Re:It goes against reason, check your bible !
on
New Human Ancestor?
·
· Score: 1
If we really are descended from monkeys, how come we don't all enjoy swinging from trees, eating bananas and mindless copulation with the closest memeber of either sex ?
Speak for your own damn self!
Seriously, though, I love the parent comment, I really do, because it should either be Score 4, Funny, or Score -1, Retarded.
To my mind, one of the saddest things about this account is that it's further demonstration of how little technology is understood by the average user. As the article illustrates, the myth of anonymity is far and away the greatest contributor to inappropriate behavior online. For another recent case in the media, recall the genius that used AOL instant messaging to send follow-up threats to students at the high school in SD -- "Huh? How'd they find me? My curtains were closed and I sent the message from inside the closet!"
Now where this gets kinda interesting is the fact that users want technology that hides the details, as the discussion Monday indicates. Unfortunately, as more is hidden, the less likely it is that a user will be able to utilize the technology in a prudent manner, because they simply won't know where to begin looking for possible dangers, if they look at all. So, I expect we'll see more instances of people doing questionable things online out of idiocy, and the problem will get worse as long as they are shielded from the details of how things work. As the article posted notes, many AOLers (and you know they aren't the only ones) misunderstand the nature of the Web so fundamentally as to fail to see that sending threatening letters to AOL staffers is about as smart as demanding a cashier's check at gunpoint.
Another example to think about here is the impressive number of young nekkid chicks all over the Web -- how many of them actually understand that those pictures will never, ever go away?
So, I think where I'm going with this is to suggest the following:
Developers of technology ought to be focussing on giving the common user tools that 1) work; 2) are mature and stable such that the user doesn't have to plan to learn a new system every year. Fewer bells and whistles, more good apps that users actually comprehend. (note that I'm talking about software for the average person, not slashdotters, so relax;-)
We need to realize that many of these problems exist because to learn to use any piece of technology safely requires some time and effort to understand on some basic level what it's doing, unless you want to clip the user's wings entirely and make their decisions for them. Right now there is a scary dearth of knowledge in the heads of users, and that's why a lot of the shit out there (death threats and worms clearly labeled.vbs (which just kills me BTW;-) ) is there in the first place.
The upshot is that a crucial part of our discussions about the future of technology, especially where the discussion is about responsible uses of tech (i.e., Web access in public libraries), has to be about properly educating users. And I'm not talking about holding the hands of retards, but giving good instruction just as we do regarding the use of any other major piece of equipment.
It strikes me as odd that a game like SimCity was such a huge success in among american computer enthusiasts.
Think about it, the basic of the game clearly implements the basic framework of a socialist state in which the player represents the central planning authority of a virtual state.
Actually, this is totally consistent with the stereotype of American ideology you're assuming. "Americanism" rejects centralized planning, true, and it does so in favor of the autonomy of the individual. However, you're assuming that total control over something is in itself "unamerican", but this isn't true. The truth is that it's only bad when you yourself aren't at the helm. Would America work if individuals did not believe that their own decisions were likely better than those that would come to pass from someone else's centralized control? The belief in individual self-sufficiency is exactly why this game is appealing to the American ego.
To put it another way, an obvious Sim failure would be something like "Sim East Berlin", where you play out the exciting life of a factory worker saving up for a
"Trabi".
I think one relevant difference between, say, a PoliSci paper and a CS project is that in the former case the point is generally to report on some phenomenon and then to come to some reasonable conclusion.
In contrast, your average CS project isn't about describing the world in any way, or summarizing others' views, but finding a way to make something work.
Therefore, while citing others' work is typically part of the task in a PoliSci paper, it often violates the entire point of a programming task in a CS class, in which you are supposed to get the damn thing working properly.
In my experience, CS classes generally give a mixture of assignments to be accomplished individually and with others. IMO this is good, because programmers definitely need to develop good teamworking skills, and learn how to participate in an organic and communal process. At the same time, beating your head til it bleeds all by your lonesome is critical for developing self-sufficiency.
A problem like the one described is likely due to a lack of clarity about the rules for that particular assignment. If the professor explicitly gives permission to collaborate, then the parent reply's advice makes sense. Otherwise, it's not a safe assumption.
Slashdot Mirror
If we really are descended from monkeys, how come we don't all enjoy swinging from trees, eating bananas and mindless copulation with the closest memeber of either sex ?
Speak for your own damn self!
Seriously, though, I love the parent comment, I really do, because it should either be Score 4, Funny, or Score -1, Retarded.
To my mind, one of the saddest things about this account is that it's further demonstration of how little technology is understood by the average user. As the article illustrates, the myth of anonymity is far and away the greatest contributor to inappropriate behavior online. For another recent case in the media, recall the genius that used AOL instant messaging to send follow-up threats to students at the high school in SD -- "Huh? How'd they find me? My curtains were closed and I sent the message from inside the closet!"
Now where this gets kinda interesting is the fact that users want technology that hides the details, as the discussion Monday indicates. Unfortunately, as more is hidden, the less likely it is that a user will be able to utilize the technology in a prudent manner, because they simply won't know where to begin looking for possible dangers, if they look at all. So, I expect we'll see more instances of people doing questionable things online out of idiocy, and the problem will get worse as long as they are shielded from the details of how things work. As the article posted notes, many AOLers (and you know they aren't the only ones) misunderstand the nature of the Web so fundamentally as to fail to see that sending threatening letters to AOL staffers is about as smart as demanding a cashier's check at gunpoint.
Another example to think about here is the impressive number of young nekkid chicks all over the Web -- how many of them actually understand that those pictures will never, ever go away?
So, I think where I'm going with this is to suggest the following:
- Developers of technology ought to be focussing on giving the common user tools that 1) work; 2) are mature and stable such that the user doesn't have to plan to learn a new system every year. Fewer bells and whistles, more good apps that users actually comprehend. (note that I'm talking about software for the average person, not slashdotters, so relax
;-)
- We need to realize that many of these problems exist because to learn to use any piece of technology safely requires some time and effort to understand on some basic level what it's doing, unless you want to clip the user's wings entirely and make their decisions for them. Right now there is a scary dearth of knowledge in the heads of users, and that's why a lot of the shit out there (death threats and worms clearly labeled
.vbs (which just kills me BTW ;-) ) is there in the first place.
The upshot is that a crucial part of our discussions about the future of technology, especially where the discussion is about responsible uses of tech (i.e., Web access in public libraries), has to be about properly educating users. And I'm not talking about holding the hands of retards, but giving good instruction just as we do regarding the use of any other major piece of equipment.It strikes me as odd that a game like SimCity was such a huge success in among american computer enthusiasts. Think about it, the basic of the game clearly implements the basic framework of a socialist state in which the player represents the central planning authority of a virtual state.
Actually, this is totally consistent with the stereotype of American ideology you're assuming. "Americanism" rejects centralized planning, true, and it does so in favor of the autonomy of the individual. However, you're assuming that total control over something is in itself "unamerican", but this isn't true. The truth is that it's only bad when you yourself aren't at the helm. Would America work if individuals did not believe that their own decisions were likely better than those that would come to pass from someone else's centralized control? The belief in individual self-sufficiency is exactly why this game is appealing to the American ego.
To put it another way, an obvious Sim failure would be something like "Sim East Berlin", where you play out the exciting life of a factory worker saving up for a "Trabi".
I think one relevant difference between, say, a PoliSci paper and a CS project is that in the former case the point is generally to report on some phenomenon and then to come to some reasonable conclusion.
In contrast, your average CS project isn't about describing the world in any way, or summarizing others' views, but finding a way to make something work.
Therefore, while citing others' work is typically part of the task in a PoliSci paper, it often violates the entire point of a programming task in a CS class, in which you are supposed to get the damn thing working properly.
In my experience, CS classes generally give a mixture of assignments to be accomplished individually and with others. IMO this is good, because programmers definitely need to develop good teamworking skills, and learn how to participate in an organic and communal process. At the same time, beating your head til it bleeds all by your lonesome is critical for developing self-sufficiency.
A problem like the one described is likely due to a lack of clarity about the rules for that particular assignment. If the professor explicitly gives permission to collaborate, then the parent reply's advice makes sense. Otherwise, it's not a safe assumption.