Does anyone else here see a problem with the author's characterization of "sports, drinking beer, and getting laid" as leading to a better-rounded personality and better sexual skills?
Geeks' typical lack of focus on romantic relationships doesn't mean they're necessarily worse at being romantic than their jock-and-bimbo peers. In many cases, the only romantic skill that the non-geeks are better at is deceiving each other into believing they're in a romantic relationship.
I'm no international analyst -- I'm just a college student, but I just want to explain why these export controls don't make sense to me.
The U.S. government seems to be stuck in the cold-war mentality that its enemies are countries -- meaning, governments, militaries, or other large groups of official people who meet around big tables. I would like to posit (again, I'm not at all an expert) that individuals, not nations, pose the most significant threat to U.S. security. As hyperprotective mothers repeat day after day, anyone with a brain and a computer can make herself a menace to society -- and that goes for anyone outside the country, too. It's ridiculous for the government to assume that U.S. citizens are automatically to be trusted with supercomputering power and non-U.S. citizens aren't. The point is, one person, anywhere in the world, can constitute a security threat. Export controls are based on the idea that the government can identify them, and that's just not true. All they're doing is forcing the computer industry out of certain international markets.
What do other countries have to say about the massive exportation of their skilled technical workers to the U.S.? Last I read, this was causing a problem for countries like India, where better pay, working environment, and opportunities (of course, this is a generalization) in the U.S. have been attracting almost all the talent. Do these countries care? I'm not saying it's unfair for the U.S. to hog all the hackers, but I find it hard to believe that the U.S. is the only country with any geopolitical clout in this situation.
I think it would be interesting if, for instance, the Indian government made it a requirement for technical workers exported to the U.S. that they receive equal pay. Naturally, enforcement could be tricky. And it could be argued that the effect would be a stifling of workplace diversity, as American companies turn away prospective employees who are foreigners. But it might also make companies take more seriously both Indian employees and the training of Americans who would like technical jobs but can't get the skills. Not to mention the fact that India could thereby slow the outflow of talented technical people.
Does anyone out there know what various non-U.S. governments have done on this issue?
Unlike the Windows desktop, Linux desktops do not force people who want to turn off their computers to click a button labeled START. Unlike the Mac OS desktop, Linux desktops do not ask users to eject floppy disks by dragging them to the trash -- the same action used to erase files.
The desktop environments currently available for Linux may avoid some of the above-quoted GUI bungles, but they're hardly a differentiating factor. Most people will agree that a GUI environment is "easier" for users, in that it offers context and discrete choices. I'm disappointed, though, that current commercial GUIs are all so windows-based. Few people seem to see beyond the bugginess of Windoze to the inherent problems of windows-oriented paradigms. (At this point you'll say, those problems are all solved by the command-line interface! Not true. And anyhow, with an ever-larger proportion of the computing population just marginally computer-literate, how do you expect to convert them to command-line aficionados?)
I'm sure there must be some university research going on out there into non-windows GUIs. I think Linux could really surge ahead in public popularity if it offered something besides windows-look-alike desktop environments.
I think you unwittingly revealed what might be the reason that the geek elite will never be.
Let's take on one facet of social elitism: attractiveness to the opposite sex. Most geeks will remain unattractive to the opposite sex (in general) because of the nature of the geek community. To wit, geeks -- guy and girl geeks alike -- have a reputation for asexuality. Geeks live in a world of ideas. Non-geeks live in a world of physical things. It comes down to values. Maybe the article would be more accurate if it's point were that the geek community now is complex enough to have an elite and whatnot. Which is hardly a revelation, but I guess it sounds more interesting to compare them to the Jet Set.
I think your suggestion that the increasing wealth of the Net Set might actually be making them an anti-elite is a valid one (and not off-topic, as your reply's score says).
There appears to be more to eliteness than money. Other than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, how many computer celebrities can the person-on-the-street name? And just how fondly do they think of BillG, anyway?
Someone else mentioned in another reply that the idea of geeks in general being elite is just wishful thinking. It seems to me that the elite have to have entertainment value, and geeks are entertaining only to themselves. For geeks to be deemed truly cool and elite, the rest of society would have to adopt the values of geeks... meaning an end to social elitism! So, the idea that the Net Set is the new Jet Set would be paradoxical. (How's that for simplistic thinking:) )
Anyway, aren't the Jet Set people the ones in the tabloids? Of course, no sane person would want to be in the tabloids, but the fact is, I've never been paying for my groceries and seen the headline, "Exclusive! Microsoft-Intel Meeting Ends in Messy Tryst!"
The article mentions that Cye whistles and chirps like R2-D2. Clearly, the next step is your own personal C3PO -- for when you need a twittering yet comedic companion with a British accent.:)
I question the implication that geek kids are especially mature (I realize you are not necessarily asserting that). Intelligent, perhaps. Antisocial, perhaps. Technically-oriented, certainly. But how does this translate to "mature"?
Dealing in stereotypes is a sticky business. But I'm not just saying that *some* geeks are not more mature than your average kid. Check out Webster's: maturity means adulthood. IOW, kids are by definition immature! Ask any adult, or a geek adult if you prefer, what experiences really made them grow up. I can't imagine anyone responding that coding a device driver or setting up a wonderful LAN helped them mature. The things that make people grow up are love, war, good times, hard times -- you know, the big stuff in life. These kids may occasionally equal adults when they're sitting in front of glowing screens, but they're hardly adults when it comes to *living*.
Re:This is not encryption
on
DNA Encryption
·
· Score: 1
As to whether this article describes encryption, it could be interpreted either way. I've looked up various definitions of encryption, and it looks like you could end up in a semantic mess of codes and symbols if you think about it too hard (after all, written language is just another code). It comes down to whether the intentions of the encoder count. If they do, it's not encryption, since encoding the message in DNA appears to be merely an expedient. If they don't, it is encryption, since this transformation of letters into DNA bases has the unintentional effect of making the message unreadable to a stranger (who somehow happens to bypass the steganography).
Does it seem to Gy's that many self-proclaimed Gg's are just wannabes or poseurs? IOW, are many of them closet girlbots who happen to admire geekiness?
I don't mean to imply a personal opinion one way or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where you work, but there are certainly plenty of interns here at my tech company.
Geeks' typical lack of focus on romantic relationships doesn't mean they're necessarily worse at being romantic than their jock-and-bimbo peers. In many cases, the only romantic skill that the non-geeks are better at is deceiving each other into believing they're in a romantic relationship.
Being a CS major, there's like 200 boys in my whole class.. and 199 are ugly. :)
The U.S. government seems to be stuck in the cold-war mentality that its enemies are countries -- meaning, governments, militaries, or other large groups of official people who meet around big tables. I would like to posit (again, I'm not at all an expert) that individuals, not nations, pose the most significant threat to U.S. security. As hyperprotective mothers repeat day after day, anyone with a brain and a computer can make herself a menace to society -- and that goes for anyone outside the country, too. It's ridiculous for the government to assume that U.S. citizens are automatically to be trusted with supercomputering power and non-U.S. citizens aren't. The point is, one person, anywhere in the world, can constitute a security threat. Export controls are based on the idea that the government can identify them, and that's just not true. All they're doing is forcing the computer industry out of certain international markets.
I think it would be interesting if, for instance, the Indian government made it a requirement for technical workers exported to the U.S. that they receive equal pay. Naturally, enforcement could be tricky. And it could be argued that the effect would be a stifling of workplace diversity, as American companies turn away prospective employees who are foreigners. But it might also make companies take more seriously both Indian employees and the training of Americans who would like technical jobs but can't get the skills. Not to mention the fact that India could thereby slow the outflow of talented technical people.
Does anyone out there know what various non-U.S. governments have done on this issue?
Unlike the Windows desktop, Linux desktops do not force people who want to turn off their computers to click a button labeled START. Unlike the Mac OS desktop, Linux desktops do not ask users to eject floppy disks by dragging them to the trash -- the same action used to erase files.
The desktop environments currently available for Linux may avoid some of the above-quoted GUI bungles, but they're hardly a differentiating factor. Most people will agree that a GUI environment is "easier" for users, in that it offers context and discrete choices. I'm disappointed, though, that current commercial GUIs are all so windows-based. Few people seem to see beyond the bugginess of Windoze to the inherent problems of windows-oriented paradigms. (At this point you'll say, those problems are all solved by the command-line interface! Not true. And anyhow, with an ever-larger proportion of the computing population just marginally computer-literate, how do you expect to convert them to command-line aficionados?)
I'm sure there must be some university research going on out there into non-windows GUIs. I think Linux could really surge ahead in public popularity if it offered something besides windows-look-alike desktop environments.
I'm guessing that any company with a culture that allows that web-cam wouldn't need a lactation room...
Sure, I'm willing to debate that. Is it your position that lactation rooms would be a sexist accomodation?
Him: So, what's your major?
Me: CompSci.
Him: Um, oh.
Let's take on one facet of social elitism: attractiveness to the opposite sex. Most geeks will remain unattractive to the opposite sex (in general) because of the nature of the geek community. To wit, geeks -- guy and girl geeks alike -- have a reputation for asexuality. Geeks live in a world of ideas. Non-geeks live in a world of physical things. It comes down to values. Maybe the article would be more accurate if it's point were that the geek community now is complex enough to have an elite and whatnot. Which is hardly a revelation, but I guess it sounds more interesting to compare them to the Jet Set.
There appears to be more to eliteness than money. Other than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, how many computer celebrities can the person-on-the-street name? And just how fondly do they think of BillG, anyway?
Someone else mentioned in another reply that the idea of geeks in general being elite is just wishful thinking. It seems to me that the elite have to have entertainment value, and geeks are entertaining only to themselves. For geeks to be deemed truly cool and elite, the rest of society would have to adopt the values of geeks... meaning an end to social elitism! So, the idea that the Net Set is the new Jet Set would be paradoxical. (How's that for simplistic thinking :) )
Anyway, aren't the Jet Set people the ones in the tabloids? Of course, no sane person would want to be in the tabloids, but the fact is, I've never been paying for my groceries and seen the headline, "Exclusive! Microsoft-Intel Meeting Ends in Messy Tryst!"
The article mentions that Cye whistles and chirps like R2-D2. Clearly, the next step is your own personal C3PO -- for when you need a twittering yet comedic companion with a British accent. :)
Dealing in stereotypes is a sticky business. But I'm not just saying that *some* geeks are not more mature than your average kid. Check out Webster's: maturity means adulthood. IOW, kids are by definition immature! Ask any adult, or a geek adult if you prefer, what experiences really made them grow up. I can't imagine anyone responding that coding a device driver or setting up a wonderful LAN helped them mature. The things that make people grow up are love, war, good times, hard times -- you know, the big stuff in life. These kids may occasionally equal adults when they're sitting in front of glowing screens, but they're hardly adults when it comes to *living*.
As to whether this article describes encryption, it could be interpreted either way. I've looked up various definitions of encryption, and it looks like you could end up in a semantic mess of codes and symbols if you think about it too hard (after all, written language is just another code). It comes down to whether the intentions of the encoder count. If they do, it's not encryption, since encoding the message in DNA appears to be merely an expedient. If they don't, it is encryption, since this transformation of letters into DNA bases has the unintentional effect of making the message unreadable to a stranger (who somehow happens to bypass the steganography).
Does it seem to Gy's that many self-proclaimed Gg's are just wannabes or poseurs? IOW, are many of them closet girlbots who happen to admire geekiness?
I don't mean to imply a personal opinion one way or the other.