consider them? Note that newspapers have editorial sections even though editorials are technically not news. Why? Because newspapers exist to help people form opinions, and hearing those of others can facilitate that.
- Jon Katz is stuck-up and pompous. Katz expresses his opinions. Nothing more. That's the definition of an editorial, after all. Opinions, by definition, show bias.
- Jon Katz presumes to speak for all geeks. When, may I ask, did Katz ever claim to be speaking for anyone but himself? In which article did he ever say anything like, "Geeks all share this opinion"? Sure, he's expressed perceived facts about how we're treated or how the world is changing because of us, but I can't remember one time when he claimed to understand how we all think.
OK, now that that's out of my system, I suppose it's time for me to ask an actual question. Here it goes:While a normal only wants to use a thing, a geek strives to understand that thing.
Consider for a moment what Katz writes about. It's not the technologies themselves that are the point of his articles. It's people: morality, society, freedom, all that heady stuff. Is thinking about the workings of humankind any less valid than thinking about the workings of the Linux kernel?
As for the question of whether Katz takes too long to make his point, I fear that perhaps too many people have grown accustomed to simple sound bites. This aspect of his style is a relic of, IMO, a better time -- a time when people didn't just blurt out opinions, but presented them in such a way that people were given a chance to think, to see the writer's point even if they didn't agree.
While Slashdot is hardly a newspaper, it does seem to be attempting to fill the same role the Internet way. It provides links to news and allows people to talk about it. Certainly editorials are a valid way to make people think in the Internet age as well.
However, one good point has been made about this by the flamers: why is Katz the only one who posts editorials? Is it simply because he has written them (and continues to write them) in other forums and publications? Perhaps another person or two should be invited to write editorials here as well.
Are these flamers simply angry because Katz presents his opinions formally rather than in a flame, as they've learned to? Has flaming somehow become the "polite" way to express an opinion in the Internet age, while anyone who takes the time to express one's thoughts more precisely is only doing so to make himself look superior?
Perhaps it's what Katz expresses opinions about that's the problem. He questions the morality of things. He points out what he sees as the problems in society. He wonders about where the Internet is going, and puts his imagination to work trying to find some direction. Is that so wrong? Must we limit our range of thought to how to fix this bug, how to defeat that threat to open source, and how to stop the other thing from getting patented?
The day that one is considered to be stuck-up and pompous just for saying something more than "* sucks" is a sad day indeed.
Ironically, most of these flames seem to carry the very tone that the flamers themselves claim Katz uses -- an assumption that their opinion is that of every geek. What a sad display of hypocrisy.
I've noticed that there seem to be three distinct flavors of piracy:
- Piracy for the sake of saving money, sometimes even the sake of "screwing corps over";
- Piracy for the sake of convenience, with no concern for anyone else's interests;
- Piracy for the sake of convenience, but with concern for the original creators.
Corporations, of course, are only interested in money; they'll even hurt their own customers and artists in order to reach that goal. Certainly nothing can be done about the first variety of pirates, but the second and especially the third shouldn't simply be labeled as thieves; it's not quite that simple.With all this in mind, what do you suppose the ultimate result of this battle over how creations should be distributed will be?
I hope this interview turns out to be as insightful as I hope.
In short, Mr. Wozniak, our school system is not designed with the needs of children in mind, but with the needs of mass-producing "educated" people who will meekly do whatever is asked of them. It's not even good at doing that invisibly -- the system clearly fits neither the younger children whose instincts are to go out and play and explore nor the teenagers who need the freedom to discover their own identities, desires, and places in the world. The school system's role as a driving force towards conformity has become particularly clear in the wake of Columbine, as Jon Katz has already pointed out.
Do you see any solution to this problem? What can be done to give everyone the start they need and deserve in life?
Everything that needs to be said, nothing that doesn't.