It would be nice if there were places where one could
take up advanced programming or
computer science studies, not as job or career move, but as
a mental or spiritual exercise. The goals
of such studies would include
attainment of uber-geek-dom, but the point of
such an achievment would
be the transcending of things we think are limitations,
rather than instant commercial success.
1) "The kids need to learn on the types of computers that they will be
using in a typical office. They need to know how to use Word and
Excel."
- I know they could develop the same skills by using an alternative,
but the name recognition thing is really important. Parents would be
up in arms at the next school board meeting if they heard their kids
weren't going to learn about spreadsheets using Excel.
That idea might be worth challenging. There are reasons for
having computers in school beyond the training of future
office workers.
For a typical college-prep course of study, for example, a
simple word processor that offered few choices, but which
allowed a student to quickly learn how to type in a term paper
and get it printed in some locally standardized format, might
be better than a huge program like Word, which always seems at
war with itself on the simplicity vs. power front.
(Clippy, R.I.P.) We shouldn't
have to learn how to be secretaries just so we can write a
paper on "Great Expectations."
Future programmers, scientists, technicians, etc., would benefit
more from learning languages and how to use a command line
than from sweating over the arcane intricasies of Excel.
If I were in charge, I'd have the future office workers learning
Word and Excel on Windows, but I'd pursue Linux solutions for
the other two cases.
BTW, if I were in charge of an office, I would also consider
"limited option, easy to learn" solutions.
It might be easier to set such things up under Linux than under
Windows, even though
the whole of Linux itself
is difficult to learn.
The problem was entirely in their minds. . . .
Unless you are making the jump from procedural to OOP, or
OOP to Functional for the first time, you *CAN* pick up a book and
learn a new language in a days time. The only thing stopping you is
yourself.
That depends on what you mean by "learn." Sure, any experienced
programmer could dive into a book and pick up the on the obvious
elementary issues such as assignment statements, conditionals,
loops, etc. But that does not mean you have "learned" a
computer language any more than memorizing a few words and
phrases from a tourist guide book means you have "learned"
a natural language.
I know I'm a bit of a slow learner and I don't think any
easy change of attitude will remedy that. But I have, over
my career, developed a truly powerful command of some languages.
Really, when I know perl as well as i once knew 370 assembler
I am going to be one 1337 dude! But I don't think there are
too many people who can acquire that level of skill in a single
day.
I also have
a problem with trying to gain even a basic working
familiarity with the nuts and bolts of too many languages,
especially if they are highly similar. The different
constructs tend to get mixed up in my head. I have to
think about syntax, not the problem I'm trying to solve.
I keep having to look things up. That was why I gave up on
Visual Basic. Of course it isn't suitable for many kinds of
program, but beyond that, I didn't want to deal with all the
quirky (and probably pointless) little differences between
VB, VB for applications, Access VB, VB for Nose Picking,
hell, I don't even remember all the weird variations MS
came out with back when I cared.
What I really like to do is get to a point where I can type in
a modest GLP of a hundred lines or so very quickly, without
needing to look anything up, and then have it run correctly the
first time I try it. Again, most people cannot get to that
point in a single day. And to the two or three/. posters
who can: I don't know who you are... but I don't like you!;)
This discussion brings to mind the Tarot trump card
called "The Hermit", which is a picture of an obviously
reclusive guy holding a lamp from which a bright light
shines, symbolizing, perhaps, the gift to the world of
knowledge discovered by a person who withdrew from the
world. There is a similar motif in the lives of many
mystics and prophets such as Nietzsche's Zarathustra who
came down from his mountain, or
Jesus of Nazareth whose
teaching career didn't start until after he had spent
40 days in the wilderness.
I didn't find the article "enlightening" or "entertaining." It was
just warmed-over-Marxism. Marx and Engles did make some worthy
points in their Communist Manifesto, and they are historically
important for having inspired the Russian Revolution, etc., but
I doubt that Marxists have anything interesting
to say about the "revolutionary social implications"
of free software or of anything else that's really happening today.
In fact, I suspect that their ideological furvor and their proclivities
for endless argument might actually impeed the progress
of free and/or open software, though not fatally (I hope).
"This new individualistic medium is so personal it's become
self-absorbed, almost narcissistic. . . .
People frequently use blocking and filtering software
and programs to stick with the like-minded, not explore the different
or experience other points of view. Ideas fly all over the Web, but
they often end up on the screens of people who already agree. . .."
Mere "like-mindedness" does not preclude
significant differences of opinion. In fact,
sometimes the most useful discussions happen among people who
share a common framework, rather than people
from different frameworks, whose arguments, past each other in most
cases, are ultimately about the frameworks themselves.
The global or national scaled "commonality" that Katz seems to
envision is neither possible nor desirable. But the ability of
people now to look for, join and form discussion groups based on
"commonalities" of their own definition and their own choosing
will continue to be an ever more powerful social and political
force.
The ugly truth about open source is that, in spite of the
grassroots image, every significant project has been primarily driven
in a top down way.
It seems reasonable that
the people who had the original idea, or who do the most work,
or who have the most knowledge about some project should
have the most influence on its development.
I would rather work on a project with recognized, effective leadership
than one dominated by covert egalitarianism freaks. But let me qualify
that.
Egalitarianism isn't necessarily bad. If it comes about
as a result of a small number of
people of similar levels of relevant expertise coming together
and working on a common project, then it's probably a good thing.
"Leadership" isn't necessarily good. When it is assigned as a
result of weird corporate politics having no relation to the
quality of the actual work being done, and when we submit to it
out of economic necessity, rather than a desire to be
part of some cool,
interesting, maybe even popular technical project, then it's
probably bad.
One of the great virtues of Open Source is that it
helps develop leadership -- the kind of leadership that
can inspire, coordinate, teach by example and teach by word
without using economic or physical threats.
An even greater virtue, in fact, the beautiful thing
about Free Software, etc., is that it allows people to
become members of groups that are compatible with their general
preferences, cultural habits, and so on.
For a number of years, American libraries and book stores have been sponsoring a "banned books week" to raise public awareness about the evils of censorship. A typical scare story mentioned during this celebration might involve some overly sensitive partents complaining about drug references in "The Wizzard of Oz." or whatever, as if such misguided goofball "challenges" are a great threat to our freedom.
So I wonder what the American Library Association's position is on the censorship described in this thread? Will they mention it during next years "banned books week?"
It seems like for all the time I've been on Slashdot (at least 3 years
now), there's been this constant discussion around whether we're
losing our rights or not...
I want this discussion to end. Not because it's not a valid
discussion, but because conclusions have already been made.
Yes, we are losing our rights.
It is important for the discussion to continue. You've had
three years of it, that's fine. But there are many readers and
posters here today who were not here three years ago. One
major aspect of any kind of activism is getting the word out,
both to a broad public that needs to become aware of an issue,
and especially to any potential activists.
The true believers in any cause need to spend a fair amount
of time discussing things amoungst themselves. The discussion
leads to social bonding, which is important for people who might
be spending real time and effort, week after week, year after
year.
Discussion also helps activists develop
the kind of in-depth knowledge that can be called upon
when writing letters to office holders, administrators and
newspapers and especially during live interviews in connection
with protest demonstrations, etc.
What about a large
project to create an internet service provider collective with
incredibly cheap internet access?
That would be a fine project. Are you personally interested
in organizing it? (Serious question, really.)
Re:The Lexus and the Olive Tree
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
"Not every culture holds as its highest ideal the individual
pursuit of wealth."
"Do you plan on going to live in one of these alternatives?"
Prosperity is a fine thing, but it can be achieved without
making the "individual pursuit of wealth" the "highest ideal" of
a culture.
On a personal level, I'd rather not spend my free time in the
company of self-absorbed work-a-holics, regardless of how much
"stuff" they've managed to accumulate.
An asshole in a corvette is still an asshole.
Interesting. There is a Christian symbol called the "chirho" where the rho (P) is superimposed over the chi (X). It stands for the first two letters of "Christ" (in Greek). I wonder if this means Bill Gates is the anti-Christ?
I don't know what mechanism Enc. Britannica is using to collect fees, but if it were possible to access their data with some micropayment scheme, it would occasionally be worth a buck or two to have some "authoritative" information on some topic. The further legitimizing of micropayments would benefit small scale content providers. That would work against those few sites that are large enough to survive on ad revenue.
The referenced K5 article was hardly a "fabulous response." It was mainly a long stream of fanciful conjecture.
P.S.: Everything2, the only "free encyclopedia" I'm familiar with, is a great and wonderful thing, but there is plenty of room for things like it as well as things like Britannica. They really don't compete with each other.
I'd like to find the hookups the Mass. Supreme Court has, because they're smoking some good fucking crack. I hope very much this is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will no doubt be overturned.
In the U.S. political system, there are three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Judges have appropriated a sort of super-veto power, and it actually seems reasonable when a law plainly contradicts some constitutional provision. Unfortunately, judges have taken to dropping LSD before coming into work, and thus, they see constitutions as having all kinds of numinous emanations and penumbrae, and the great visions that emerge from those nebulous peripheries are the basis of their rulings.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are deluded by the priesthood (and ourselves) into thinking that their sacred texts ALONE are the basis for all rightness and truth and justice in the world. Thus, we place our hopes for a just order of things on arcane arguments originating in the chemically altered minds of members of our high courts. And this is most convenient for America's serious power trippers! We compactify our nether garments when judicial decisions are contrary to our notions of justice, but the Actual True Remedy For Stupid Laws, i.e., political activism, never occurs to us.
At issue is the question of whether a private citizen may record his public interactions with public officials in their official capacity, in order to protect his rights. And it is worrisome to many people that in Massachusetts, this is apparently not permitted. Whether that is due to a bad law or a bad court decision doesn't matter.
If you want to DO something about the situation, then it DOES matter! Don't just complain. Start organizing!!
It's a great quote. "You can't pass out free software here." Another good one is from the June 4 issue of Business Week: "We have not varied in our craft." (Steven A. Ballmer)
The politically effective affectation of free speech tends to obviate the real thing. Thus, a giant, repulsive chalkboard will be more than a mockery. It will be, as its proponents claim, a true monument.
I look forward to the time when the city of Frankenmuth, Mich., erects a giant stein in the middle of town, as a monument to free beer.
I've used the Ann Arbor public library's internet access computers off an on over the last few years. Just recently, they implemented a policy requiring identification - either a library card or a driver's license, etc. This is not a good season for Anonymous Cowards.
It seems to me that in the overall scheme of things the encryption of digital television signals is not exactly important. If you personally are put out by this, I think that you should take a step back and think about what is important. I can guarantee that in the long run cheap mass entertainment and the materialism that it engenders is a dead end.
There are serious political issues involved. Intelligent political discussion requires the ability to quote. This is still easy with text-based media. However, if it becomes illegal to record video clips of news broadcasts in order to analyze their biases, or segments of movies or TV shows in order to unmask their cultural assumptions, then our ability to participate in shaping our future is severely dammaged.
According to Sunstein, software is helping us talk only to ourselves
Why should I even comment here - I'd just be talking to myself.
It also permits people to eliminate opposing points of view, promoting a new kind of fragmentation.
That is Sunstein's problem with moderation, and my problem with Sunstein: "It... permits people..." I happen to find a wonderful diversity of opinion on/. and on k5, but if a few leftists, for example, wish to confine their web
activity to leftist-only weblogs, that is their right.
He suggests "must-carry" rules in the form of links imposed on the most popular websites, designed to produce exposure to substantive questions. He even advocates "must-carry" rules, also in the form of links, for even the most highly partisan websites, designed to ensure that viewers learn about opposing views.
Right, sure.... And there should also be a law that allows me and you and anyone else to address Sunstein's law classes, for as much time as we deem appropriate.
There are some valid points in Katz's review. These new forms of popular communication we enjoy really haven't led to much in the way of actual organizing. That is something worth thinking about. Meanwhile, perhaps a few/.ers in the Chicago area could organize a little demonstraton in front of Sunstein's office!
Slashdot Mirror
It would be nice if there were places where one could take up advanced programming or computer science studies, not as job or career move, but as a mental or spiritual exercise. The goals of such studies would include attainment of uber-geek-dom, but the point of such an achievment would be the transcending of things we think are limitations, rather than instant commercial success.
Future programmers, scientists, technicians, etc., would benefit more from learning languages and how to use a command line than from sweating over the arcane intricasies of Excel.
If I were in charge, I'd have the future office workers learning Word and Excel on Windows, but I'd pursue Linux solutions for the other two cases.
BTW, if I were in charge of an office, I would also consider "limited option, easy to learn" solutions. It might be easier to set such things up under Linux than under Windows, even though the whole of Linux itself is difficult to learn.
I know I'm a bit of a slow learner and I don't think any easy change of attitude will remedy that. But I have, over my career, developed a truly powerful command of some languages. Really, when I know perl as well as i once knew 370 assembler I am going to be one 1337 dude! But I don't think there are too many people who can acquire that level of skill in a single day.
I also have a problem with trying to gain even a basic working familiarity with the nuts and bolts of too many languages, especially if they are highly similar. The different constructs tend to get mixed up in my head. I have to think about syntax, not the problem I'm trying to solve. I keep having to look things up. That was why I gave up on Visual Basic. Of course it isn't suitable for many kinds of program, but beyond that, I didn't want to deal with all the quirky (and probably pointless) little differences between VB, VB for applications, Access VB, VB for Nose Picking, hell, I don't even remember all the weird variations MS came out with back when I cared.
What I really like to do is get to a point where I can type in a modest GLP of a hundred lines or so very quickly, without needing to look anything up, and then have it run correctly the first time I try it. Again, most people cannot get to that point in a single day. And to the two or three /. posters
who can: I don't know who you are... but I don't like you! ;)
This discussion brings to mind the Tarot trump card called "The Hermit", which is a picture of an obviously reclusive guy holding a lamp from which a bright light shines, symbolizing, perhaps, the gift to the world of knowledge discovered by a person who withdrew from the world. There is a similar motif in the lives of many mystics and prophets such as Nietzsche's Zarathustra who came down from his mountain, or Jesus of Nazareth whose teaching career didn't start until after he had spent 40 days in the wilderness.
I didn't find the article "enlightening" or "entertaining." It was just warmed-over-Marxism. Marx and Engles did make some worthy points in their Communist Manifesto, and they are historically important for having inspired the Russian Revolution, etc., but I doubt that Marxists have anything interesting to say about the "revolutionary social implications" of free software or of anything else that's really happening today. In fact, I suspect that their ideological furvor and their proclivities for endless argument might actually impeed the progress of free and/or open software, though not fatally (I hope).
Mere "like-mindedness" does not preclude significant differences of opinion. In fact, sometimes the most useful discussions happen among people who share a common framework, rather than people from different frameworks, whose arguments, past each other in most cases, are ultimately about the frameworks themselves.
The global or national scaled "commonality" that Katz seems to envision is neither possible nor desirable. But the ability of people now to look for, join and form discussion groups based on "commonalities" of their own definition and their own choosing will continue to be an ever more powerful social and political force.
It seems reasonable that the people who had the original idea, or who do the most work, or who have the most knowledge about some project should have the most influence on its development.
I would rather work on a project with recognized, effective leadership than one dominated by covert egalitarianism freaks. But let me qualify that.
Egalitarianism isn't necessarily bad. If it comes about as a result of a small number of people of similar levels of relevant expertise coming together and working on a common project, then it's probably a good thing.
"Leadership" isn't necessarily good. When it is assigned as a result of weird corporate politics having no relation to the quality of the actual work being done, and when we submit to it out of economic necessity, rather than a desire to be part of some cool, interesting, maybe even popular technical project, then it's probably bad.
One of the great virtues of Open Source is that it helps develop leadership -- the kind of leadership that can inspire, coordinate, teach by example and teach by word without using economic or physical threats. An even greater virtue, in fact, the beautiful thing about Free Software, etc., is that it allows people to become members of groups that are compatible with their general preferences, cultural habits, and so on.
For a number of years, American libraries
and book stores have been sponsoring a
"banned books week" to raise public awareness about the
evils of censorship. A typical scare story mentioned
during this celebration might involve some overly
sensitive partents complaining about drug references in
"The Wizzard of Oz." or whatever, as if such misguided
goofball "challenges"
are a great threat to our freedom.
So I wonder what the American Library Association's position
is on the censorship described in this thread? Will they
mention it during next years "banned books week?"
(We're not in Kansas anymore!)
It is important for the discussion to continue. You've had three years of it, that's fine. But there are many readers and posters here today who were not here three years ago. One major aspect of any kind of activism is getting the word out, both to a broad public that needs to become aware of an issue, and especially to any potential activists.
The true believers in any cause need to spend a fair amount of time discussing things amoungst themselves. The discussion leads to social bonding, which is important for people who might be spending real time and effort, week after week, year after year. Discussion also helps activists develop the kind of in-depth knowledge that can be called upon when writing letters to office holders, administrators and newspapers and especially during live interviews in connection with protest demonstrations, etc.
That would be a fine project. Are you personally interested in organizing it? (Serious question, really.)
"Not every culture holds as its highest ideal the individual pursuit of wealth."
"Do you plan on going to live in one of these alternatives?"
Prosperity is a fine thing, but it can be achieved without making the "individual pursuit of wealth" the "highest ideal" of a culture. On a personal level, I'd rather not spend my free time in the company of self-absorbed work-a-holics, regardless of how much "stuff" they've managed to accumulate. An asshole in a corvette is still an asshole.
Interesting. There is a Christian symbol called
the "chirho" where the rho (P) is superimposed
over the chi (X). It stands for the first two
letters of "Christ" (in Greek). I wonder if this
means Bill Gates is the anti-Christ?
The referenced K5 article was hardly a "fabulous response." It was mainly a long stream of fanciful conjecture.
P.S.: Everything2, the only "free encyclopedia" I'm familiar with, is a great and wonderful thing, but there is plenty of room for things like it as well as things like Britannica. They really don't compete with each other.
----------
Meanwhile, the rest of us are deluded by the priesthood (and ourselves) into thinking that their sacred texts ALONE are the basis for all rightness and truth and justice in the world. Thus, we place our hopes for a just order of things on arcane arguments originating in the chemically altered minds of members of our high courts. And this is most convenient for America's serious power trippers! We compactify our nether garments when judicial decisions are contrary to our notions of justice, but the Actual True Remedy For Stupid Laws, i.e., political activism, never occurs to us.
If you want to DO something about the situation, then it DOES matter! Don't just complain. Start organizing!!----------
----------
I look forward to the time when the city of Frankenmuth, Mich., erects a giant stein in the middle of town, as a monument to free beer.
----------
----------
There are serious political issues involved. Intelligent political discussion requires the ability to quote. This is still easy with text-based media. However, if it becomes illegal to record video clips of news broadcasts in order to analyze their biases, or segments of movies or TV shows in order to unmask their cultural assumptions, then our ability to participate in shaping our future is severely dammaged.
----------
----------
Why should I even comment here - I'd just be talking to myself.
That is Sunstein's problem with moderation, and my problem with Sunstein: "It ... permits people ..." I happen to find a wonderful diversity of opinion on /. and on k5, but if a few leftists, for example, wish to confine their web
activity to leftist-only weblogs, that is their right.
Right, sure.... And there should also be a law that allows me and you and anyone else to address Sunstein's law classes, for as much time as we deem appropriate.
There are some valid points in Katz's review. These new forms of popular communication we enjoy really haven't led to much in the way of actual organizing. That is something worth thinking about. Meanwhile, perhaps a few /.ers in the Chicago area could organize a little demonstraton in front of Sunstein's office!