Introversion vs. Social Anxiety Disorder
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 4
There is a point where introversion crosses over to social anxiety disorder. It's an unreasonable fear of social situations (you've probably seen some drug company's commercials about the subject).
Now, I'll admit that I'm a bit of an introvert. I feel, however, that my previous overuse of the computer/net has pushed me farther and farther towards an unhealthy level of introversion.
IMHO, moderation is important when discussing personality traits. You don't want to be too much of an introvert nor a sociopathic extrovert; it's far better to be just mildly in one or the other camp.
Like I've mentioned in another post in this thread, I know people for whom the net defines their social life -- talking with people on Everquest or a MUD is the only form of social interaction they get. I can't see how that could possibly be healthy -- it leads to a loss of basic social skills and tends to be accompanied by a lack of exercise and (sometimes extreme) weight gain. Some/.'ers might see themselves in this and/or might think that this is an okay way to live if you want to, but I can't imagine that shutting yourself off from society is the road to mental health.
Granted, I'm citing extreme examples here. It can be seen, however, in more mild cases in one form or another.
Let me wrap up by suggesting that people use the net to avoid person-to-person interaction. You can argue that emailing someone is just like talking to them at dinner, but it's a pale substitute. Net-based interactions are not just "safe", but they allow you to reduce the person you're interacting with to just an object, an abstraction.
> It may not be face-to-face, but is really THAT important?
Well, yes.
There is something that face-to-face interaction provides that email just doesn't. I suspect that a majority of the/. crowd will miss this because they tend to be more introverted than the average population (actually, I'd bet my lunch that the average/. poster is a INTJ on Meyers/Briggs). I know people whose idea of social gatherings is to get a party together in Everquest or meet someone on a MUD. You might argue that this techically qualifies as social interaction (it does), but it's also really sad. Also, it might fit the technical definition of social interaction, but not the spirit in which the author meant it.
Sitting behind your computer and firing off the occassional IM while mudding is not a healthy way to live.
Setting aside the "I met my wife online" case studies which/. will no doubt be flooded with, you've got to realize that spending more than a hour or two per day on the net will generally be destructive to your social life. Email doesn't let you bond with other people. You might have interesting conversations, but you'll never have social experience unless you get off your ass and out of the house.
Well, VA may be corporate, but I would challenge the idea that this necessarily forces Slashdot into that catagory.
For the "corporate" sites, I'm thinking more along the lines of those fun brochure sites you get when you go to any major corporate site. Slashdot doesn't show off VA's product line or explain VA's corporate philosophy, and I have yet to see the VA "Vision Statement" on the/. front page.
Try this one out: FinanceNet. This continent would consist of the stock trading sites and message boards (etrade, fool.com, etc.) There might be less of these than others, but I'll bet they're some of the more popular destinations on the net (for some reason, I'm not supposed to surt/. from the office, but updating my stocks every 15 minutes is A-OK with management).
Okay, I've never really thought that Katz was (intentionally) all that funny before. I gotta admit, though, that the header to this one was pretty good.
Two issues:
One, I think that perhaps a "Cause Zealot" continent is in order. Consider how the internet serves as a connecting point for scattered populations with similar ideas. I just saw a piece last night about how McCain is doing his recruiting for volunteers almost exclusively on the net and using the net to organize them. Of course, then there are the usual suspects as well: Linux zealots, Mac evangelists, Amiga people, God-Hates-Fags morons, People for the Privitization of Sidewalks, etc.
Second, I think the "Corporate" and "Buy" areas should be merged as concepts and then subdivided into two catagories: Brochure sites and Useful Sites (where you can buy stuff, get research, insurance quotes or whatever). After all, corporations are at their heart and soul all trying to sell you something.
As for the general nature of the article, it's good food for thought and I didn't have to take a bathroom break in the middle of reading it. Bravo, Jon.
Bob Metcalf provides a valuable lesson to those of us in the tech industry: Just because someone comes up with something cool does not mean that they have a clue.
Personally, I don't see why Metcalf even gets the time of day from anyone. Where does his credibility hail from? Coming up with a bit of tech, even one which sees so wide a deployment, does not necessarily mean that the developer is qualified to make comments on other areas. It doesn't even mean that they're a big thinker -- Bob Metcalf is obviously no RMS. Technical ability does not mean you are immune from being an idiot.
In any event, Metcalf hasn't earned any sort of consideration or credibility in my mind. On the other hand, Linus has built up a fair amount of credibility thanks to his general ability to stay "above" the petty arguements in OSS land and to almost always make a great deal of sense. So, in a Bob Metcalf v. Linus Torvolds arguement, who gets the benefit of the doubt?
Jon -- You seem like a fellow who might have some small amount of experience with the lack of civility which is rampant on the net. Given that, I have a two-part question:
a) Who do you suppose the main culprits are? Why do you suppose that certain forums (like/.) can be somewhat civil one day and full of trolls and flamers the next? Is it simply a matter of certain people skipping 4th grade classes for the day, the flood of newbies, a popularity thing or just the nature of the beast? This leads into the second part of my question...
b) Do you foresee a circumstance where the net will ever be a civil place without comprimising anonymity and free speach? Or is every net medium which tries to provide these things doomed to go the way of Usenet?
This post is trolling a little bit, but it did help me make a connection here:
If VA only wants to help/. and make contributions to the OSS community, why doesn't it just cut Slashdot loose and support them via donations?
Think about it: If VA's being honest about their intentions, this would be a great move on their part. They'd regain the trust of the more paranoid/. community (like myself), they'd get a hell of a tax write-off and Slashdot could stop hearing about how it should be a.com and not a.org.
I'd really hate to come across as a ball-breaker, but this letter really doesn't say anything or make any promises.
For instance: What about the advertising? Will Slashdot and Freshmeat still accept (under reasonable terms) advertising from VA's competitors?
Look, I know a lot of you think that this is a non-issue -- you either use ad-blocking software or ignore them or whatever. The reality is that advertising is still a powerful influence in the buying habits of a vast majority of the population -- again, why are Coke and Pepsi so big when Jolly-Good is less expensive? Ads can be effective, and your business cannot grow well without them.
I bring it up because it's a subtle way that VA could shift things in their favor. Frankly, I'm not worried that VA will start submitting their own articles or influencing the editors -- that would be way too obvious, and we'd see through that in a second. If they are going to influence what we see and hear in any way, it'll have to be something subtle like this.
Ideally, I would like to hear that a non-vested party (who owns no VA stock and who is not directly controlled by anyone save Cmdr. Taco) was put in charge of ad sales. Again, let me say that I'm not accusing VA (or any of the/. of Freshmeat crew) of having this planned, it's just something I could see happening. Ask yourself this, though: If you were VA, why would you want to own Slashdot and Freshmeat so badly?
"...and so, as the sun sets on Slashdot World, everything is hunky-dorie and everyone lived happily ever after and without Microsoft."
While I respect the opinions of the author of this article, I have to say that in my experience the apps for Linux just aren't up to the same caliber as those available for Windows yet. I mean, can you show me a mail client as powerful and easy to use as Outlook Express? How about a word processor with the feature set of Word (and I know a lot of/. readers think of a spell checker as "bloatware", but some of us like having a lot of options we can configure).
What's more irritating about articles such as this one is that they don't really serve a productive purpose to us as a community of developers. It glosses over the failings of Linux, and this is a Bad Thing(tm). Remember the "Jihad Tux" icon on Suck back a couple of months ago? It was funny, but it was a bad omen as well.
I suppose this article in particular is just serving as a final straw to me. Lately I've noticed a really disturbing trend towards self-congratulation in the OSS movement, and especially on this particular discussion board. Criticism of Linux is less and less welcome while this sort of wanking is on the upswing.
Look, sitting around patting ourselves on the back while ignoring the deficiancies in our software is the exact same behavior that we love to flame companies like Microsoft for. It feels good to convince ourselves that Linux is finally "there" and that anyone who can't use it is just an idiot. It feels good to think that even a "suit" can use it now. It feels good, but it's not true -- not yet.
When I first installed Slackware (waaay back when), it was nearly impossible to deal with as a newbie with no previous UNIX experience. Linux has come a very long way; I won't dispute that. It's not a replacement for Windows yet, however, and we as a development community aren't doing ourselves any favors by pretending (as an example, not a flame) that the GIMP can hold a candle to Photoshop yet.
I am conviced that the OSS development paradigm will lead to a better product that any closed paradigm. I am also convinced, however, that if the community loses their focus that the OSS paradigm breaks down. Flaming the "non-believers", trolling about "suits", preaching to the choir and pretending that flaws don't exist are all symptoms of this loss of focus.
Now, I'm not trying to discourage discussion. I'm not trying to sell short the efforts of the people developing Linux and various OSS apps. I'm not trying to suggest that the whole community is one way or the other, nor am I forgetting that Linux kicks ass in particular areas. I'm not saying that the people who developed the OSS paradigm or who work on the software don't deserve a vast amount of credit.
What I want to point out is that self-congradulation (which is how I view this article) is inherantly dangerous to the future of the paradigm from a Big Picture point of view. It should be recognized as such, and should be avoided whenever possible.
a) It's awfully expensive for a couple of hours worth of music.
b) It looks (God forgive me) like something you'd buy in a shop with a name like "Pure Pleasures" or "Sex World" and use for something other than a couple hours of music.
Seriously, the real problem with all of these sorts of devices, walkmans, personal CD players etc. is that whenever I bother to program out what I think I want to hear, I change my mind a song or two in. The difference between MP3 and the previous generations of personal music devices is that they have the potential to solve my problems (well, at least this specific problem).
What I'm really keen for is the day when I'll be able to stream music from my server at home directly to some sort of personal device -- maybe a Palm descendant of one kind or another. This probably isn't too far out; digital cellular of some sort coupled with your favorite PDA. This will let me decide what I want to hear when I'm out jogging or mowing the lawn or whatever. That would be a real nice paradigm shift.
There's an article in Salon today that pretty much sums it up for me. This sort of bullshit is just icing on the cake to what this article has to say -- I just thought it would take longer for Slashdot to show signs of being completely owned. I mean, this is depressing. A mere day after Rob promises that Slashdot will stay independant, we start seeing fscking press releases from VA/Andover. This is the very basis of what worried me when Slashdot got bought.
I know that it's Rob's ball and he can do what he wants with it, but I feel like/. is moving farther and farther away from being something special.
Yeah, but advertising does work. Consider: Do you buy Coke, Pepsi or Jolly Good Cola?
Even if you've never clicked on a banner ad, you have to concede that having a majority of the top-traffic Linux sites owned by one OEM is a bit scary in terms of advertising opportunity. Were I, say, Penguin Computing, I'd be sweating right now.
It seems to me that having a major community hubs like Slashdot and Freshmeat owned by a parent media company was bad enough. Having them owned by a particular producer of Linux products is downright scary. I'm sure that Rob & Co. will argue that content won't be effected. While they might believe this, I sort of doubt the reality of the claim.
Bear with me here: It figures that Slashdot and Freshmeat are the main portals for Linux information. Therefore, they are the prime ground for advertising by Linux-related companies (especially OEMs). How many Penguin Computing or Indybox ads are we going to see here when VA is fully entrenched? They might not vanish outright, but smart money says that VA will slowly muscle them out.
Not allowing (or rather, making it difficult for) other OEMs to post up their banner ads is just as bad as if VA imposed editorial restrictions. It also makes perfect sense from a business point of view to keep your competitors from advertising on your channels -- how many ABC superbowl ads did you see on FOX?
I hope I'm wrong. It could be that the people at VA are more idealistic than the average business types. Even so, management can change -- this cloud will forever hang over Slashdot, Freshmeat and any other major community site which ever gets aquired by a large company.
NASA Scientists today unveiled a robot designed to find a date for lonely NASA Scientists.
"Quite simply, the robot first searches for certain characteristics," said NASA researcher Jason Godfrey. The robot locates candidates based on a number of factors, including "nice legs, large breasts and what we technically refer to as a 'hot ass'".
Once a viable candidate is identified, the robot moves in for a much closer look.
"First, the robot takes a photo using a special stereoscopic camera and relays back to base. This allows us to filter out unsavory characteristics like too-large noses, unibrows and pimples." Godfrey continued, "if a candidate passes this test, it is further studied for compatibility," including hobbies, interests and ability to perform the Vulcan 'Live Long & Prosper' hand sign. It also attempts to collect information, such as name, weight, and phone number.
Although the robot is capable of parsing up to three blocks of downtown bar area per hour, the robot has yet to locate a single candidate which worked out. "Our most promising subject turned out to be a total bitch," said Godfrey, based on the fact that she gave a "fake-o phone number".
I rather suspect that the good people at the NYT might take exception to this being posted in its entirety, without the hits and ads and all that they use to fund their online site.
I think it might be wise of we/. contributers to be a bit more careful in the future to avoid causing Rob & Co. problems. Remember, the important concept here is fair use. A quick explaination of what constitutes fair use can be found here.
Consider this: Remember how sex in high school had that little extra adreneline edge to it because of a (usual) lack of real privacy?
Sure, it was terrifying to think that you might hear her parent's car drive up at any second while you were otherwise occupied in the living room. Then again, it was exciting as well.
In fact, adding sneaking a member of the opposite sex into you dorm can be just as much fun. Of course, I wouldn't want to do it all the time, either.
I'm frankly disappointed that people who pretend to be diversity- and culture-conscious don't respect the USENET culture, and try to meddle with it.
If you can still stomach using Usenet, more power to you. Personally, I find that slashdot is starting to degenerate into the same sort of crapola that drove me away from usenet in the first place.
I don't want to deal with flamers and spammers and people who think they have a license to behave like complete jackasses. That's why I almost never use usenet anymore.
Yes, you can be hurt by words, but only if you let yourself be hurt.
There's a fine line between having a thick skin and being emotionally numb. Abuse can hurt, especially if it's done constantly and correctly ("Fuck you, use emacs" is a bad example; it's not a very "good" flame).
Besides, flamers kill off conversation. They're as bad as spammers -- each nonsensical "Natelie Portman" post that chews up bandwidth in a slashdot discussion is as much a disincentive to read the comments as constant spamming is to usenet.
The real problem with the net as a communication medium is and always has been that there are almost never any sort of moderating influences. I know that if I push someone far enough in meatspace, I'm libel to at least end up in a fight. There's no incentive for any sort of discipline.
Free speech can only exist in a system where consequences can exist. As another poster noted, I can be as racist as I want to be, but I can't expect everyone to say, "Well, if that's his opinion, so be it..." In a medium where I'm not risking anything, where I hide safe behind my computer, the immature rantings of a few people can effectively drive others from a forum. As Jon's engineer pointed out, why should I hang around such a hostile place?
The moderation system is an excellent start to imposing consequences to (as opposed to restrictions on) speech. IMHO, it should be taken farther -- I really miss the old/. days.
Try this out -- hit/.'s archives and find a really old story. Read through the comments and compare the tone, civility and usefullness of that conversation to any given current discussion. Note the much better S:N, note the decreased number of redundant posts and ask yourself which discussion you'd rather be participating in.
Y'know, this may be offtopic, but it seems to me like it would be a good idea to let comments in these interviews be moderated above 5. I think this would more accurately reflect which questions we/.ers want to see answered.
There are still some little things wrong with Mozilla that keep me from switching.
First off, why the heck don't the arrow keys work to scroll up/down? When I'm looking at a story someplace, it's habit to just nonchalantly press the "down arrow" key a couple of times -- having to grab the mouse, mouse over to the sidebar and either click in the arrow or grab the scroll thingie is really annoying.
Second, anything that's gonna be my primary browser *must* have the security stuff built in so I can order stuff online or check my stocks. I know there are side-projects that have the encryption, but they all seem to be at different places designwise.
Mozilla's looking better, but it ain't ready for me yet and it definately isn't ready for Joe & Jane Consumer yet.
Mars shows evidence of a pretty big impact itself. It's been theorized that Olypis Mons was formed when Mars was smacked by something big (we're talking planet-shattering size here) and then rehardened before the momentum of the rock was completely used up. As a result, the whole planet is sort of an odd shape.
In any event, I suspect that most every planet has taken a few really big hits at one time or another.
There's no crime in making money off your efforts. Open source isn't about making a product exclusively by hobbyists, it's about making the best products possible via peer review. Paid OSS developers have actually come out with some pretty nifty stuff (look at what Red Hat's developers come up with, or look at the new UI toys from Caldera or Corel).
If you can find someone to pay you to do something you love or if, like JWZ, you can convince your employer that the OSS philosophy is a good way to go, then more power to you.
Besides, you should be applauding Shaver -- once again, he's working on Mozilla in a volunteer way.
On one hand, libraries should not be a place where a kid can run to perform an end-run around their parents. I'm always advocating that it should be parents who decide what their children should and should not look at, not the government. Parallel to that, however, the government should not be unwittingly help kids get around their parents.
On the other hand, anyone over the age of 18 (and probably younger than that) ought to be able to look at/read/consider anything they damn well please -- it'd be unconstitutional to do otherwise.
Creating a balance is hard here. Do you have "adult" computers? Do you have someone watching the computer, switching the filters on/off remotely? Do you institute national retinal databases and have the machines keep track of who is using the system?
It is important to have control over what your kids are seeing/hearing. It is important to avoid censoring material for adults in an effort to protect children. I have no earthly idea how to strike a balance.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I'll admit that I'm a bit of an introvert. I feel, however, that my previous overuse of the computer/net has pushed me farther and farther towards an unhealthy level of introversion.
IMHO, moderation is important when discussing personality traits. You don't want to be too much of an introvert nor a sociopathic extrovert; it's far better to be just mildly in one or the other camp.
Like I've mentioned in another post in this thread, I know people for whom the net defines their social life -- talking with people on Everquest or a MUD is the only form of social interaction they get. I can't see how that could possibly be healthy -- it leads to a loss of basic social skills and tends to be accompanied by a lack of exercise and (sometimes extreme) weight gain. Some /.'ers might see themselves in this and/or might think that this is an okay way to live if you want to, but I can't imagine that shutting yourself off from society is the road to mental health.
Granted, I'm citing extreme examples here. It can be seen, however, in more mild cases in one form or another.
Let me wrap up by suggesting that people use the net to avoid person-to-person interaction. You can argue that emailing someone is just like talking to them at dinner, but it's a pale substitute. Net-based interactions are not just "safe", but they allow you to reduce the person you're interacting with to just an object, an abstraction.
There must be more to life than that.
----
Well, yes.
There is something that face-to-face interaction provides that email just doesn't. I suspect that a majority of the /. crowd will miss this because they tend to be more introverted than the average population (actually, I'd bet my lunch that the average /. poster is a INTJ on Meyers/Briggs). I know people whose idea of social gatherings is to get a party together in Everquest or meet someone on a MUD. You might argue that this techically qualifies as social interaction (it does), but it's also really sad. Also, it might fit the technical definition of social interaction, but not the spirit in which the author meant it.
Sitting behind your computer and firing off the occassional IM while mudding is not a healthy way to live.
Setting aside the "I met my wife online" case studies which /. will no doubt be flooded with, you've got to realize that spending more than a hour or two per day on the net will generally be destructive to your social life. Email doesn't let you bond with other people. You might have interesting conversations, but you'll never have social experience unless you get off your ass and out of the house.
----
For the "corporate" sites, I'm thinking more along the lines of those fun brochure sites you get when you go to any major corporate site. Slashdot doesn't show off VA's product line or explain VA's corporate philosophy, and I have yet to see the VA "Vision Statement" on the /. front page.
Try this one out: FinanceNet. This continent would consist of the stock trading sites and message boards (etrade, fool.com, etc.) There might be less of these than others, but I'll bet they're some of the more popular destinations on the net (for some reason, I'm not supposed to surt /. from the office, but updating my stocks every 15 minutes is A-OK with management).
----
Two issues:
One, I think that perhaps a "Cause Zealot" continent is in order. Consider how the internet serves as a connecting point for scattered populations with similar ideas. I just saw a piece last night about how McCain is doing his recruiting for volunteers almost exclusively on the net and using the net to organize them. Of course, then there are the usual suspects as well: Linux zealots, Mac evangelists, Amiga people, God-Hates-Fags morons, People for the Privitization of Sidewalks, etc.
Second, I think the "Corporate" and "Buy" areas should be merged as concepts and then subdivided into two catagories: Brochure sites and Useful Sites (where you can buy stuff, get research, insurance quotes or whatever). After all, corporations are at their heart and soul all trying to sell you something.
As for the general nature of the article, it's good food for thought and I didn't have to take a bathroom break in the middle of reading it. Bravo, Jon.
----
Personally, I don't see why Metcalf even gets the time of day from anyone. Where does his credibility hail from? Coming up with a bit of tech, even one which sees so wide a deployment, does not necessarily mean that the developer is qualified to make comments on other areas. It doesn't even mean that they're a big thinker -- Bob Metcalf is obviously no RMS. Technical ability does not mean you are immune from being an idiot.
In any event, Metcalf hasn't earned any sort of consideration or credibility in my mind. On the other hand, Linus has built up a fair amount of credibility thanks to his general ability to stay "above" the petty arguements in OSS land and to almost always make a great deal of sense. So, in a Bob Metcalf v. Linus Torvolds arguement, who gets the benefit of the doubt?
----
a) Who do you suppose the main culprits are? Why do you suppose that certain forums (like /.) can be somewhat civil one day and full of trolls and flamers the next? Is it simply a matter of certain people skipping 4th grade classes for the day, the flood of newbies, a popularity thing or just the nature of the beast? This leads into the second part of my question...
b) Do you foresee a circumstance where the net will ever be a civil place without comprimising anonymity and free speach? Or is every net medium which tries to provide these things doomed to go the way of Usenet?
----
If VA only wants to help /. and make contributions to the OSS community, why doesn't it just cut Slashdot loose and support them via donations?
Think about it: If VA's being honest about their intentions, this would be a great move on their part. They'd regain the trust of the more paranoid /. community (like myself), they'd get a hell of a tax write-off and Slashdot could stop hearing about how it should be a .com and not a .org.
Why don't they do this? You tell me.
----
For instance: What about the advertising? Will Slashdot and Freshmeat still accept (under reasonable terms) advertising from VA's competitors?
Look, I know a lot of you think that this is a non-issue -- you either use ad-blocking software or ignore them or whatever. The reality is that advertising is still a powerful influence in the buying habits of a vast majority of the population -- again, why are Coke and Pepsi so big when Jolly-Good is less expensive? Ads can be effective, and your business cannot grow well without them.
I bring it up because it's a subtle way that VA could shift things in their favor. Frankly, I'm not worried that VA will start submitting their own articles or influencing the editors -- that would be way too obvious, and we'd see through that in a second. If they are going to influence what we see and hear in any way, it'll have to be something subtle like this.
Ideally, I would like to hear that a non-vested party (who owns no VA stock and who is not directly controlled by anyone save Cmdr. Taco) was put in charge of ad sales. Again, let me say that I'm not accusing VA (or any of the /. of Freshmeat crew) of having this planned, it's just something I could see happening. Ask yourself this, though: If you were VA, why would you want to own Slashdot and Freshmeat so badly?
----
While I respect the opinions of the author of this article, I have to say that in my experience the apps for Linux just aren't up to the same caliber as those available for Windows yet. I mean, can you show me a mail client as powerful and easy to use as Outlook Express? How about a word processor with the feature set of Word (and I know a lot of /. readers think of a spell checker as "bloatware", but some of us like having a lot of options we can configure).
What's more irritating about articles such as this one is that they don't really serve a productive purpose to us as a community of developers. It glosses over the failings of Linux, and this is a Bad Thing(tm). Remember the "Jihad Tux" icon on Suck back a couple of months ago? It was funny, but it was a bad omen as well.
I suppose this article in particular is just serving as a final straw to me. Lately I've noticed a really disturbing trend towards self-congratulation in the OSS movement, and especially on this particular discussion board. Criticism of Linux is less and less welcome while this sort of wanking is on the upswing.
Look, sitting around patting ourselves on the back while ignoring the deficiancies in our software is the exact same behavior that we love to flame companies like Microsoft for. It feels good to convince ourselves that Linux is finally "there" and that anyone who can't use it is just an idiot. It feels good to think that even a "suit" can use it now. It feels good, but it's not true -- not yet.
When I first installed Slackware (waaay back when), it was nearly impossible to deal with as a newbie with no previous UNIX experience. Linux has come a very long way; I won't dispute that. It's not a replacement for Windows yet, however, and we as a development community aren't doing ourselves any favors by pretending (as an example, not a flame) that the GIMP can hold a candle to Photoshop yet.
I am conviced that the OSS development paradigm will lead to a better product that any closed paradigm. I am also convinced, however, that if the community loses their focus that the OSS paradigm breaks down. Flaming the "non-believers", trolling about "suits", preaching to the choir and pretending that flaws don't exist are all symptoms of this loss of focus.
Now, I'm not trying to discourage discussion. I'm not trying to sell short the efforts of the people developing Linux and various OSS apps. I'm not trying to suggest that the whole community is one way or the other, nor am I forgetting that Linux kicks ass in particular areas. I'm not saying that the people who developed the OSS paradigm or who work on the software don't deserve a vast amount of credit.
What I want to point out is that self-congradulation (which is how I view this article) is inherantly dangerous to the future of the paradigm from a Big Picture point of view. It should be recognized as such, and should be avoided whenever possible.
----
a) It's awfully expensive for a couple of hours worth of music.
b) It looks (God forgive me) like something you'd buy in a shop with a name like "Pure Pleasures" or "Sex World" and use for something other than a couple hours of music.
Seriously, the real problem with all of these sorts of devices, walkmans, personal CD players etc. is that whenever I bother to program out what I think I want to hear, I change my mind a song or two in. The difference between MP3 and the previous generations of personal music devices is that they have the potential to solve my problems (well, at least this specific problem).
What I'm really keen for is the day when I'll be able to stream music from my server at home directly to some sort of personal device -- maybe a Palm descendant of one kind or another. This probably isn't too far out; digital cellular of some sort coupled with your favorite PDA. This will let me decide what I want to hear when I'm out jogging or mowing the lawn or whatever. That would be a real nice paradigm shift.
----
----
----
There's an article in Salon today that pretty much sums it up for me. This sort of bullshit is just icing on the cake to what this article has to say -- I just thought it would take longer for Slashdot to show signs of being completely owned. I mean, this is depressing. A mere day after Rob promises that Slashdot will stay independant, we start seeing fscking press releases from VA/Andover. This is the very basis of what worried me when Slashdot got bought.
I know that it's Rob's ball and he can do what he wants with it, but I feel like /. is moving farther and farther away from being something special.
----
Even if you've never clicked on a banner ad, you have to concede that having a majority of the top-traffic Linux sites owned by one OEM is a bit scary in terms of advertising opportunity. Were I, say, Penguin Computing, I'd be sweating right now.
----
It seems to me that having a major community hubs like Slashdot and Freshmeat owned by a parent media company was bad enough. Having them owned by a particular producer of Linux products is downright scary. I'm sure that Rob & Co. will argue that content won't be effected. While they might believe this, I sort of doubt the reality of the claim.
Bear with me here: It figures that Slashdot and Freshmeat are the main portals for Linux information. Therefore, they are the prime ground for advertising by Linux-related companies (especially OEMs). How many Penguin Computing or Indybox ads are we going to see here when VA is fully entrenched? They might not vanish outright, but smart money says that VA will slowly muscle them out.
Not allowing (or rather, making it difficult for) other OEMs to post up their banner ads is just as bad as if VA imposed editorial restrictions. It also makes perfect sense from a business point of view to keep your competitors from advertising on your channels -- how many ABC superbowl ads did you see on FOX?
I hope I'm wrong. It could be that the people at VA are more idealistic than the average business types. Even so, management can change -- this cloud will forever hang over Slashdot, Freshmeat and any other major community site which ever gets aquired by a large company.
----
"Quite simply, the robot first searches for certain characteristics," said NASA researcher Jason Godfrey. The robot locates candidates based on a number of factors, including "nice legs, large breasts and what we technically refer to as a 'hot ass'".
Once a viable candidate is identified, the robot moves in for a much closer look.
"First, the robot takes a photo using a special stereoscopic camera and relays back to base. This allows us to filter out unsavory characteristics like too-large noses, unibrows and pimples." Godfrey continued, "if a candidate passes this test, it is further studied for compatibility," including hobbies, interests and ability to perform the Vulcan 'Live Long & Prosper' hand sign. It also attempts to collect information, such as name, weight, and phone number.
Although the robot is capable of parsing up to three blocks of downtown bar area per hour, the robot has yet to locate a single candidate which worked out. "Our most promising subject turned out to be a total bitch," said Godfrey, based on the fact that she gave a "fake-o phone number".
----
I think it might be wise of we /. contributers to be a bit more careful in the future to avoid causing Rob & Co. problems. Remember, the important concept here is fair use. A quick explaination of what constitutes fair use can be found here.
----
Sure, it was terrifying to think that you might hear her parent's car drive up at any second while you were otherwise occupied in the living room. Then again, it was exciting as well.
In fact, adding sneaking a member of the opposite sex into you dorm can be just as much fun. Of course, I wouldn't want to do it all the time, either.
----
If you can still stomach using Usenet, more power to you. Personally, I find that slashdot is starting to degenerate into the same sort of crapola that drove me away from usenet in the first place.
I don't want to deal with flamers and spammers and people who think they have a license to behave like complete jackasses. That's why I almost never use usenet anymore.
----
There's a fine line between having a thick skin and being emotionally numb. Abuse can hurt, especially if it's done constantly and correctly ("Fuck you, use emacs" is a bad example; it's not a very "good" flame).
Besides, flamers kill off conversation. They're as bad as spammers -- each nonsensical "Natelie Portman" post that chews up bandwidth in a slashdot discussion is as much a disincentive to read the comments as constant spamming is to usenet.
The real problem with the net as a communication medium is and always has been that there are almost never any sort of moderating influences. I know that if I push someone far enough in meatspace, I'm libel to at least end up in a fight. There's no incentive for any sort of discipline.
Free speech can only exist in a system where consequences can exist. As another poster noted, I can be as racist as I want to be, but I can't expect everyone to say, "Well, if that's his opinion, so be it..." In a medium where I'm not risking anything, where I hide safe behind my computer, the immature rantings of a few people can effectively drive others from a forum. As Jon's engineer pointed out, why should I hang around such a hostile place?
The moderation system is an excellent start to imposing consequences to (as opposed to restrictions on) speech. IMHO, it should be taken farther -- I really miss the old /. days.
Try this out -- hit /.'s archives and find a really old story. Read through the comments and compare the tone, civility and usefullness of that conversation to any given current discussion. Note the much better S:N, note the decreased number of redundant posts and ask yourself which discussion you'd rather be participating in.
----
----
First off, why the heck don't the arrow keys work to scroll up/down? When I'm looking at a story someplace, it's habit to just nonchalantly press the "down arrow" key a couple of times -- having to grab the mouse, mouse over to the sidebar and either click in the arrow or grab the scroll thingie is really annoying.
Second, anything that's gonna be my primary browser *must* have the security stuff built in so I can order stuff online or check my stocks. I know there are side-projects that have the encryption, but they all seem to be at different places designwise.
Mozilla's looking better, but it ain't ready for me yet and it definately isn't ready for Joe & Jane Consumer yet.
----
In any event, I suspect that most every planet has taken a few really big hits at one time or another.
----
If you can find someone to pay you to do something you love or if, like JWZ, you can convince your employer that the OSS philosophy is a good way to go, then more power to you.
Besides, you should be applauding Shaver -- once again, he's working on Mozilla in a volunteer way.
----
On one hand, libraries should not be a place where a kid can run to perform an end-run around their parents. I'm always advocating that it should be parents who decide what their children should and should not look at, not the government. Parallel to that, however, the government should not be unwittingly help kids get around their parents.
On the other hand, anyone over the age of 18 (and probably younger than that) ought to be able to look at/read/consider anything they damn well please -- it'd be unconstitutional to do otherwise.
Creating a balance is hard here. Do you have "adult" computers? Do you have someone watching the computer, switching the filters on/off remotely? Do you institute national retinal databases and have the machines keep track of who is using the system?
It is important to have control over what your kids are seeing/hearing. It is important to avoid censoring material for adults in an effort to protect children. I have no earthly idea how to strike a balance.
----