If he had only put it so delicately, I would not have objected. But, at least the way it was reported, he was trying to conjure a butterfly-effect nexus between his spur-of-the-moment calligraphy drop-in and the very fact of modern PCs supporting proportional type.
I believe he was trying to flesh that connection out by mentioning the excellence of Reed's calligraphy courses but I am guessing most of the Stanford grads were not aware that Lloyd Reynolds and those who followed him at Reed were not only calligraphers but also more or less "public intellectuals" known & respected throughout the community. Students learned about a craft process, but they also learned about language and philosophy and history and so forth. I have had the impression that Reynolds had a strong interest in humanizing his environment and perhaps if Jobs had explained this a little better he would not look so silly about now.
As other posters have mentioned, parents can be extremely effective just by talking to their children about what they are reading. A few reasons why parents may not:
a) They are working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. b) They are intimidated by books, schools. c) They are overwhelmed with problems with other family members, such as chronic illness. d) They are "lazy" or distracted by their own activities. e) They are repeating their parents' parenting.
Perhaps such parents might "care more" about what drugs are on the street--but they also probably care about their children and education, even if you wouldn't recognize it. But perhaps these children who have already "lost out" just don't matter.
Your parallel with school prayer suggests exactly why teachers are so cautious with assigned books (e.g. including _Kaffir Boy_ as one of several options for small groups in the ninth grade classroom). However, it is not at all a parallel case for libraries--students both read and pray silently. (And probably should read silently, to keep from being called retarded or a weirdo, and definitely should pray silently, as Matthew 6:5-7 explains.) It seems to me that you are arguing that the library should babysit (religiously) the students, that you are asking the library to make materials disappear so that the parents won't have to face actually discussing their beliefs and concerns with their children. (I am mostly thinking about secondary school, at which point most students have some idea what Mom and Dad do and don't approve of, and have been or are preparing to be baptized/confirmed/bar mitvah'd.)
I am not advocating that the library stock everything indiscriminately. I do, though, think, particularly in the secondary school, a few parents should not be able to override the judgment and expertise of librarians and teachers as to what is generally appropriate and educational for their clientele. Whether they are left or right, whether they report back to their parents or not, whether they would take the opportunity or not, if _The Handmaid's Tale_ or _The Color Purple_ is made unavailable, or tucked back somewhere patrons can't see it, then the secondary-school librarian has gone back on his or her duty to provide opportunities for intellectual growth and engagement.
1) It is not clear to me from the article what age groups are losing access to these books. Their break-down by institution does not, as far as I can tell, include any category more sensitive than "school" (>2000), "school library" (>2000), "prison library," and so on. Six-year-olds and sixteen-year-olds are a bit different in what they should be able to read. You want an appropriate amount of challenge to be available--you want to encourage critical thinking to the extent they are able.
2) That is why school lawyers invented *permission slips.* We were required to read (mostly "canon") works at school, including _Huck Finn_ and _Lord of the Flies_, but you could be excused to work on another project while 10th grade English watched & discussed _Apocalypse Now_. If a school does not attempt to tackle these materials, if not by middle school then certainly by high school, then they may be keeping their students from a successful liberal arts education. (Don't laugh. You'd be surprised how many professionals such as doctors do undergraduate work in philosophy or English--stories. Human stuff.)
3) You assume that the parents will "fill in the gaps" if things are not available at the library. However, not all parents are motivated to take their kids to another library or bookstore; not all kids have money or access to public transportation. I expect the people who are reading this discussion are not these parents, but, you know, I'm trying to watch the game, and you asked that last week, so stop nagging already. Not everyone is within walking distance of a municipal or university library--removing books from high-school shelves can make those materials *impossible* to get for those without resources. (Think accurate information about sex-related biology.) As if it weren't bad enough just coping with the budgets.
* Eat. At $25,000 annual tuition or whatever, it's worth spending marginally more to keep yourself functioning. Know how you as an individual respond to alcohol, junk food, whatever.
* If someone thinks you're acting depressed, phobic, etc., really, take them seriously and go get some free or subsidized advice from the health service. (I guess this is inverted from the usual advice, but I am speaking from my experience. I am grateful to this day to the teacher who recommended me to counseling.)
TAKE RISKS
* Try things. Work at them. This is what pass/fail is for. If you need the grade later when you declare, that's the time to see a department head or dean.
* Summer can be a time to earn money, important, yes, but even better is if you can earn some money doing research &c. If you're smart enough to be in a good college, you're smart enough to get into some kind of REU or something.
SAFETY NET
* Find some kind of a good advisor, even before you declare a major, even if it's unofficial. And visit the career center every semester.
* The smartest people on campus go to office hours. Shouldn't you? And if you're too intimidated then email, get a buddy, whatever.
* Get some kind of social network together. It can be a geeky network or whatever fits you. My guess is it makes a.5 difference in the GPA.
I think part of the difference is that U.S. patents, at least, require the well known criteria of novelty, nonobviousness, and usefulness. This last criterion would be difficult to apply to copyright: is a creative work more or less obvious than, say, a research document? On the other hand, the study intro points out that an additional requirement is in place for European patents: it must be a technology. This is not an explicit part of U.S. patents, but many people kind of think of it that way, which puts another difference between patent and copyright.
Part of the difficulty with software is that although the source may be considered a document, can one also consider the compiled code a technology? For example, if you were the first to write autocomplete or something that qualified as nonobvious into a word processor, would that be a document (the source code for a subroutine) or a technology (what the user sees)? If it's a document, what's to stop someone from writing his own implementation of it? That's what companies want to protect, and that's why they don't think copyright is enough.
Maybe there is a way to satisfy the conservatives' longing for stay-at-home mothers while allowing them to contribute to society in other ways--i.e. a way to bring back "the wife of noble character." If we could bring neighborhoods back for the hugs and cookies and support stuff, but allow families and friends to keep in contact over the 'net for delicate emotional needs, and loosen the tradition of 40-hrs a week office time in favor of productivity and allowing people doing at home some of the "underling" stuff that doesn't require eighteen meetings a day, maybe that would help people find a balance.
I'm suspicious of politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
If he had only put it so delicately, I would not have objected. But, at least the way it was reported, he was trying to conjure a butterfly-effect nexus between his spur-of-the-moment calligraphy drop-in and the very fact of modern PCs supporting proportional type.
I believe he was trying to flesh that connection out by mentioning the excellence of Reed's calligraphy courses but I am guessing most of the Stanford grads were not aware that Lloyd Reynolds and those who followed him at Reed were not only calligraphers but also more or less "public intellectuals" known & respected throughout the community. Students learned about a craft process, but they also learned about language and philosophy and history and so forth. I have had the impression that Reynolds had a strong interest in humanizing his environment and perhaps if Jobs had explained this a little better he would not look so silly about now.
As other posters have mentioned, parents can be extremely effective just by talking to their children about what they are reading. A few reasons why parents may not:
a) They are working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet.
b) They are intimidated by books, schools.
c) They are overwhelmed with problems with other family members, such as chronic illness.
d) They are "lazy" or distracted by their own activities.
e) They are repeating their parents' parenting.
Perhaps such parents might "care more" about what drugs are on the street--but they also probably care about their children and education, even if you wouldn't recognize it. But perhaps these children who have already "lost out" just don't matter.
Your parallel with school prayer suggests exactly why teachers are so cautious with assigned books (e.g. including _Kaffir Boy_ as one of several options for small groups in the ninth grade classroom). However, it is not at all a parallel case for libraries--students both read and pray silently. (And probably should read silently, to keep from being called retarded or a weirdo, and definitely should pray silently, as Matthew 6:5-7 explains.) It seems to me that you are arguing that the library should babysit (religiously) the students, that you are asking the library to make materials disappear so that the parents won't have to face actually discussing their beliefs and concerns with their children. (I am mostly thinking about secondary school, at which point most students have some idea what Mom and Dad do and don't approve of, and have been or are preparing to be baptized/confirmed/bar mitvah'd.)
I am not advocating that the library stock everything indiscriminately. I do, though, think, particularly in the secondary school, a few parents should not be able to override the judgment and expertise of librarians and teachers as to what is generally appropriate and educational for their clientele. Whether they are left or right, whether they report back to their parents or not, whether they would take the opportunity or not, if _The Handmaid's Tale_ or _The Color Purple_ is made unavailable, or tucked back somewhere patrons can't see it, then the secondary-school librarian has gone back on his or her duty to provide opportunities for intellectual growth and engagement.
1) It is not clear to me from the article what age groups are losing access to these books. Their break-down by institution does not, as far as I can tell, include any category more sensitive than "school" (>2000), "school library" (>2000), "prison library," and so on. Six-year-olds and sixteen-year-olds are a bit different in what they should be able to read. You want an appropriate amount of challenge to be available--you want to encourage critical thinking to the extent they are able.
2) That is why school lawyers invented *permission slips.* We were required to read (mostly "canon") works at school, including _Huck Finn_ and _Lord of the Flies_, but you could be excused to work on another project while 10th grade English watched & discussed _Apocalypse Now_. If a school does not attempt to tackle these materials, if not by middle school then certainly by high school, then they may be keeping their students from a successful liberal arts education. (Don't laugh. You'd be surprised how many professionals such as doctors do undergraduate work in philosophy or English--stories. Human stuff.)
3) You assume that the parents will "fill in the gaps" if things are not available at the library. However, not all parents are motivated to take their kids to another library or bookstore; not all kids have money or access to public transportation. I expect the people who are reading this discussion are not these parents, but, you know, I'm trying to watch the game, and you asked that last week, so stop nagging already. Not everyone is within walking distance of a municipal or university library--removing books from high-school shelves can make those materials *impossible* to get for those without resources. (Think accurate information about sex-related biology.) As if it weren't bad enough just coping with the budgets.
STAY WELL
.5 difference in the GPA.
* Eat. At $25,000 annual tuition or whatever, it's worth spending marginally more to keep yourself functioning. Know how you as an individual respond to alcohol, junk food, whatever.
* If someone thinks you're acting depressed, phobic, etc., really, take them seriously and go get some free or subsidized advice from the health service. (I guess this is inverted from the usual advice, but I am speaking from my experience. I am grateful to this day to the teacher who recommended me to counseling.)
TAKE RISKS
* Try things. Work at them. This is what pass/fail is for. If you need the grade later when you declare, that's the time to see a department head or dean.
* Summer can be a time to earn money, important, yes, but even better is if you can earn some money doing research &c. If you're smart enough to be in a good college, you're smart enough to get into some kind of REU or something.
SAFETY NET
* Find some kind of a good advisor, even before you declare a major, even if it's unofficial. And visit the career center every semester.
* The smartest people on campus go to office hours. Shouldn't you? And if you're too intimidated then email, get a buddy, whatever.
* Get some kind of social network together. It can be a geeky network or whatever fits you. My guess is it makes a
Part of the difficulty with software is that although the source may be considered a document, can one also consider the compiled code a technology? For example, if you were the first to write autocomplete or something that qualified as nonobvious into a word processor, would that be a document (the source code for a subroutine) or a technology (what the user sees)? If it's a document, what's to stop someone from writing his own implementation of it? That's what companies want to protect, and that's why they don't think copyright is enough.
Maybe there is a way to satisfy the conservatives' longing for stay-at-home mothers while allowing them to contribute to society in other ways--i.e. a way to bring back "the wife of noble character." If we could bring neighborhoods back for the hugs and cookies and support stuff, but allow families and friends to keep in contact over the 'net for delicate emotional needs, and loosen the tradition of 40-hrs a week office time in favor of productivity and allowing people doing at home some of the "underling" stuff that doesn't require eighteen meetings a day, maybe that would help people find a balance. I'm suspicious of politicians.