As the child and grandchild of multiple public school teachers, I find it very difficult to admit that I would not be willing to tackle the challenge myself. Personally, I find teaching a joy, but I'll stick to the collegiate level. I have witnessed some of the rewards of teaching, but for me it is not worth the trials. For my son's sake, I just hope that there are those who feel differently than I do. To go back on topic: I find the most frightening aspect of our technological dependence (not use, but dependence) to be that to most people who log on to a computer every day it is a black box, as is every other appliance in their home and office. We need to be educated into how our world WORKS, not just how to use the tools. The better that we understand every aspect of our technology, the more able we are to function should someone attack it.
I think that it is interesting to note that intellectual property laws do less to protect the creator of that property than to protect the institution or publisher. In the scientific community, for example, the rights to an article belong either to the journal in which it was published or the institution at which the research was performed. They never belong to the author of the article. In fact, the investigator must PAY a fee in order to have the work published.
As one who is not a libertarian, I am not persuaded by much of this article, but I do see similarities between the current uses of intellectual property rights and their stated origins. I do feel that the interests of those who create and then share their creations with the rest of us, should be respected. I do not think that in today's self-centered world this would happen without legal statutes. Even unenforceable laws are followed more often then moral dictae.
However, it is probably true that these laws should be reformed to protect the creators rather than the marketers. We have become a culture of middle men. Very few of us are true producers. Perhaps we should try to protect those who are.
Slashdot Mirror
As the child and grandchild of multiple public school teachers, I find it very difficult to admit that I would not be willing to tackle the challenge myself. Personally, I find teaching a joy, but I'll stick to the collegiate level.
I have witnessed some of the rewards of teaching, but for me it is not worth the trials. For my son's sake, I just hope that there are those who feel differently than I do.
To go back on topic:
I find the most frightening aspect of our technological dependence (not use, but dependence) to be that to most people who log on to a computer every day it is a black box, as is every other appliance in their home and office. We need to be educated into how our world WORKS, not just how to use the tools. The better that we understand every aspect of our technology, the more able we are to function should someone attack it.
I think that it is interesting to note that intellectual property laws do less to protect the creator of that property than to protect the institution or publisher. In the scientific community, for example, the rights to an article belong either to the journal in which it was published or the institution at which the research was performed. They never belong to the author of the article. In fact, the investigator must PAY a fee in order to have the work published.
As one who is not a libertarian, I am not persuaded by much of this article, but I do see similarities between the current uses of intellectual property rights and their stated origins. I do feel that the interests of those who create and then share their creations with the rest of us, should be respected. I do not think that in today's self-centered world this would happen without legal statutes. Even unenforceable laws are followed more often then moral dictae.
However, it is probably true that these laws should be reformed to protect the creators rather than the marketers. We have become a culture of middle men. Very few of us are true producers. Perhaps we should try to protect those who are.