Did John plan to write a review? It is hard to tell if he is summarizing the content of the book or propviding his own political commentary.
For another review of the book check out this link.
The prologue to the book and another review are available on the New York times site (free registration required...).
An interview Mr. Rosen gave to NPR's All things Considered can be heard here. Note: For some reason I cannot listen to this on my computer...
He manages to leave out many of Mr. Rosen's arguments for why private speech should be protected, and why these protections should be extended to our electronic utterances.
Mr. Rosen points out that much of our private speech only makes sense in context, and that that context includes our relationship with the person we are communicating with and their knowledge about us. Thus my letters to my wife or my best friend may make no sense when read by a perfect stranger (such as a police officer, judge or jury member).
He also touches on how allowing stranger access to our private thoughts and communication infringes our freedom. The title of the book even comes from a tenet of Jewish law that protects others from being watched without thier permission (thus the 'unwanted gaze').
IMHO It is much more important to publicize and emphasize the real reasons privacy is a basic freedom, rather than just repeating privacy like a mantra and grumbling about how stupid and thoughtless Americans are to let these freedoms be eroded by the "Corporate Republic".
I do a lot of web design and I can tell you I wouldn't have many visitors to my sites if I sprinkled "multiple 6 MB images" throughout. The 640x480 resolution of my Mavica FD-71 is more than adequate for web images, and the amazing zoom is well worth the lesser resolution. The advantage of the floppy disk is certainly there, but it's not the only one.
Don't forget e-mail. I regularly e-mail pics of my kids to friends and family, as well as posting pics on my website. The files from my FD-71 are just about the right size for downloading using the dial-up connections that most of them use. I may be a nerd, but the people looking at my pics aren't.
As for the lesser resolution, I find 2 or 3 very good pics per disk (30-40 pcs), about the same ratio I get with a regular camera. This despite the lower resolution. I'm just not a good enough photographer to warrant taking (and imposing on others) huge, high-resolution pictures.
Re:freewebsites.com slashdotted already!
on
Taking On A Spammer
·
· Score: 1
It was/.ed before I even got there, then as I finally began to read it an amusing thought occurred to me: If this person was so wicked by the spamming, how do they feel about being slashdotted? rcriii
This is definitely a great moral (and business) idea whose time is coming.
Another poster suggests that the word above should have been "Morale", I'm not so sure, but I hope so, because the last thing we need in another entitlement program, which is what Jon Katz seems to be arguing for here. But why is there some moral imperative to provide internet access?
These businesses are providing the computers because it is a good business decision.
More educated employees are better employees.
They can probably provide this benefit without paying payroll taxes.
Your employees children may grow up to become employees themselves (in which case see #1).
It is good for morale, and is good public relations.
That said, it is also a nice thing to do... (Oops, implied that corporations can be nice, Jon won't like that).
Computers are increasingly becoming seen as a right, not just an expensive commercial, social or recreational appliance.
Just because computers are "being seen" as a right, does not mean that they are. First of all "computers" is a very general term, who is going to decide what that entails; Intel or Not, Linux or Windows (Now here's a bandwagon for Bill), AOL or ?? Second, who is to pay for these computers, or all this Universal Access? We cannot even educate our children properly (which, right or not, is certainly a good idea for society), now we are going to waste money providing computers and internet access (not to mention the money spent arguing about it).
Ford and Intel get it.
I guess I don't get it. I'm not cool, in, with it. I don't speak Jon's personal language (notice that he never actually defines "Universal Access"). (Sorry, that term irritates me, with it's connotation that there is some 'IT' that only a few 'GET' - those few who agree with the author.)
It's interesting that corporations, of all entities, rather than educational or political institutions (colleges and universities rarely provide personal computers to students taking these strides). Business grasps that internal communications networks, interconnected business environments and systems that involve the whole family are good for business.
Now Jon is talking nice about corporations, where will the madness end?
Slashdot Mirror
we'll be writing and talking about the trilogy itself as well as other works the original books have inspired.
Katz is going to re-interpret Tolkein now? No doubt with particular attention to such groundbreaking authors as Merceded Lackey...
sigh...
Robert
Actually he did get in a comment about "young people and students" not having any privacy. Any true KatzBot watcher would have recognized this...
Did John plan to write a review? It is hard to tell if he is summarizing the content of the book or propviding his own political commentary.
For another review of the book check out this link.
The prologue to the book and another review are available on the New York times site (free registration required...).
An interview Mr. Rosen gave to NPR's All things Considered can be heard here. Note: For some reason I cannot listen to this on my computer...
He manages to leave out many of Mr. Rosen's arguments for why private speech should be protected, and why these protections should be extended to our electronic utterances.
Mr. Rosen points out that much of our private speech only makes sense in context, and that that context includes our relationship with the person we are communicating with and their knowledge about us. Thus my letters to my wife or my best friend may make no sense when read by a perfect stranger (such as a police officer, judge or jury member).
He also touches on how allowing stranger access to our private thoughts and communication infringes our freedom. The title of the book even comes from a tenet of Jewish law that protects others from being watched without thier permission (thus the 'unwanted gaze').
IMHO It is much more important to publicize and emphasize the real reasons privacy is a basic freedom, rather than just repeating privacy like a mantra and grumbling about how stupid and thoughtless Americans are to let these freedoms be eroded by the "Corporate Republic".
Something that Jon Katz is apparently unable to do...
Don't forget e-mail. I regularly e-mail pics of my kids to friends and family, as well as posting pics on my website. The files from my FD-71 are just about the right size for downloading using the dial-up connections that most of them use. I may be a nerd, but the people looking at my pics aren't.
As for the lesser resolution, I find 2 or 3 very good pics per disk (30-40 pcs), about the same ratio I get with a regular camera. This despite the lower resolution. I'm just not a good enough photographer to warrant taking (and imposing on others) huge, high-resolution pictures.
It was /.ed before I even got there, then as I finally began to read it an amusing thought occurred to me: If this person was so wicked by the spamming, how do they feel about being slashdotted? rcriii
This is definitely a great moral (and business) idea whose time is coming.
Another poster suggests that the word above should have been "Morale", I'm not so sure, but I hope so, because the last thing we need in another entitlement program, which is what Jon Katz seems to be arguing for here. But why is there some moral imperative to provide internet access?
These businesses are providing the computers because it is a good business decision.
That said, it is also a nice thing to do... (Oops, implied that corporations can be nice, Jon won't like that).
Computers are increasingly becoming seen as a right, not just an expensive commercial, social or recreational appliance.
Just because computers are "being seen" as a right, does not mean that they are. First of all "computers" is a very general term, who is going to decide what that entails; Intel or Not, Linux or Windows (Now here's a bandwagon for Bill), AOL or ?? Second, who is to pay for these computers, or all this Universal Access? We cannot even educate our children properly (which, right or not, is certainly a good idea for society), now we are going to waste money providing computers and internet access (not to mention the money spent arguing about it).
Ford and Intel get it.
I guess I don't get it. I'm not cool, in, with it. I don't speak Jon's personal language (notice that he never actually defines "Universal Access"). (Sorry, that term irritates me, with it's connotation that there is some 'IT' that only a few 'GET' - those few who agree with the author.)
It's interesting that corporations, of all entities, rather than educational or political institutions (colleges and universities rarely provide personal computers to students taking these strides). Business grasps that internal communications networks, interconnected business environments and systems that involve the whole family are good for business.
Now Jon is talking nice about corporations, where will the madness end?
-