To me the concept of playing against others is a rather bad idea. I don't want to play a game I can't win.
Same here. I gave up on online multiplayer games a long time ago. I got tired of kiddies with no real lives taking glee in ruining it for everyone else.
Besides, I don't enjoy competitive games. That's why I've always preferred role-playing over board games.
I'll love it when someone invents a gaming AI that can handle being a halfway decent game master. Couple that with Quake-style 3D, slap on some online/multiplayer functionality, and a pretty good role-playing experience will be possible. Not great, but it'd be a start.
Until I can meet up with people online and go on a cooperative adventure through a virtual world, combating the game's AI instead of one another, I'll continue to pass on online gaming.
The most important skill anyone can have is the ability to read. From that, everything else can be accomplished. Even so, it's nice to have a good grounding in how to think critically - that gives a leg up in sorting the trash from the treasures when reading. To those two, add a good grasp of basic writing and arithmetic, and you have a solid, fundamental eduation. Anyone who doesn't have this fundamental education is unprepared for life.
The most important teaching tool is the instructor, who must be knowledgeable about the subject matter and skilled in the methods of instruction. To get the highest incidence of such people, the position must be well-paid and respected. The next most important teaching tool is the book. The books provided to students must be factually correct, up to date, and well-written. The final teaching ingredient of prime importance is the environment: it must be one which is comfortable, clean, and safe for all involved.
Are our schools this way now? No.
Will spending money on computers help them meet the above needs better than spending the money to directly meet these needs? No.
Clearly, the money should be spent on making sure that the teachers, books, and facilities are the most conducive to instructing students in the skills of reading, critical thinking, writing, and arithmetic. From there, additional subjects should be added, such as the sciences and humanities. If money is left over, then some shop classes, craft courses, computers, and sports can be added.
But first, get the foundation right. Without that, there's nowhere to go but down.
The liberal media won't print it, you won't see it on TV,
You're right that newspapers and TV stations are unlikely to pick this side of the story up, but it's not because they're "liberal." It's because they're huge corporations. In Katz-speak, they're corporatists. Their interests lie in making sure we all view our public educational system as horrifying, dangerous, incompetent, and, above all, hopeless. It sells papers, it keeps viewers glued to their sets, and it gives corporations more openings into our kids' lives.
Or haven't you noticed the increasing role corporations are playing on campus these days? The high school I attended in the late eighties was free of corporate slogans and logos. Now, though, the cafeteria serves Taco Bell burritos, Pizza Hut pizza, and McDonald's hamburgers instead of the home-made ones they used to serve. And the grammar school I used to attend now gets the commercial-laden "educational" cable feed. And kids get their pack of Target school supplies at the beginning of each year.
What's so wrong with that? It ties us down to corporations. One of the big reasons I use free software is that I don't want to be beholden to yet another corporation. Our public schools also shouldn't be tied to corporations. We should be doing these things for ourselves, with our own tax dollars, instead of by selling our kid's eyeballs to corporations.
Oh, and if you're wondering why media outlets would care about all of the above - it's because the people who run those corporations tend to be very wealthy, and tend to have holdings in many, many other corporations - including places like Pinkerton and the company who makes 'Hooked on Phonics' (another corporate product that benefits from the 'public schools are hopeless' mentality being fostered among the citizenry).
Anyone have any ideas how we can get more exposure?
I have no idea how to approach TV stations, etc. about carrying this stuff. But I do know that it is effective to keep talking about it with friends and family. That's how things really change - one person at a time.
What next, suing Home Depot for selling the lead pipe that killed Mr. Boddy?
Naw, it'll never come to that. Home Depot will just require that all purchasers of lead pipes undergo psychological profiling prior to the sale. Eventually, there will be 5-day waiting periods and background checks prior to the sale of anything more harmful than mini-marhsmallows (buying the regular sized ones will require a check, since they're large enough to block someone's wind pipe).
I'm sure those old Babalonians will be surprised to find out they were rich.
And they were. Not by today's standards (i.e., they didn't have televisions, let alone fat stock portfolios), but the ruling class has been more wealthy than the ruled class from the beginning.
School funding is almost entirely a local issue, not a federal one.
And it's a good thing, too. American schools are clearly the best in the world, and have been constantly improving since the 1950s! Right?
If you think socialized health care is so great, move to Canada... I hear if you need heart surgery they actually get you in within the year now a days
Ah. And that's somehow worse than our system, under which a person's economic utility at the moment of need is the best predictor of whether s/he will receive care, as well as the type of care s/he will receive?
I prefer a health care system with a viewpoint that isn't quite so focused on short-term economics.
the government will still be doing it's best to break union strikes, beat down inner city rebellions, pepper spray peaceful protestors, as well as spreading this form of American "democracy" across the globe.
Good.
Wow. You support all of those things, without limit? I'm amazed that you admit it. You're either ignorant or evil. I'll assume the former until you prove otherwise. Either way, I fear for a society that is controlled by the likes of you.
And at the same time, they'll be cutting a check to GM in order to keep them from moving yet *another* plant down to Mexico so they can exploit cheap labor
Doesn't that make you happy that the mean nasty corporation is partially leaving so as no to Oppress the poor workers...
You're right, it should be a relief when a blood-sucking parasite moves from your body to someone else's. Still, the blood is gone, so a bit of remaining anger on the part of the unwilling host should be forgiven.
> It is not the government's place to tell companies exactly what they can and cannot put in their software.
That's correct, unless the company under question is a monopoly. Then, different rules kick in.
Don't buy the Microsoft propoganda. Dealing with Microsoft's abuses will not mean the Government can regulate the rest of the software industry. Microsoft has a monopoly. The law doesn't allow monopolists to maintain thier monopolies through the use of their monopoly power. Microsoft did that. They must be at least be prevented from doing so again. At best, they will also be punished for their crimes.
Either way, the government isn't going to be able to regulate the rest of the industry. They're just taking care of the criminals, so the rest of the citizens can go about their own, legal business.
What I'd like to see is about a decade of intense government oversight of every aspect of Microsoft's operation. I want every move of theirs to be required to pass muster with a huge team of bureaucrats. That would put a stop to Microsoft managements' willful disregard for the law. 'But the government can't possibly run a high-tech business!' That's not the point. The point is that these people have broken the law repeatedly, have shown very clearly and repeatedly that they feel no remorse for having done so, and have also shown that they will do so again as soon as they are given a chance. Therefore, they must be stopped from behaving illegally.
Actually, if it was up to me, I'd throw the entire senior management team in prison forever. White collar crime should be treated just like any other form of crime. Lock 'em up, and take their ill-gotten gains from them!
And while we're at it, we should amend the laws so that the owners of publicly traded corporations can be held liable for the actions of the corporations they own. After all, we all believe that each person should take responsibility for his or her own actions, don't we? If the owner of a company fails to ensure that his or her company is abiding by the laws, then that person is clearly at fault. They have the control, yet didn't stop the wrong from being done. They should therefore have to pay the price as well.
But oh, that's right. Microsoft has made this country great. What's good for Microsoft is good for America. Rah-rah-rah!
GM used to say that, and we believed them. Then they closed down most of their US plants and moved them to other countries, destroying the towns they left behind.
It's time we face the facts: the people who own and run major corporations have interests that are opposed to those of the rest of the population. They are not our buddies. They're not looking out for our best interests. They're looking out for their own interests, and are therefore working against us.
We have to stop rolling over for them. We have to take the world back from them. We have to stop yielding to them in the false hope that they will deal fairly with us. We can only bring justice and fairness to the world by looking out for our own interests without any regard for theirs, just as they're doing to us. Then we'll be on a more equal footing: their economic power vs. our numbers.
> Same for all those BBS doors; they were simple as hell, but they *worked*.:)
Indeed, the best of those games had well-designed interfaces, good play action, and most of all, good multiplayer game balance. It wasn't necessary to spend days learning the basics of those games. And an experienced player who was new to a particular board could still survive a moderately mature game of TW, for example. If the current games had such good underpinings, things would be great. Instead, we get games that are all flash and no substance. No thought is given to game balance or playability. No wonder the computer/videogames market appeals to such a small proportion of the population.
At any rate. Anyone else remember Solar Realms Elite? I loved that game. Amit Patel could program with the best of 'em.
For the record, I was a registered WWIV sysop. I operated the board in CA and IL. In IL, I was the guy whose board called TX every night to get the WWIVNet messages for our area.
Those BBS's were great. Heck, that's how and why I learned C - WWIV was written in that language. I loved modifying the source code to that program.
The same things that unite us now. Technological progressivism. Freedom of information. Transparency of public process. And so on. Many, many groups have gotten together despite facing these same obstacles. We can do it, too.
As for your questions about whether to vote for a candidate who agrees with you on important non-geek-centric issues but disagrees with you on geek-centric ones, my answer is that it's up to the individual. There's no reason we should adopt a single-issue mentality.
Let's have a go at creating an international Geek Party. We have little to lose, and much to gain!
> "Geeks" are not a singular group like "African Americans" or "women". Part of the problem with questions like this is that it assumes that there > even EXISTS some easily defined, discrete group of people called "geeks" who all believe the same things and want the same things.
So, you're saying that all African Americans all believe the same things, and all want the same things? And you're also saying that women, something like 51% of the world's population, all believe and want the same things.
Yeah, right.
There is diversity in ALL groups, no matter how large or small. Every group has to deal with the fact that not all of its members sees the world the same way. That sometimes makes it harder for the group to accomplish things, but the diversity of opinion can also make the group more robust and powerful.
So, to turn your own phrase around, the "geek" is no more mythical than the "Christian" group, or the "African American" group, or the "Union Local 523" group. Each group is comprised of diverse people, but each of the members is joined together by commonalities.
If you don't have any commonalities with the rest of the group, then of course you shouldn't be a part of it. But I don't think that's what you were trying to say, was it?
> Expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing as the megacorps treat the little people as little more than feudal serfs.
Good point!
But, now that you've gotten me thinking about it, are we serfs, or are we simply a medium through which wealth is transfered between corporations? That's the way it seems to me. After all, where do most of us get our money? From corporations. And what do we do with that money? We trade it to other corporations, and usually in exchange for something extremely ephemeral (non-durable), such as food, clothing, fuel, or soon-to-be-outdated computer software and hardware.
Or, put another way: we trade irreplaceable chunks of our time for wealth, then we trade most of that wealth away for stuff that gets used up. Seems pretty silly, doesn't it?
One corporation pays us, while others compete for the money we've been paid. We are one of the primary media through which money is transfered between the truly wealthy individuals and corporations in the world. That's the game that's being played. Well, one of the games, anyway.
If only we could continue to bring in wealth, but not transfer it back out, then we could eventually get into the game ourselves. Maybe we could change the rules or even come up with some different, more equitable game.
But until then, we'll just be the pawns. We'll be suitably outraged when they tell us that the 'net is corrupting our children, and we'll open our wallets when they offer to sell us software that will keep our little angels from falling from grace. We're such *good* little pawns, aren't we?
I think you're right that a lot of us have expressed unbalanced perspectives on this issue. After all, it's not like every vendor certification program is like all the others. Nor is it true that self-directed learning works as well as the classroom setting for everyone.
But you've also expressed an unblanced view (albeit slightly less unbalanced). For example, your contention that classroom training with a good instructor is better than self-directed study is not always true. As an instructor, you must know as well as I do that different people learn differently. Some learn better by reading, some by doing. Some learn better with others in a classroom setting, and some learn better alone, at their own pace. We do best when we provide many different learning opportunities, rather than claiming that one will do it all for everyone. As businesspeople, we cut ourselves off from potentially great employees by insisting on only accepting those that are good at classroom work and passing tests.
It is also less than obvious to me that vendor-given tests are a valid way to determine whether someone has the knowledge necessary to perform a real-world job. These vendor-supplied tests only test for short-term rote memorization. It's rare that part of my job requires me to tell someone the definition of a relative distinguished name, or describe the differences between typeful and typeless naming.
As a former HR professional, I also know that, in reality, we're unlikely to see a move away from the 'alphabet soup after your name, or no work for you!' mentality. Looking for certifications is just too easy, as compared with using effective interviewing techniques to find those who will be the best persons for the job. It's a sad situation.
But I think we in the computer professions do ourselves a disservice by touting the alphabet soup mentality as the be-all and end-all when it comes to proving who is good enough. It can be a valid tool when the certification process is done properly, and when the certifications are viewed in the context of the whole person.
You're exactly right, Xtal. If a person is working 20 hours of overtime a week, they're getting screwed.
Another thing that folks often don't consider is hourly vs. salaried. Here's a general rule of thumb: if an economic transaction involves an unlimited quantity of something being purchased for a fixed price, someone is getting screwed. If this involves an "all you can eat" salad bar, you may want to go ahead and spend that $5.00 even though you won't be able to eat $5.00 worth of the stuff they put out at that price. At least you'll get your choice of stuff, and you can go back until you're full.
When it comes to your time (which, as Heinlein said, is the sum total of your capital), it's foolish to sell an unlimited quantity for a fixed price. Charge them by the hour. If they won't accept that, go somewhere else. Only accept salaried positions as a last resort, and even then only until you can find an hourly position.
If we take this tact, we'll all be better off. We might even be able to improve the lives of folks in other white collar professions.
> you simply can't call Linux advocates elitist or snobbish and be expected to get away with it, eh?
Ah, but then there are those of us who are elitist and snobbish about Linux, and who admit it and even revel in the fact.
I used to enjoy using an Atari 8-bit computer. It was great. You could get the source code to its OS from Atari. You could also get the source code to its DOS and its BASIC language. They would send you programming tip sheets for free if you asked them to. And, as a 12-year-old, I called Atari Corp. with a programming question, and a couple of weeks later an actual progammer called me back. Me! A little 12-year-old, talking to a big-time programmer about my completely inconsequential problem!
But, the masses chose IBM Compatibles, which were horrendously expensive and which didn't offer graphics or audio as good as that 1979-vintage Atari until more than two decades later. Even so, the masses chose this broken platform, and before long, almost the whole world thinks the IBM Compatible's operating system of choice (Windows) == Computer. Pretty soon, just about all the hardware and software available in stores is only available for "IBM PCs and Compatibles." So I ended up buying one, and suffered through programming that closed OS for longer than I care to think about.
But, hey, at least I found Compuserve at about the same time as I adopted that crappy platform as my own. It was a nice online community, populated mostly by people who knew a thing or two about computers. I mean, you at least had to have a modem and know how to configure your terminal program to get on there! I had a lot of fun on Compuserve (and paid the huge Visa bills to prove it), and even met the woman who became my wife on there.
But The Masses wanted AOL, so Compuserve made itself more and more like AOL, and eventually AOL bought out Compuserve and made them virtually one and the same.
I could go on and on with this sort of thing, but I'm sure you've gone through the same sorts of processes.
The bottom line is that I'm sick and tired of having what I love ruined by the will of the masses.
If they want to use Linux, that's great. In fact, I'd prefer if everyone did. But if Linux has to be adulterated beyond recognition before they'll accept it, then fsck 'em. I'm not going to lose yet another of the great things in my life just because most people are lazy and ignorant.
While I'm ranting, I may as well rave about the original author's crack that we'd better all watch out or the Big Bad Companies will get upset that they're not getting what they want from us.
OH REALLY?!
I'm completely fed up with people telling me that I'd better do X or the companies will be mad, or I'd better NOT do Y or the companies will be upset.
These are the same entities who are ruining our lives. They're the ones who register software patents, who buy our politicians, who send 16-year-olds to jail for having the audacity to view legal copies of movies on their OS of choice. These are the monsters in our nightmares, immortal, all-encompassing, and growing more powerful by the day. And we're supposed to care more about what/they/ want than what/we/ want when it comes to/our/ OS?!
They can all go to hell in a handbasket, and so can their cronies who think we should do their bidding.
It's insane to say that domain names are like real estate, and real estate is a legitimate business, so selling domain names is OK. Domain names are not like real estate. They're like license plates or phone numbers. And, like either of those, they should be put back into the pool of available domains when someone (or some company) no longer has a use for it.
Registering domains is cheap. Dirt cheap. Why should they be treated like mansions instead of like license plates?
This is so sad. If what Jamie is saying is true, then "we the people" really are just as bad as I've been saying half-jokingly for a while now.
Well, it's not necessarily really "we the people." It may just be the people who count in a democracy: those that show up at these library meetings, the few who bother to go out and vote, etc. It appears that such people have a high tendency to avoid reason and embrace emotionality. Tell them, "This is hurting the children. But here's something that can save them. You don't want our children to be hurt, do you? You're not against keeping the children pure and safe, are you? You're not a monster, are you? Of course not! To prove it, all you have to do is agree to the following . .." Couch your argument in those terms, and people will agree to anything.
Sigh.
It reminds me of the Bloom County cartoon from the '88 election, when Opus and Milo were doing a practice debate. Milo says, "I understand that my opponent is in favor of the 55 mile per hour speed limit."
Opus: "Yes. 55 saves lives. I'm in favor of saving lives."
Milo: "Lowering the speed limit to 35 would save an additional 10,000 lives per year. What do you think of that?"
Opus: "Uh..35 is kind of slow..."
Milo: "Lowering it to 20 would save 30,000 lives a year."
Opus: "20 is really slow..."
Milo: "The truth is, my opponant would send 30,000 American men, women, and children to their firey deaths so he can zoom along at 55 to his manicurist."
Opus: "I don't have a manicurist!"
Milo: "He probably doesn't. Most mass murderers don't. Hitler didn't."
Opus: "Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!"
It degenerates from there. (This is all from memory; it's probably not perfectly verbatim, even though I've read Mr. Breathed's great comics dozens of times!)
Our political debates are just like that old Bloom County, now. Welcome to life in the comic strips! Strange thing, though; it's not funny anymore.
(hmm...Ironic that I just changed my sig, given the above post...)
You're right, of course. We need to do both. If we're going to space solely to avoid living in our own poisons, then we're not looking far enough down the road to truly accomplish the goal (although we would certainly be looking further than we currently are!). Eventually we'll run out of planets!
But, sticking around here isn't a perfect solution either. Even if we take care of the place, the sun's gonna go out, an asteroid is going to hit us, a massive volcano will erupt, or something else outside of our control will happen. While spoiling Terra and running off to some new Eden, only to spoil it and move on again, is an unenlightened policy, I believe it equally true that we can't only focus on our planet. Even with the best of care, it's not going to be able to support us forever.
As you imply, we're best served by taking a balanced view of these issues.
My main concern with this mission's failure is what sort of fallout will there be from it in the popular culture? Will we see popular support for space missions eroded even further? If I had a dime for everytime an acquaintance has told me that it's all a waste of money . . .
I'd love it if the talking heads would take a bit more time in explaining to people that the faster-cheaper-better missions NASA is undertaking these days allow us to have a greater incidence of failure while still spending less and learning more than on average than in the old days. Instead, the Dan Rathers of the world just talk about what a disappointment NASA has been of late.
Sigh.
The best hope for mankind's long-term survival is for us to spread to the stars. Failing that, we should spread to somewhere else in the solar system (perhaps in the space between planets, in totally artificial environments rather than terraformed planets). Otherwise, there will come a day when humankind is no more. It could be global thermonuclear war, it could be as a result of industrial waste products ruining the environment, or it could simply be a stray asteroid. But one way or another, it'll happen unless we spread out.
Anyone who is against exploring space is a traitor to our species.
Maybe you're right, and the columnist's comments are merely a cynical ploy to win ad hits from Slashdottians. That sort of thing certainly happens often enough. For that reason, I tend to take columns such as these with a grain of salt.
However, this guy seems to be different. Unlike Jesse Burst (who went from 'Linux isn't worth your time' to 'Linux is up and coming' to 'Linux is a solid bet' in an amazingly short period of time), he makes it very clear that what he wants is for Microsoft to produce better products. He's not saying that he plans to jump ship to the Linux camp because of that OS's higher quality. He's simply saying that he sees that the Linux OS has some things right (and other things wrong), while Windows NT, Windows 95/98/SE, and Windows 2000 all have some serious problems that Microsoft seems unwilling to address.
He's praising the good things about Linux and acknowledging that it has some problems of its own. That's par for the course with the average columnist, and I wouldn't trust him except that he's flat out stating that his desire is for Microsoft to realize it has some genuine competition and take the opportunity to improve their products. He's stating up-front that he's rooting for the home team, rather than unfairly denigrating the competition or praising phantom qualities of the chosen product.
I can respect that sort of forth-rightness. It's a refreshing way to approach the computer wars, which have seemingly forever been typified by the "my favorite widget rules and yours sucks" mentality.
This columnist is staying true to his beliefs, and he's doing it in a fair way. He simply believes Microsoft has temporarily gone astray, and hopes the success of Linux will lead the company back onto the path of greatness, which they will no doubt pave with many wonderful products. I don't agree with him, but the way he's stated his opinion makes me respect him.
That should be the norm, but it's not. So I solute him for his uncommonly rational stance.
And so, the progression toward a world made out of ticky-tacky continues.
It wouldn't really bother me that less than a dozen companies control most of the media outlets if what I got out of them was good, original content. Instead, I get umpteen editions of last year's (or decade's, as the case may be) warmed-over hits. "If it works once, do it again until everyone's sick of it" is not the motto of a creative mind. Don't we want creative minds in charge of our content providers?
I'd also feel better if they represented my viewpoint better. Instead, I get news from the corporate perspective. They don't much go into how breaking news items affect us as national (or world) citizens; it's all about how it affects us as corporate citizens.
For example, National Public Radio's coverage of this proposed AOL/Time-Warner merger has focused almost entirely on how this will make it easier for the combined companies to advertise their products to us. To use their example, we'll be able to talk with Tom Hanks about The Green Mile in an AOL Chat Room, buy Green Mile T-Shirts from a Warner Brothers online store, see teaser ads on AOL/Time-Warner TV channels, magazines and in pop-up AOL ads, see the movie on AOL/Time-Warner cable, and maybe eventually see it again on demand through AOL high-speed internet.
From what the talking heads are saying, all this merger means for me is that the combined corporation will be better at convincing me to part with my hard earned money. Yet they report it as if it were a good thing. Which leads me to question - good for whom? Certainly not for me, and not for you. The only people it could possibly be good for are those who own AOL/Time-Warner shares.
But even for them: is it really worth it? Are even they, the shareholders, going to personally derive enough benefit from this to justify the losses they personally will face in terms of original content, being marketed to, etc?
Most importantly, we as a society must decide whether we really want all of our content to be provided by a few elite corporations. Capitalism works best when there is plenty of competition. Each merger brings the level of competition another notch lower. Is that what we want?
I know I don't want that. But if we don't put a stop to such insane mergers between humongous companies, we'll continue to get the corporatized, commercialized, and nearly choiceless world we deserve.
1. Aren't these the same people who keep telling us that the state and local governments should be running everything, rather than "bureaucrats in Washington"? And didn't the Supreme Court rule that the definition of pornography (i.e., items "of prurient interest") was to be determined by each community on their own? Then why are these folks trying to impose censorship from on high?
2. Of course, the traditional media outlets are in the hands of a very few, very large companies (and getting to be fewer and larger by the day). Those companies are controlled by wealthy, powerful people. So the traditional media's content almost always serves the needs of the wealthy and powerful (i.e., they try very hard to avoid hiring and/or promoting employees who fail to represent their interests). The internet isn't like that, so of course it's going to be censored, demonized, and regulated until it is either a) irrelevant or b) just another traditional media outlet, owned by a few corporations.
3. To my fellow Americans: please remember these shenanigans when next it's time to vote. Vote in some people who actually represent our interests, rather than those of multinational, multibillion-dollar companies.
Slashdot Mirror
To me the concept of playing against others is a rather bad idea. I don't want to play a game I can't win.
Same here. I gave up on online multiplayer games a long time ago. I got tired of kiddies with no real lives taking glee in ruining it for everyone else.
Besides, I don't enjoy competitive games. That's why I've always preferred role-playing over board games.
I'll love it when someone invents a gaming AI that can handle being a halfway decent game master. Couple that with Quake-style 3D, slap on some online/multiplayer functionality, and a pretty good role-playing experience will be possible. Not great, but it'd be a start.
Until I can meet up with people online and go on a cooperative adventure through a virtual world, combating the game's AI instead of one another, I'll continue to pass on online gaming.
The most important skill anyone can have is the ability to read. From that, everything else can be accomplished. Even so, it's nice to have a good grounding in how to think critically - that gives a leg up in sorting the trash from the treasures when reading. To those two, add a good grasp of basic writing and arithmetic, and you have a solid, fundamental eduation. Anyone who doesn't have this fundamental education is unprepared for life.
The most important teaching tool is the instructor, who must be knowledgeable about the subject matter and skilled in the methods of instruction. To get the highest incidence of such people, the position must be well-paid and respected. The next most important teaching tool is the book. The books provided to students must be factually correct, up to date, and well-written. The final teaching ingredient of prime importance is the environment: it must be one which is comfortable, clean, and safe for all involved.
Are our schools this way now? No.
Will spending money on computers help them meet the above needs better than spending the money to directly meet these needs? No.
Clearly, the money should be spent on making sure that the teachers, books, and facilities are the most conducive to instructing students in the skills of reading, critical thinking, writing, and arithmetic. From there, additional subjects should be added, such as the sciences and humanities. If money is left over, then some shop classes, craft courses, computers, and sports can be added.
But first, get the foundation right. Without that, there's nowhere to go but down.
It's a good thing people like you are around to think of these things. I completely missed that aspect. But you're right of course.
[Actually, I was trying so hard not to laugh loudly enough to be heard beyond the server room that I nearly burst a vein.]
[Ah, and there's proof that using Slashdot should require a waiting period!]
LOL! I stand corrected.
The liberal media won't print it, you won't see it on TV,
You're right that newspapers and TV stations are unlikely to pick this side of the story up, but it's not because they're "liberal." It's because they're huge corporations. In Katz-speak, they're corporatists. Their interests lie in making sure we all view our public educational system as horrifying, dangerous, incompetent, and, above all, hopeless. It sells papers, it keeps viewers glued to their sets, and it gives corporations more openings into our kids' lives.
Or haven't you noticed the increasing role corporations are playing on campus these days? The high school I attended in the late eighties was free of corporate slogans and logos. Now, though, the cafeteria serves Taco Bell burritos, Pizza Hut pizza, and McDonald's hamburgers instead of the home-made ones they used to serve. And the grammar school I used to attend now gets the commercial-laden "educational" cable feed. And kids get their pack of Target school supplies at the beginning of each year.
What's so wrong with that? It ties us down to corporations. One of the big reasons I use free software is that I don't want to be beholden to yet another corporation. Our public schools also shouldn't be tied to corporations. We should be doing these things for ourselves, with our own tax dollars, instead of by selling our kid's eyeballs to corporations.
Oh, and if you're wondering why media outlets would care about all of the above - it's because the people who run those corporations tend to be very wealthy, and tend to have holdings in many, many other corporations - including places like Pinkerton and the company who makes 'Hooked on Phonics' (another corporate product that benefits from the 'public schools are hopeless' mentality being fostered among the citizenry).
Anyone have any ideas how we can get more exposure?
I have no idea how to approach TV stations, etc. about carrying this stuff. But I do know that it is effective to keep talking about it with friends and family. That's how things really change - one person at a time.
What next, suing Home Depot for selling the lead pipe that killed Mr. Boddy?
Naw, it'll never come to that. Home Depot will just require that all purchasers of lead pipes undergo psychological profiling prior to the sale. Eventually, there will be 5-day waiting periods and background checks prior to the sale of anything more harmful than mini-marhsmallows (buying the regular sized ones will require a check, since they're large enough to block someone's wind pipe).
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
This is the kind of world Amazon wants to live in. They're welcome to it.
You're right. Thanks for letting me know! Here's the actual quote:
"What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what's good for General Motors is good for the country."
Charles E. Wilson, before congressional committee, 1952.
I'm sure those old Babalonians will be surprised to find out they were rich.
And they were. Not by today's standards (i.e., they didn't have televisions, let alone fat stock portfolios), but the ruling class has been more wealthy than the ruled class from the beginning.
School funding is almost entirely a local issue, not a federal one.
And it's a good thing, too. American schools are clearly the best in the world, and have been constantly improving since the 1950s! Right?
If you think socialized health care is so great, move to Canada... I hear if you need heart surgery they actually get you in within the year now a days
Ah. And that's somehow worse than our system, under which a person's economic utility at the moment of need is the best predictor of whether s/he will receive care, as well as the type of care s/he will receive?
I prefer a health care system with a viewpoint that isn't quite so focused on short-term economics.
the government will still be doing it's best to break union strikes, beat down inner city rebellions, pepper spray peaceful protestors, as well as spreading this form of American "democracy" across the globe.
Good.
Wow. You support all of those things, without limit? I'm amazed that you admit it. You're either ignorant or evil. I'll assume the former until you prove otherwise. Either way, I fear for a society that is controlled by the likes of you.
And at the same time, they'll be cutting a check to GM in order to keep them from moving yet *another* plant down to Mexico so they can exploit cheap labor
Doesn't that make you happy that the mean nasty corporation is partially leaving so as no to Oppress the poor workers...
You're right, it should be a relief when a blood-sucking parasite moves from your body to someone else's. Still, the blood is gone, so a bit of remaining anger on the part of the unwilling host should be forgiven.
> It is not the government's place to tell companies exactly what they can and cannot put in their software.
That's correct, unless the company under question is a monopoly. Then, different rules kick in.
Don't buy the Microsoft propoganda. Dealing with Microsoft's abuses will not mean the Government can regulate the rest of the software industry. Microsoft has a monopoly. The law doesn't allow monopolists to maintain thier monopolies through the use of their monopoly power. Microsoft did that. They must be at least be prevented from doing so again. At best, they will also be punished for their crimes.
Either way, the government isn't going to be able to regulate the rest of the industry. They're just taking care of the criminals, so the rest of the citizens can go about their own, legal business.
What I'd like to see is about a decade of intense government oversight of every aspect of Microsoft's operation. I want every move of theirs to be required to pass muster with a huge team of bureaucrats. That would put a stop to Microsoft managements' willful disregard for the law.
'But the government can't possibly run a high-tech business!' That's not the point. The point is that these people have broken the law repeatedly, have shown very clearly and repeatedly that they feel no remorse for having done so, and have also shown that they will do so again as soon as they are given a chance. Therefore, they must be stopped from behaving illegally.
Actually, if it was up to me, I'd throw the entire senior management team in prison forever. White collar crime should be treated just like any other form of crime. Lock 'em up, and take their ill-gotten gains from them!
And while we're at it, we should amend the laws so that the owners of publicly traded corporations can be held liable for the actions of the corporations they own. After all, we all believe that each person should take responsibility for his or her own actions, don't we? If the owner of a company fails to ensure that his or her company is abiding by the laws, then that person is clearly at fault. They have the control, yet didn't stop the wrong from being done. They should therefore have to pay the price as well.
But oh, that's right. Microsoft has made this country great. What's good for Microsoft is good for America. Rah-rah-rah!
GM used to say that, and we believed them. Then they closed down most of their US plants and moved them to other countries, destroying the towns they left behind.
It's time we face the facts: the people who own and run major corporations have interests that are opposed to those of the rest of the population. They are not our buddies. They're not looking out for our best interests. They're looking out for their own interests, and are therefore working against us.
We have to stop rolling over for them. We have to take the world back from them. We have to stop yielding to them in the false hope that they will deal fairly with us. We can only bring justice and fairness to the world by looking out for our own interests without any regard for theirs, just as they're doing to us. Then we'll be on a more equal footing: their economic power vs. our numbers.
> Same for all those BBS doors; they were simple as hell, but they *worked*. :)
Indeed, the best of those games had well-designed interfaces, good play action, and most of all, good multiplayer game balance. It wasn't necessary to spend days learning the basics of those games. And an experienced player who was new to a particular board could still survive a moderately mature game of TW, for example. If the current games had such good underpinings, things would be great. Instead, we get games that are all flash and no substance. No thought is given to game balance or playability. No wonder the computer/videogames market appeals to such a small proportion of the population.
At any rate. Anyone else remember Solar Realms Elite? I loved that game. Amit Patel could program with the best of 'em.
For the record, I was a registered WWIV sysop. I operated the board in CA and IL. In IL, I was the guy whose board called TX every night to get the WWIVNet messages for our area.
Those BBS's were great. Heck, that's how and why I learned C - WWIV was written in that language. I loved modifying the source code to that program.
> What central theme can unite us as geeks?
The same things that unite us now. Technological progressivism. Freedom of information. Transparency of public process. And so on. Many, many groups have gotten together despite facing these same obstacles. We can do it, too.
As for your questions about whether to vote for a candidate who agrees with you on important non-geek-centric issues but disagrees with you on geek-centric ones, my answer is that it's up to the individual. There's no reason we should adopt a single-issue mentality.
Let's have a go at creating an international Geek Party. We have little to lose, and much to gain!
> "Geeks" are not a singular group like "African Americans" or "women". Part of the problem with questions like this is that it assumes that there
> even EXISTS some easily defined, discrete group of people called "geeks" who all believe the same things and want the same things.
So, you're saying that all African Americans all believe the same things, and all want the same things? And you're also saying that women, something like 51% of the world's population, all believe and want the same things.
Yeah, right.
There is diversity in ALL groups, no matter how large or small. Every group has to deal with the fact that not all of its members sees the world the same way. That sometimes makes it harder for the group to accomplish things, but the diversity of opinion can also make the group more robust and powerful.
So, to turn your own phrase around, the "geek" is no more mythical than the "Christian" group, or the "African American" group, or the "Union Local 523" group. Each group is comprised of diverse people, but each of the members is joined together by commonalities.
If you don't have any commonalities with the rest of the group, then of course you shouldn't be a part of it. But I don't think that's what you were trying to say, was it?
> Expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing as the megacorps treat the little people as little more than feudal serfs.
Good point!
But, now that you've gotten me thinking about it, are we serfs, or are we simply a medium through which wealth is transfered between corporations? That's the way it seems to me. After all, where do most of us get our money? From corporations. And what do we do with that money? We trade it to other corporations, and usually in exchange for something extremely ephemeral (non-durable), such as food, clothing, fuel, or soon-to-be-outdated computer software and hardware.
Or, put another way: we trade irreplaceable chunks of our time for wealth, then we trade most of that wealth away for stuff that gets used up. Seems pretty silly, doesn't it?
One corporation pays us, while others compete for the money we've been paid. We are one of the primary media through which money is transfered between the truly wealthy individuals and corporations in the world. That's the game that's being played. Well, one of the games, anyway.
If only we could continue to bring in wealth, but not transfer it back out, then we could eventually get into the game ourselves. Maybe we could change the rules or even come up with some different, more equitable game.
But until then, we'll just be the pawns. We'll be suitably outraged when they tell us that the 'net is corrupting our children, and we'll open our wallets when they offer to sell us software that will keep our little angels from falling from grace. We're such *good* little pawns, aren't we?
I think you're right that a lot of us have expressed unbalanced perspectives on this issue. After all, it's not like every vendor certification program is like all the others. Nor is it true that self-directed learning works as well as the classroom setting for everyone.
But you've also expressed an unblanced view (albeit slightly less unbalanced). For example, your contention that classroom training with a good instructor is better than self-directed study is not always true. As an instructor, you must know as well as I do that different people learn differently. Some learn better by reading, some by doing. Some learn better with others in a classroom setting, and some learn better alone, at their own pace. We do best when we provide many different learning opportunities, rather than claiming that one will do it all for everyone. As businesspeople, we cut ourselves off from potentially great employees by insisting on only accepting those that are good at classroom work and passing tests.
It is also less than obvious to me that vendor-given tests are a valid way to determine whether someone has the knowledge necessary to perform a real-world job. These vendor-supplied tests only test for short-term rote memorization. It's rare that part of my job requires me to tell someone the definition of a relative distinguished name, or describe the differences between typeful and typeless naming.
As a former HR professional, I also know that, in reality, we're unlikely to see a move away from the 'alphabet soup after your name, or no work for you!' mentality. Looking for certifications is just too easy, as compared with using effective interviewing techniques to find those who will be the best persons for the job. It's a sad situation.
But I think we in the computer professions do ourselves a disservice by touting the alphabet soup mentality as the be-all and end-all when it comes to proving who is good enough. It can be a valid tool when the certification process is done properly, and when the certifications are viewed in the context of the whole person.
Let's not go off the deep end, either way.
You're exactly right, Xtal. If a person is working 20 hours of overtime a week, they're getting screwed.
Another thing that folks often don't consider is hourly vs. salaried. Here's a general rule of thumb: if an economic transaction involves an unlimited quantity of something being purchased for a fixed price, someone is getting screwed. If this involves an "all you can eat" salad bar, you may want to go ahead and spend that $5.00 even though you won't be able to eat $5.00 worth of the stuff they put out at that price. At least you'll get your choice of stuff, and you can go back until you're full.
When it comes to your time (which, as Heinlein said, is the sum total of your capital), it's foolish to sell an unlimited quantity for a fixed price. Charge them by the hour. If they won't accept that, go somewhere else. Only accept salaried positions as a last resort, and even then only until you can find an hourly position.
If we take this tact, we'll all be better off. We might even be able to improve the lives of folks in other white collar professions.
-Joe
> you simply can't call Linux advocates elitist or snobbish and be expected to get away with it, eh?
/they/ want than what /we/ want when it comes to /our/ OS?!
/our/ OS. Let's never forget that.
Ah, but then there are those of us who are elitist and snobbish about Linux, and who admit it and even revel in the fact.
I used to enjoy using an Atari 8-bit computer. It was great. You could get the source code to its OS from Atari. You could also get the source code to its DOS and its BASIC language. They would send you programming tip sheets for free if you asked them to. And, as a 12-year-old, I called Atari Corp. with a programming question, and a couple of weeks later an actual progammer called me back. Me! A little 12-year-old, talking to a big-time programmer about my completely inconsequential problem!
But, the masses chose IBM Compatibles, which were horrendously expensive and which didn't offer graphics or audio as good as that 1979-vintage Atari until more than two decades later. Even so, the masses chose this broken platform, and before long, almost the whole world thinks the IBM Compatible's operating system of choice (Windows) == Computer. Pretty soon, just about all the hardware and software available in stores is only available for "IBM PCs and Compatibles." So I ended up buying one, and suffered through programming that closed OS for longer than I care to think about.
But, hey, at least I found Compuserve at about the same time as I adopted that crappy platform as my own. It was a nice online community, populated mostly by people who knew a thing or two about computers. I mean, you at least had to have a modem and know how to configure your terminal program to get on there! I had a lot of fun on Compuserve (and paid the huge Visa bills to prove it), and even met the woman who became my wife on there.
But The Masses wanted AOL, so Compuserve made itself more and more like AOL, and eventually AOL bought out Compuserve and made them virtually one and the same.
I could go on and on with this sort of thing, but I'm sure you've gone through the same sorts of processes.
The bottom line is that I'm sick and tired of having what I love ruined by the will of the masses.
If they want to use Linux, that's great. In fact, I'd prefer if everyone did. But if Linux has to be adulterated beyond recognition before they'll accept it, then fsck 'em. I'm not going to lose yet another of the great things in my life just because most people are lazy and ignorant.
While I'm ranting, I may as well rave about the original author's crack that we'd better all watch out or the Big Bad Companies will get upset that they're not getting what they want from us.
OH REALLY?!
I'm completely fed up with people telling me that I'd better do X or the companies will be mad, or I'd better NOT do Y or the companies will be upset.
These are the same entities who are ruining our lives. They're the ones who register software patents, who buy our politicians, who send 16-year-olds to jail for having the audacity to view legal copies of movies on their OS of choice. These are the monsters in our nightmares, immortal, all-encompassing, and growing more powerful by the day. And we're supposed to care more about what
They can all go to hell in a handbasket, and so can their cronies who think we should do their bidding.
Linux is
It's insane to say that domain names are like real estate, and real estate is a legitimate business, so selling domain names is OK. Domain names are not like real estate. They're like license plates or phone numbers. And, like either of those, they should be put back into the pool of available domains when someone (or some company) no longer has a use for it.
Registering domains is cheap. Dirt cheap. Why should they be treated like mansions instead of like license plates?
This is so sad. If what Jamie is saying is true, then "we the people" really are just as bad as I've been saying half-jokingly for a while now.
." Couch your argument in those terms, and people will agree to anything.
Well, it's not necessarily really "we the people." It may just be the people who count in a democracy: those that show up at these library meetings, the few who bother to go out and vote, etc. It appears that such people have a high tendency to avoid reason and embrace emotionality. Tell them, "This is hurting the children. But here's something that can save them. You don't want our children to be hurt, do you? You're not against keeping the children pure and safe, are you? You're not a monster, are you? Of course not! To prove it, all you have to do is agree to the following . .
Sigh.
It reminds me of the Bloom County cartoon from the '88 election, when Opus and Milo were doing a practice debate. Milo says, "I understand that my opponent is in favor of the 55 mile per hour speed limit."
Opus: "Yes. 55 saves lives. I'm in favor of saving lives."
Milo: "Lowering the speed limit to 35 would save an additional 10,000 lives per year. What do you think of that?"
Opus: "Uh..35 is kind of slow..."
Milo: "Lowering it to 20 would save 30,000 lives a year."
Opus: "20 is really slow..."
Milo: "The truth is, my opponant would send 30,000 American men, women, and children to their firey deaths so he can zoom along at 55 to his manicurist."
Opus: "I don't have a manicurist!"
Milo: "He probably doesn't. Most mass murderers don't. Hitler didn't."
Opus: "Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!"
It degenerates from there. (This is all from memory; it's probably not perfectly verbatim, even though I've read Mr. Breathed's great comics dozens of times!)
Our political debates are just like that old Bloom County, now. Welcome to life in the comic strips! Strange thing, though; it's not funny anymore.
(hmm...Ironic that I just changed my sig, given the above post...)
You're right, of course. We need to do both. If we're going to space solely to avoid living in our own poisons, then we're not looking far enough down the road to truly accomplish the goal (although we would certainly be looking further than we currently are!). Eventually we'll run out of planets!
But, sticking around here isn't a perfect solution either. Even if we take care of the place, the sun's gonna go out, an asteroid is going to hit us, a massive volcano will erupt, or something else outside of our control will happen. While spoiling Terra and running off to some new Eden, only to spoil it and move on again, is an unenlightened policy, I believe it equally true that we can't only focus on our planet. Even with the best of care, it's not going to be able to support us forever.
As you imply, we're best served by taking a balanced view of these issues.
My main concern with this mission's failure is what sort of fallout will there be from it in the popular culture? Will we see popular support for space missions eroded even further? If I had a dime for everytime an acquaintance has told me that it's all a waste of money . . .
I'd love it if the talking heads would take a bit more time in explaining to people that the faster-cheaper-better missions NASA is undertaking these days allow us to have a greater incidence of failure while still spending less and learning more than on average than in the old days. Instead, the Dan Rathers of the world just talk about what a disappointment NASA has been of late.
Sigh.
The best hope for mankind's long-term survival is for us to spread to the stars. Failing that, we should spread to somewhere else in the solar system (perhaps in the space between planets, in totally artificial environments rather than terraformed planets). Otherwise, there will come a day when humankind is no more. It could be global thermonuclear war, it could be as a result of industrial waste products ruining the environment, or it could simply be a stray asteroid. But one way or another, it'll happen unless we spread out.
Anyone who is against exploring space is a traitor to our species.
Maybe you're right, and the columnist's comments are merely a cynical ploy to win ad hits from Slashdottians. That sort of thing certainly happens often enough. For that reason, I tend to take columns such as these with a grain of salt.
However, this guy seems to be different. Unlike Jesse Burst (who went from 'Linux isn't worth your time' to 'Linux is up and coming' to 'Linux is a solid bet' in an amazingly short period of time), he makes it very clear that what he wants is for Microsoft to produce better products. He's not saying that he plans to jump ship to the Linux camp because of that OS's higher quality. He's simply saying that he sees that the Linux OS has some things right (and other things wrong), while Windows NT, Windows 95/98/SE, and Windows 2000 all have some serious problems that Microsoft seems unwilling to address.
He's praising the good things about Linux and acknowledging that it has some problems of its own. That's par for the course with the average columnist, and I wouldn't trust him except that he's flat out stating that his desire is for Microsoft to realize it has some genuine competition and take the opportunity to improve their products. He's stating up-front that he's rooting for the home team, rather than unfairly denigrating the competition or praising phantom qualities of the chosen product.
I can respect that sort of forth-rightness. It's a refreshing way to approach the computer wars, which have seemingly forever been typified by the "my favorite widget rules and yours sucks" mentality.
This columnist is staying true to his beliefs, and he's doing it in a fair way. He simply believes Microsoft has temporarily gone astray, and hopes the success of Linux will lead the company back onto the path of greatness, which they will no doubt pave with many wonderful products. I don't agree with him, but the way he's stated his opinion makes me respect him.
That should be the norm, but it's not. So I solute him for his uncommonly rational stance.
And so, the progression toward a world made out of ticky-tacky continues.
It wouldn't really bother me that less than a dozen companies control most of the media outlets if what I got out of them was good, original content. Instead, I get umpteen editions of last year's (or decade's, as the case may be) warmed-over hits. "If it works once, do it again until everyone's sick of it" is not the motto of a creative mind. Don't we want creative minds in charge of our content providers?
I'd also feel better if they represented my viewpoint better. Instead, I get news from the corporate perspective. They don't much go into how breaking news items affect us as national (or world) citizens; it's all about how it affects us as corporate citizens.
For example, National Public Radio's coverage of this proposed AOL/Time-Warner merger has focused almost entirely on how this will make it easier for the combined companies to advertise their products to us. To use their example, we'll be able to talk with Tom Hanks about The Green Mile in an AOL Chat Room, buy Green Mile T-Shirts from a Warner Brothers online store, see teaser ads on AOL/Time-Warner TV channels, magazines and in pop-up AOL ads, see the movie on AOL/Time-Warner cable, and maybe eventually see it again on demand through AOL high-speed internet.
From what the talking heads are saying, all this merger means for me is that the combined corporation will be better at convincing me to part with my hard earned money. Yet they report it as if it were a good thing. Which leads me to question - good for whom? Certainly not for me, and not for you. The only people it could possibly be good for are those who own AOL/Time-Warner shares.
But even for them: is it really worth it? Are even they, the shareholders, going to personally derive enough benefit from this to justify the losses they personally will face in terms of original content, being marketed to, etc?
Most importantly, we as a society must decide whether we really want all of our content to be provided by a few elite corporations. Capitalism works best when there is plenty of competition. Each merger brings the level of competition another notch lower. Is that what we want?
I know I don't want that. But if we don't put a stop to such insane mergers between humongous companies, we'll continue to get the corporatized, commercialized, and nearly choiceless world we deserve.
1. Aren't these the same people who keep telling us that the state and local governments should be running everything, rather than "bureaucrats in Washington"? And didn't the Supreme Court rule that the definition of pornography (i.e., items "of prurient interest") was to be determined by each community on their own? Then why are these folks trying to impose censorship from on high?
2. Of course, the traditional media outlets are in the hands of a very few, very large companies (and getting to be fewer and larger by the day). Those companies are controlled by wealthy, powerful people. So the traditional media's content almost always serves the needs of the wealthy and powerful (i.e., they try very hard to avoid hiring and/or promoting employees who fail to represent their interests). The internet isn't like that, so of course it's going to be censored, demonized, and regulated until it is either a) irrelevant or b) just another traditional media outlet, owned by a few corporations.
3. To my fellow Americans: please remember these shenanigans when next it's time to vote. Vote in some people who actually represent our interests, rather than those of multinational, multibillion-dollar companies.
-Joe