Self-introspection is redundant, or maybe just indicative of our obession with our selves?
As people can have no idea who they are, are very distant from their feelings and repressed, I'd say self-introspection isn't reduntant in many cases.
Besides, the best way to get over yourself is to take a look. As the old story goes, a monk asked his master to calm his mind - the master asked to see that mind, and when the monk realized he couldn't show that mind, he achieved enlightenment.
Yes, the people who make a difference should be paid and compensated. However, this rarely happens - the high compensation goes to people in the right positions, not the ones with the dreams and the talent.
Yes, we should make sure people find the positions they love. Try telling that to your average manager.
He makes an excellent point that money really isn't everything. I've found ways to even make my hobbies pay, but doing them came first. The good news is that with my interests, I can have fun until I want to retire AND make money at it.
Smarts definitely are only part of the picture. I'm a firm believer that stupidity and intelligence are not the ends of a scale, but that they can co-exist inside a person.
As important as these questions are, American culture (business and otherwise) is NOT supportive of self-introspection and self-transformation. This is a barrier for many.
The question of what one wants to do is important. I asked it over seven years ago - and am now in a satisfying IT career.
I love where I work. I love what I do. I love my company and my boss is perhaps the best I've ever had.
Not being a big meat eater (I try for diverse protein and fat sources), I still see a huge advantage here - growing meat in a sterile environment.
Worries about the effects of eating BSE-tainted meat, salmonella, trichinosis, ad nauseum. Lab-grown/machine grown meat could certainly provide a safer source of meat than current methods.
Of my IT friends, 5 of six lost their jobs the last year (including me). Now 4 of us are working - and guess what? Our senior experience helps. A lot.
You may get a kid with the latest technology, but is he going to know how to troubleshoot? To find things on the net? Know the right users? Have a sense of history?
I just finished building an application in the latest tech (.NET sadly). 80% of what I did had NOTHING to do with.NET and everything to do with my past experience.
Sometimes it takes 10 new kids to equal one old fart. That's not good economic sense.
Did you know what you wanted to build things for a living when you were 8 years old? Did you constantly get in trouble for taking apart your toys? Did you have a burning desire to understand things and build them? If not, you are at a disadvantage. Like atheletes, engineers are born. If you picked the field for the big money and not getting your hands dirty, you will never be able to compete against those of us who were born to it.
Amen. There's a certain spark for programming and engineering. It can be cultivated, perhaps even induced, but for many, you're either born with it or you aren't.
Your quote takes me back to when I was 5 and playing with my legos. Should have thought ahead, and I wouldn't have had my career detours until I wound up in the embrace of programming.
It's an artcle that focuses on engineers more than engineers and programmers.
Not everyone agrees things suck.
Keep learning.
Less and less people in America are going into engineering (and if you think about recent political events, I wouldn't count on as much foreign competition due to stricter entry). I'd guess this bodes well for us.
The guy with the statistics doesn't say it sucks. He just notes people have to improve.
I've been at this seven years, from before the boom. Even with the recession and a layoff I was working in six months, and that includes 2 months over the holidays when NO ONE was hiring.
What did I find?
Keep improving your skills.
People will hire for learning ability.
Don't just rely on technical skills - my statistical, communication, and documentation skills were at the top of half my interviews.
I'd say a good chunk of what we see now is people getting shaken out of a profession they thought was going to be easy. I've seen people pick up and leave IT voluntarily and involuntarily, and in those cases they A) didn't keep improving and B) lacked other skills and/or job search skills.
I'm not panicked. This seems like another IT/Geek Crisis article like we've been seeing over the year.
Why isn't Slashdot doing this? Let's have a Slashdot villain of the year contest.
Yeah, we can joke. We KNOW one of the nominees will be CowboyNeil. But in all seriousness, perhaps this is another way Slashdot can do some good. Have people suggest villains, send the reasons why, and the most popular and best-explained ones go up.
Sure, it may seem silly, but today, on the net, a little spectacle and some humor can break down barriers and make a point.
As cool as this could be, the entire thing sounds unfeasable from a legal standpoint. Just imagining the size, the potential power of the mechanics, and the chance for error, the possibility it gets cracked, and do on, I can't imagine this actually getting done.
Besides, imagine the headlines of "Mechanical Dinosaur Falls On Top of Family of Three Due to Faulty Programming" . ..
Nah, won't work - they'll just claim both samples are taken from some conspiracy source.
These people are Believers. Anything is fuel for their fire. You either have to ignore them or you have to take them on multiple fronts. Any other way won't work.
It's good policy to never mess with a person who strapped themselves to a gigantic fuel tank and got shot out of the atmosphere. They probably have a low BS tolerance.
Reluctantly, I think NASA should debate the crackpots - but with hard data AND personal testimonies. Line up every guy that's been to the moon and INVITE the people to call them liars to their faces, along with presenting the crackpots with their evidence. Doing it on both levels works wonders - the crackpots have to look both impolite and ignorant.
I do think this is important because with the prevalent media, though it can give us much information, it's also highly biased towards spectacle and word-games. It's a virtual reality of talking heads, word-juggling, and popularity contests with far to little connection to anything actually relevant. Anyone can come up with a bunch of pretty words, push a few buttons, and ridicule a few people to polite to be jackasses, and bam - instant "credibility" despite the fact said person has any relevant arguments, evidence, or credentials.
Debating the crackpots isn't just good for science or society, it'd be good for our culture.
Re:And why is this here?
on
Starcraft
·
· Score: 2
One of the properties of a scientific theory is that in principle you can present evedence to refute it. What evidence could I present, in principle, that would refute this theory?
If there is none, then it's not a theory. I just a fairy tale, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny...
Nicely said. I threw out the word "theory" too casually. I should have called it a speculation or concept.
And why is this here?
on
Starcraft
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The only motivation I can figure out is that the book shares part of its name with a popular RTS. This is more off topic than our usual off topics.
The ancient astronaut theory, though not DEBUNKED, has often rested in shaky evidence, assumptions, and outright hoaxes. The Dropa hoax being a classic one - and toss in Strichin's bizarre mutilation of mythology, or Von Daniken's questionalbe ideas . . . the support for it isn't enthusing.
A good look at some of the Fortean Times issues will go a long way into putting these theories in perspective.
What's next, one of David Icke's books here? Bring on the Reptillians!
All other potential problems aside, this opens a gigantic Barrel of Worms (as opposed to can). Just IMAGINE the huge amount of lawsuits that could come out of it.
Think the deficit is bad now . . .;)
In all seriousness, this is the kind of plan made completely without the thought that it will affect actual people. Forgetting that usually leads to disaster.
This is the same as the Total Information Awareness joke. Let me repeat my arguments:
This has to actually work. Good luck with that.
If somehow the information is collected, good luck going through it.
If despite these challenges something gets running, expect it to be some shuddering, misused Frankenstien. Enjoy the bumbling antics of the new Keystone Kops, using imperfectly collected and badly mined data.
This will create a nice, bureaucratic bottleneck that has all sorts of chances to screw up.
This will produce some nice central repositories and agencies - great targets for terrorist attacks.
This will annoy people even more, and it UTTERLY humiliates America in front of the world. The Bastion of Freedom, going to war with everyone for Freedom . . . spying on its own citizens.
Fortunately when you live in the day where Bob Barr supports the ACLU, I don't think this'll get off the ground (or if it does, it'll be crippled or shot down shortly after).
What I personally would love to see, but know will never happen, is the recouperation of some of the cost by selling portions of map data to various salvaging companies. That money could then be used to put money -back- in taxpayers' pockets and make the project less wasteful.
Good idea. Maybe certain things can be kept by the state government, others sold off, and you get a win-win situation plus a lot of interesting artifacts and information.
For instance, they could provide the information, along with notices that disturbing the PCB laden sediment is hazardous, as well as illegal. Then go and actually bust the people who decide it was worth the risk (use the map data to see where to catch them)
Good idea and a good point. This is a case of "The cat's not out of the bag, but we let you know we've got a bag and a cat."
All other things aside, I find that declaring the contents of a publicly-funded project to be secret is food for thought. As big as I am on openess, I can understand the decision to hold off for now.
My take is that the information is public knowledge, but releasing it would destroy public safety and public history. What needs to be done is a massive, organized effort to salvage and record the vast wealth of finds. Maybe private companies could be involved.
Interesting to think of - I wonder what other cases of withheld public information may be justifiable . ..
That's assuming people actually care, that you can trust the replacement, and that he has enough respect (or skill) to not get stabbed in the back thirty seconds after the crown goes on his head.
It's not a king, it's whatever people rally around. That helps promote stability. It can be a person, an idea, a ritual, a place, or a god.
Besides, what ruler could compare to Emperor Norton I?
Re:He talks about the 'dogma of nostalga'
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 2
Imagine a beowulf cluster of hopeful people! When fear(of terrorists, government, future) is no longer dominating people, perhaps we can get something done.
After 100 or so years of reckless optimism, we're finally starting to realize that the future can suck, even when great technology comes along. Compare the view that science fiction has of our future NOW to the view expressed in 1930, 1940, 1950.
I'll take the past 100 year's results overall, since it seems like despite our problems, we've made a lot of progress, if at a hideously inconsistent level. We've also empowered ourself to make the world over - its just our choice of how and what we make.
maybe a little negativity will make us think twice about the consequences of our actions.
I'd say our problems are negativity. There's this almost Apocalyptic/Victorian assumption that everything must somehow go to hell. That attitude doesnt exactly encourage one to make things better. In our fiction, what is in it affects what we dream for the future.
I'll take the good and the bad, look them over, and make the best future with as many people who want to build one.
Brin's having fun and making a point
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'd read Brin's articles on Star Wars (available at Salon) before passing judgement. His take on Star Wars is far more negative than his take on LoTR. There he's angry.
With LoTR, Brin's having fun in the article while making a point. Much as he notes LoTR can only be taken so seriously, its obvious from his humor (especially the hilarious end with reviewing Sauron) that he's not taking himself 100% seriously either. He's tweaking people's noses and making them think.
Do I think Brin has a point? In general, yes. I've seen a lot of media taken far far too seriously - my favorite was seeing a person very seriously analyze the Star Wars universe and the Federation, and decide the Star Wars universe was more pleasant to live in. It was exactly like Brin's analyses - his choice was pure romanticism - and the assumption that in such a universe he'd be a hero, as opposed to say, Rebel cannon fodder or a Storm Trooper in Remedial Shooting Things Class.
There's only so seriously one can take any "classic" and all bear the stamp of the times and the author, and deeper interpretation needs to keep this in mind. Brin should too be a bit more aware himself, as I feel he misses various kinds of classic heros to focus on a few types.
Do I think LoTR is a classic? Yes, undoubtedly. It's an amazing effort from a man I can only christen a genius. But such men are products of time and place, and why their works are read is a stamp of the reader's time and place. Brin's just analyzing that.
In the end he suggests keeping things in context and their proper places. Not a bad piece of advice at all, even if you don't exactly agree with him.
I wonder how much of this is quality . . .
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
. . . and how much is culture.
I think that the general public is kind of tired of Star Trek. Some of the reviews I saw sounded like the same negative comments made about the "First Gen" cast.
We've also had plenty of other sci-fi series to come around - Babylon 5, Farscape, X-files. Maybe Star Trek doesn't hold the same place in people's hearts.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-introspection is redundant, or maybe just indicative of our obession with our selves?
As people can have no idea who they are, are very distant from their feelings and repressed, I'd say self-introspection isn't reduntant in many cases.
Besides, the best way to get over yourself is to take a look. As the old story goes, a monk asked his master to calm his mind - the master asked to see that mind, and when the monk realized he couldn't show that mind, he achieved enlightenment.
The question of what one wants to do is important. I asked it over seven years ago - and am now in a satisfying IT career.
I love where I work. I love what I do. I love my company and my boss is perhaps the best I've ever had.
But I know I'm fortunate.
You mean that I can finally eat raw hamburger by the spoonfull?
Live the dream, man.
Not being a big meat eater (I try for diverse protein and fat sources), I still see a huge advantage here - growing meat in a sterile environment.
Worries about the effects of eating BSE-tainted meat, salmonella, trichinosis, ad nauseum. Lab-grown/machine grown meat could certainly provide a safer source of meat than current methods.
Don't expect this to be maintained.
.NET and everything to do with my past experience.
Of my IT friends, 5 of six lost their jobs the last year (including me). Now 4 of us are working - and guess what? Our senior experience helps. A lot.
You may get a kid with the latest technology, but is he going to know how to troubleshoot? To find things on the net? Know the right users? Have a sense of history?
I just finished building an application in the latest tech (.NET sadly). 80% of what I did had NOTHING to do with
Sometimes it takes 10 new kids to equal one old fart. That's not good economic sense.
People will learn. The hard way.
Did you know what you wanted to build things for a living when you were 8 years old? Did you constantly get in trouble for taking apart your toys? Did you have a burning desire to understand things and build them? If not, you are at a disadvantage. Like atheletes, engineers are born. If you picked the field for the big money and not getting your hands dirty, you will never be able to compete against those of us who were born to it.
Amen. There's a certain spark for programming and engineering. It can be cultivated, perhaps even induced, but for many, you're either born with it or you aren't.
Your quote takes me back to when I was 5 and playing with my legos. Should have thought ahead, and I wouldn't have had my career detours until I wound up in the embrace of programming.
I've been at this seven years, from before the boom. Even with the recession and a layoff I was working in six months, and that includes 2 months over the holidays when NO ONE was hiring.
What did I find?
I'd say a good chunk of what we see now is people getting shaken out of a profession they thought was going to be easy. I've seen people pick up and leave IT voluntarily and involuntarily, and in those cases they A) didn't keep improving and B) lacked other skills and/or job search skills.
I'm not panicked. This seems like another IT/Geek Crisis article like we've been seeing over the year.
Why isn't Slashdot doing this? Let's have a Slashdot villain of the year contest.
Yeah, we can joke. We KNOW one of the nominees will be CowboyNeil. But in all seriousness, perhaps this is another way Slashdot can do some good. Have people suggest villains, send the reasons why, and the most popular and best-explained ones go up.
Sure, it may seem silly, but today, on the net, a little spectacle and some humor can break down barriers and make a point.
Nah, I don't assume they'll build some monstrosity, but even a relatively small one, say a bit larger than a man, has potential to go wrong.
Though if you make small ones THEN there's the threat of tripping people . . .
As cool as this could be, the entire thing sounds unfeasable from a legal standpoint. Just imagining the size, the potential power of the mechanics, and the chance for error, the possibility it gets cracked, and do on, I can't imagine this actually getting done.
.
Besides, imagine the headlines of "Mechanical Dinosaur Falls On Top of Family of Three Due to Faulty Programming" . .
Nah, won't work - they'll just claim both samples are taken from some conspiracy source.
These people are Believers. Anything is fuel for their fire. You either have to ignore them or you have to take them on multiple fronts. Any other way won't work.
It's good policy to never mess with a person who strapped themselves to a gigantic fuel tank and got shot out of the atmosphere. They probably have a low BS tolerance.
Reluctantly, I think NASA should debate the crackpots - but with hard data AND personal testimonies. Line up every guy that's been to the moon and INVITE the people to call them liars to their faces, along with presenting the crackpots with their evidence. Doing it on both levels works wonders - the crackpots have to look both impolite and ignorant.
I do think this is important because with the prevalent media, though it can give us much information, it's also highly biased towards spectacle and word-games. It's a virtual reality of talking heads, word-juggling, and popularity contests with far to little connection to anything actually relevant. Anyone can come up with a bunch of pretty words, push a few buttons, and ridicule a few people to polite to be jackasses, and bam - instant "credibility" despite the fact said person has any relevant arguments, evidence, or credentials.
Debating the crackpots isn't just good for science or society, it'd be good for our culture.
One of the properties of a scientific theory is that in principle you can present evedence to refute it. What evidence could I present, in principle, that would refute this theory?
If there is none, then it's not a theory. I just a fairy tale, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny...
Nicely said. I threw out the word "theory" too casually. I should have called it a speculation or concept.
The only motivation I can figure out is that the book shares part of its name with a popular RTS. This is more off topic than our usual off topics.
The ancient astronaut theory, though not DEBUNKED, has often rested in shaky evidence, assumptions, and outright hoaxes. The Dropa hoax being a classic one - and toss in Strichin's bizarre mutilation of mythology, or Von Daniken's questionalbe ideas . . . the support for it isn't enthusing.
A good look at some of the Fortean Times issues will go a long way into putting these theories in perspective.
What's next, one of David Icke's books here? Bring on the Reptillians!
All other potential problems aside, this opens a gigantic Barrel of Worms (as opposed to can). Just IMAGINE the huge amount of lawsuits that could come out of it.
;)
Think the deficit is bad now . . .
In all seriousness, this is the kind of plan made completely without the thought that it will affect actual people. Forgetting that usually leads to disaster.
Fortunately when you live in the day where Bob Barr supports the ACLU, I don't think this'll get off the ground (or if it does, it'll be crippled or shot down shortly after).
What I personally would love to see, but know will never happen, is the recouperation of some of the cost by selling portions of map data to various salvaging companies. That money could then be used to put money -back- in taxpayers' pockets and make the project less wasteful.
Good idea. Maybe certain things can be kept by the state government, others sold off, and you get a win-win situation plus a lot of interesting artifacts and information.
Yeah. It is unlikely. But thought-provoking.
For instance, they could provide the information, along with notices that disturbing the PCB laden sediment is hazardous, as well as illegal. Then go and actually bust the people who decide it was worth the risk (use the map data to see where to catch them)
Good idea and a good point. This is a case of "The cat's not out of the bag, but we let you know we've got a bag and a cat."
All other things aside, I find that declaring the contents of a publicly-funded project to be secret is food for thought. As big as I am on openess, I can understand the decision to hold off for now.
.
My take is that the information is public knowledge, but releasing it would destroy public safety and public history. What needs to be done is a massive, organized effort to salvage and record the vast wealth of finds. Maybe private companies could be involved.
Interesting to think of - I wonder what other cases of withheld public information may be justifiable . .
That's assuming people actually care, that you can trust the replacement, and that he has enough respect (or skill) to not get stabbed in the back thirty seconds after the crown goes on his head.
It's not a king, it's whatever people rally around. That helps promote stability. It can be a person, an idea, a ritual, a place, or a god.
Besides, what ruler could compare to Emperor Norton I?
Imagine a beowulf cluster of hopeful people! When fear(of terrorists, government, future) is no longer dominating people, perhaps we can get something done.
;)
Build one. Let me know when you start
After 100 or so years of reckless optimism, we're finally starting to realize that the future can suck, even when great technology comes along. Compare the view that science fiction has of our future NOW to the view expressed in 1930, 1940, 1950.
I'll take the past 100 year's results overall, since it seems like despite our problems, we've made a lot of progress, if at a hideously inconsistent level. We've also empowered ourself to make the world over - its just our choice of how and what we make.
maybe a little negativity will make us think twice about the consequences of our actions.
I'd say our problems are negativity. There's this almost Apocalyptic/Victorian assumption that everything must somehow go to hell. That attitude doesnt exactly encourage one to make things better. In our fiction, what is in it affects what we dream for the future.
I'll take the good and the bad, look them over, and make the best future with as many people who want to build one.
I'd read Brin's articles on Star Wars (available at Salon) before passing judgement. His take on Star Wars is far more negative than his take on LoTR. There he's angry.
With LoTR, Brin's having fun in the article while making a point. Much as he notes LoTR can only be taken so seriously, its obvious from his humor (especially the hilarious end with reviewing Sauron) that he's not taking himself 100% seriously either. He's tweaking people's noses and making them think.
Do I think Brin has a point? In general, yes. I've seen a lot of media taken far far too seriously - my favorite was seeing a person very seriously analyze the Star Wars universe and the Federation, and decide the Star Wars universe was more pleasant to live in. It was exactly like Brin's analyses - his choice was pure romanticism - and the assumption that in such a universe he'd be a hero, as opposed to say, Rebel cannon fodder or a Storm Trooper in Remedial Shooting Things Class.
There's only so seriously one can take any "classic" and all bear the stamp of the times and the author, and deeper interpretation needs to keep this in mind. Brin should too be a bit more aware himself, as I feel he misses various kinds of classic heros to focus on a few types.
Do I think LoTR is a classic? Yes, undoubtedly. It's an amazing effort from a man I can only christen a genius. But such men are products of time and place, and why their works are read is a stamp of the reader's time and place. Brin's just analyzing that.
In the end he suggests keeping things in context and their proper places. Not a bad piece of advice at all, even if you don't exactly agree with him.
. . . and how much is culture.
I think that the general public is kind of tired of Star Trek. Some of the reviews I saw sounded like the same negative comments made about the "First Gen" cast.
We've also had plenty of other sci-fi series to come around - Babylon 5, Farscape, X-files. Maybe Star Trek doesn't hold the same place in people's hearts.