You are correct. Ruby is in fact strongly typed, as seen by the following quick example:
>> i = 5 >> foo = "items: " + i.to_s >> put foo "items: 5" >> foo = "items: " + i Type Error: cannot convert Fixnum into String...
Anyway, the i.to_s method and type conversion in general are so smooth you forget having used them if you've been away, as I have, from Ruby for more than a few weeks. Since Ruby, being dynamically typed, is able to infer from the value the type it should be, it does blur the lines a bit as to how they _feel_ to program in. Ruby being dynamic, but strongly typed. PHP being dynamic, but weakly typed.
Perl would have been an example language that is also weakly typed along with PHP. It's funny though that this isn't a drawback in Perl yet it is in PHP. Regardless, all of these do have the same prototyping feel to them, the "fluidity" as the original poster said.
The real issue I have with Java is the inability to define new objects on the fly. That's not so much of a type issue though, just something that drastically decreases the flexibility of the language for things like web applications. Java also being static typed is just icing on the cake that makes it nearly unbearably slow to code in.
Technically, variables in most scripting languages are just as "fluid" in their types as PHP is, Ruby included. This is only seen as a drawback by people coming from the Java/C world (because they haven't seen the light just yet). It's actually one of the main reasons Ruby, PHP, Perl, etc. are so much more efficient to program in than Java.
PHP's security in version 3 was "that's the job of the programmer" which is fine in itself (Perl's the same way), but it's the complete wrong approach for a language originally designed to be beginner-friendly, which PHP was. But PHP's goals and direction have changed quite a bit over the years, and it took some time to iron out the security changes in PHP 4, but by 4.3 which has been out for years now, they did make the transition from insecure defaults to secure ones. PHP is now at 5.1 and they're working on 6, and security is definitely a much higher priority. Espcially with folks like IBM, Oracle, and Yahoo! backing it now, they've put a lot more thought into security (finally). There are also many articles and blogs these days about secure coding practices in PHP. The PHP developers are growing up, I guess you could say.
To be honest, Ruby is ten times the language PHP is in terms of sheer elegance of design (I fell in love with it at first sight, looong before Rails), and I can't defend PHP in that respect except to say that it does achieve its original design goals. But to be fair as well, you really can't compare the PHP of today to the PHP most people describe. It's just like someone right now saying "MySQL doesn't even have support for transactions, it's a kid's toy!" when it's had that for several years already.
<snip> If you are working in a Web2.0 company that needs to provide evidence of their technical expertise in order to gain new clients. However, you must remember to keep your offering in beta and make sure that it in the same family as these examples:
* geotag-based apps via flash * tag-based instant messaging via Ruby on Rails * community podcasts via api mashups </snip>
Despite the fact that this is a spoof article, it's still a good opportunity to discuss the accessibility issues (or at least raise the awareness of them and their importance) found in many AJAX-style apps. I'm feeling lazy today though, so instead of discussion I posted the above. Enjoy!
Beautifully stated. A few weeks ago I saw a quote on here that summed up part of the problem rather nicely:
"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't."
Ultimately, I think AI is quickly becoming irrelevant. There has been progress in immitating biological and ecological systems in software, but those are not AI. Real artificial *intelligence* will be surpassed by the use of technology to augment living organisms anyway (ie. bionic eyes -- well, I had to mention bionic eyes because the idea is so geeky cool, but you get what I mean;)).
Good points. I started my company in 2001 right _after_ the tech bubble burst. Perhaps not the best time for an IT company to crop up, since so many others were dying, yet we'll be celebrating our 5th birthday as a company this coming January.
I think what you and the parent post are saying are in some ways the same thing, since he's saying wait until others aren't flocking to that industry to start companies and you've cited an example of someone starting a company during such a non-booming time. I do think it comes down to a lot of hard work, luck, and part of that is definitely that it has to be the right time for yourself. So why put off when you can get a head start now, regardless of the market? Since it's so cheap to start a company now, it's not much loss to operate under if the market isn't quite ready for you yet. Markets fluctuate, and if a company is going to survive the next downswing it doesn't really matter where you start on the curve as long as you do start, you're willing to work through challenges, and have some luck on your side too.:)
Perhaps some of the proceeds could also go to promoting Wikipedia and to WikiMedia development. Personally, I don't think those who are opposed to Google-style advertising to help keep the site running are being very reasonable. A site the size of Wikipedia costs money to run, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Commercial sites have tried subscription-based models, non-profits have tried donations, but neither of those seems to have been as effective as simply putting a few mostly-relevant text ads on the side of each page. Even an image, such as the ads here on/., isn't that bad, especially if it means the difference between having Wikipedia or not having it at all.
I agree. What about PHP for example? Is there some clever trick that could be done like this that would enable a thread-like behaviour, since PHP currently lacks the ability to spawn threads? Processes it does, but not threads, and the two are just different enough to limit PHP's general applicability outside of web apps...
This sounds a lot like (although slightly ahead of) a pet project I wrote a while back and just put online for people to play with. It's called Phonomator and simply generates new midi files of "improvised" music based on a form you fill out. Check it out (source code) at:
That would be my thinking as well. If the iPod was out for some time before Microsoft filed its patent application, then how can Microsoft file a patent claim against a product that predates its application? The product under dispute is itself prior art, regardless of whether Apple filed for the patent or not.
While everyone mentions their own favourite CMS, I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention mine as well. Check out Sitellite at http://www.sitellite.org/ as well as our company website where you can get professional support and add-ons at http://www.simian.ca/. The company website also features some articles from well-known pros in the CMS industry about content management, online publishing, writing for the WWW, etc. at http://www.simian.ca/index/content-management-101
Being the lead developer of Sitellite means it's obviously my first choice, however it does have many features useful for medium-sized websites that are lacking in lower-end systems like Mambo and Contribute, as well as lots of documentation and a very usable GUI.
Anyway, good luck on your pursuit of the best CMS for your site.:)
Feel free to check out our CMS, called Sitellite. I won't claim it's the leading CMS in PHP by any means, but its code is architected and mostly pretty clean (there are a few rough spots around the edges, but the core is very much OOP + MVC). Plus we just released a major new version with lots of great stuff in it. For more info, see:
My apologies for taking your word "self-aggrandizement" the wrong way. I read it differently than I think you intended. Although, to be honest, I do think most art (modern at least) is self-flattering and/or self-aggrandizing.:)
As for science, it's a method. So is mathematics. So is logic and intellection, dialectic, etc. Science is the method of applying logic and math to observations made about the material world. The results of programming (the program) can obviously be used for this, but the act of programming itself is usually not one of discovery but of implementation.
Of course, all programmers cross over into computer science at times, and do make discoveries about the nature of programming itself. My question wasn't an attempt to say programming is art (not everything is art that isn't science;)), but to distinguish whether programming is a science at all, and if so, what part of it is and what part isn't.
Not all art is self-flattering. Anyway, please explain how programming fits the actual definition of science, being:
"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Two halves of a coin. A complete human being will be the right combination of both, IMO. A great book on this very idea is "The Unknown Quantity" by Hermann Broch. Pure brilliance.
Re:The programmer as an artist, not as a technicia
on
Is Programming Art?
·
· Score: 1
"You could probably recognize who actually wrote that particular piece of code because eventually the great programmers develop their own particular style."
This hits the nail on the head. The word "style" is used to refer to a artisan, not a scientist. Even when it is applied to somebody within a scientific domain, it is meant that they are displaying a creative (even mystical) sense about their endeavour. Look at Einstein's mysticism as an example of this.
Scientists don't develop a style, they develop a specialization. Mathematicians develop a style, and it took me a long time to learn (despite some of my friends' best efforts) that math is indeed an art also.
Science can broadly be defined as the pursuit of knowledge about the material universe via the method of observation (via the senses or aids such as measuring instruments), combined with additional methods such as logic and mathematics.
How exactly does programming, which is an act of building or creating something (craft, engineering, or art), fit into that? The answer is that it doesn't.
I don't think I can find much to argue with in your points. I definitely don't intend offense against anyone, to be sure. My issue with mediation (online or offline, the latter being much worse than the former) is that when used in lieu of unmediated communication it can prevent us from accessing the human being on the other side. Connecting and sharing experiences with other people is the entire purpose of communication, and the very thing that gives meaning to our lives.
Technology can be a great facilitator as well as a great hindrance to this. But then again anything with the potential to do great good (ie. connect families oceans apart), has the potential for greatly negative things as well.
While there are additional causes (bad parenting often being one of them) to anti-social behaviour, I believe my point still stands. Regardless of the causes for our anti-social behaviour, a tool that enables us to act on these urges is inherently also part of the problem (for the people afflicted by this condition). It's an enabler. An extreme example would be a gun. A gun can be used for self-defense, but having guns around does make it more likely to use them. Put that together with someone who doesn't have the most moderate temper, and you've got a recipe for trouble.
Also, while I appreciate your stereotypical frankness;) this teenager is not the teen-angst kind, not any more than is natural to feel due to hormones and such. He would perfectly well admit to loving his real family. He's a good and moderate kid (and not in the "I can't believe he shot up his school, he was such a nice kid" kind of way), that's why what he said made such a strong impression.
I have a hard time believing most myspace users are there to meet real-life people when I see the line "So-and-soo has as 44392 friends." I can't comment on xanga or the others, as I haven't used them.
One piece of software that is an interesting use of technology for real-world social purposes is http://www.dodgeball.com/ (recently acquired by Google). Their slogan is "see your friends more" and since it's all cellphone-based, its pretty much determined that their service only really works in the real world.
Despite software being able to be used for social uses (within the context of software usage), the use of such software to the ordinary user is inherently an anti-social activity in that it serves as a preferred communication medium to better choices that are available to them. The software has social aspects, but its use by many computer users has an aspect of avoidance of real social interaction (there are of course exceptions, where a given technology is the best they've got -- these exceptions don't mean my point is untrue, they mean it's not true for everyone).
I say this being a full-time software developer for the past 6 years (and an amateur coder for many years before that), so it's not like I'm against software or anything. But I've learned that chatting/blogging/sharing links/etc. has its limits, whereas I can tell you I've seen many teenagers who don't know this. You may "get it", but that doesn't mean everybody does. I'm also an extremely social person, whose hobbies happen to be rather anti-social in nature...
I hope this makes sense now. I think I'm just repeating myself at this point.:)
I don't know if that validates your point or just shows how strange I am, though.
Perhaps a little of both.;)
Have you seen the British comedy "The Office"? It's an hilarious example of the failures of communication (among many other failures too) in a professional setting. Highly recommended.
Oh, my view of human social behaviour isn't as narrow as you interpret. Please don't assume I'm an absolutist simply because I point out problems with overuse/misapplication of technology.
"Is there a qualitative difference between the two types of social interaction?"
While you did answer your own question ("Probably..."), I do like your response. You raise good questions. I definitely don't believe that only face-to-face communication is real social interaction, but I could have been clearer on this point. I'm not an absolutist, and I'm not pining for the dark ages or anything like that;) If I didn't believe in communication through mediation, I wouldn't be here on/. right now.
Anyway, my real point is that these online substitutes are serving more and more people as substitutes for the real thing, to the point where young'uns are being brought up not knowing that there is a difference. Instead of getting together (in cases that are actually able to) they go online and "chat". Mediated communication inherently encourages more mediation because we as human beings form habits. And while mediation can still produce relationships (I can't deny that), they are less rich than direct unmediated ones. And technology is inherently a mediator, no getting around it (pun slightly intended;).
To be perfectly honest though, most face-to-face relationships are just as mediated as those maintained through technology. Real-world mediators include our political and religious views, our egos, etc. which inhibit our ability to relate directly and honestly with one another just as much as the inability to see facial expressions on a forum.
I definitely use technology where appropriate to augment relationships at distances. I only see my family twice a year, but I keep in touch via telephone all the time, and I post photos to flickr for them to see. My sisters email me once in a while, which is great too. These things definitely have value, but they are no substitute for being able to see and hug my family. They simply help make the time between visits bearable.
I just wanted to point out that so-called "social software" is not social. Person-to-person communication through computers is mediated and indirect. Technology is a barrier to communication as much as it is an enabler. I agree that it is an enabler in situations where it is used to help overcome disabilities and things of that nature, however technology is used moreso by people who are actually avoiding being social. Email is often preferable to a telephone because it creates an additional barrier between ourselves and the "recipient" (aka person).
A prime example of software in a "social" context is the chatter that accompanies networked video games. This does not form real relationships between people. I heard a teenager recently say that his gaming buddies, who he doesn't even know by name, are like family to him. Technology has helped a whole generation and then some to fail to learn what real relationships are. When a teenager can't distinguish between somebody he's only ever witnessed virtually shoot ze germans and the people who nurtured him before he was able to take care of himself, we have a problem Houston.
And it's only getting worse. Now we've begun adding "social" in front of all kinds of new web applications. Anything that lets other users see your profile and the items you post and comment on them is seen as a valid replacement for real human contact.
There was a line from a movie I saw recently called Crash, where Don Cheadle's character says to his girlfriend "It's the sense of touch. Any real city you walk, you know. You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that sense of touch so much, that we crash into each other just so we can feel something.". The next time we use the word "social" to describe a new type of web application, I think we should give that some thought first.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. Ruby is in fact strongly typed, as seen by the following quick example:
...
>> i = 5
>> foo = "items: " + i.to_s
>> put foo
"items: 5"
>> foo = "items: " + i
Type Error: cannot convert Fixnum into String
Anyway, the i.to_s method and type conversion in general are so smooth you forget having used them if you've been away, as I have, from Ruby for more than a few weeks. Since Ruby, being dynamically typed, is able to infer from the value the type it should be, it does blur the lines a bit as to how they _feel_ to program in. Ruby being dynamic, but strongly typed. PHP being dynamic, but weakly typed.
Perl would have been an example language that is also weakly typed along with PHP. It's funny though that this isn't a drawback in Perl yet it is in PHP. Regardless, all of these do have the same prototyping feel to them, the "fluidity" as the original poster said.
The real issue I have with Java is the inability to define new objects on the fly. That's not so much of a type issue though, just something that drastically decreases the flexibility of the language for things like web applications. Java also being static typed is just icing on the cake that makes it nearly unbearably slow to code in.
Technically, variables in most scripting languages are just as "fluid" in their types as PHP is, Ruby included. This is only seen as a drawback by people coming from the Java/C world (because they haven't seen the light just yet). It's actually one of the main reasons Ruby, PHP, Perl, etc. are so much more efficient to program in than Java.
PHP's security in version 3 was "that's the job of the programmer" which is fine in itself (Perl's the same way), but it's the complete wrong approach for a language originally designed to be beginner-friendly, which PHP was. But PHP's goals and direction have changed quite a bit over the years, and it took some time to iron out the security changes in PHP 4, but by 4.3 which has been out for years now, they did make the transition from insecure defaults to secure ones. PHP is now at 5.1 and they're working on 6, and security is definitely a much higher priority. Espcially with folks like IBM, Oracle, and Yahoo! backing it now, they've put a lot more thought into security (finally). There are also many articles and blogs these days about secure coding practices in PHP. The PHP developers are growing up, I guess you could say.
To be honest, Ruby is ten times the language PHP is in terms of sheer elegance of design (I fell in love with it at first sight, looong before Rails), and I can't defend PHP in that respect except to say that it does achieve its original design goals. But to be fair as well, you really can't compare the PHP of today to the PHP most people describe. It's just like someone right now saying "MySQL doesn't even have support for transactions, it's a kid's toy!" when it's had that for several years already.
Hilarious! From the article:
<snip>
If you are working in a Web2.0 company that needs to provide evidence of their technical expertise in order to gain new clients. However, you must remember to keep your offering in beta and make sure that it in the same family as these examples:
* geotag-based apps via flash
* tag-based instant messaging via Ruby on Rails
* community podcasts via api mashups
</snip>
Despite the fact that this is a spoof article, it's still a good opportunity to discuss the accessibility issues (or at least raise the awareness of them and their importance) found in many AJAX-style apps. I'm feeling lazy today though, so instead of discussion I posted the above. Enjoy!
Beautifully stated. A few weeks ago I saw a quote on here that summed up part of the problem rather nicely:
;)).
"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't."
Ultimately, I think AI is quickly becoming irrelevant. There has been progress in immitating biological and ecological systems in software, but those are not AI. Real artificial *intelligence* will be surpassed by the use of technology to augment living organisms anyway (ie. bionic eyes -- well, I had to mention bionic eyes because the idea is so geeky cool, but you get what I mean
Good points. I started my company in 2001 right _after_ the tech bubble burst. Perhaps not the best time for an IT company to crop up, since so many others were dying, yet we'll be celebrating our 5th birthday as a company this coming January.
:)
I think what you and the parent post are saying are in some ways the same thing, since he's saying wait until others aren't flocking to that industry to start companies and you've cited an example of someone starting a company during such a non-booming time. I do think it comes down to a lot of hard work, luck, and part of that is definitely that it has to be the right time for yourself. So why put off when you can get a head start now, regardless of the market? Since it's so cheap to start a company now, it's not much loss to operate under if the market isn't quite ready for you yet. Markets fluctuate, and if a company is going to survive the next downswing it doesn't really matter where you start on the curve as long as you do start, you're willing to work through challenges, and have some luck on your side too.
Perhaps some of the proceeds could also go to promoting Wikipedia and to WikiMedia development. Personally, I don't think those who are opposed to Google-style advertising to help keep the site running are being very reasonable. A site the size of Wikipedia costs money to run, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Commercial sites have tried subscription-based models, non-profits have tried donations, but neither of those seems to have been as effective as simply putting a few mostly-relevant text ads on the side of each page. Even an image, such as the ads here on /., isn't that bad, especially if it means the difference between having Wikipedia or not having it at all.
I agree. What about PHP for example? Is there some clever trick that could be done like this that would enable a thread-like behaviour, since PHP currently lacks the ability to spawn threads? Processes it does, but not threads, and the two are just different enough to limit PHP's general applicability outside of web apps...
This sounds a lot like (although slightly ahead of) a pet project I wrote a while back and just put online for people to play with. It's called Phonomator and simply generates new midi files of "improvised" music based on a form you fill out. Check it out (source code) at:
/ proj.phonomator
http://www.sitelliteforge.com/index/siteforge-app
That would be my thinking as well. If the iPod was out for some time before Microsoft filed its patent application, then how can Microsoft file a patent claim against a product that predates its application? The product under dispute is itself prior art, regardless of whether Apple filed for the patent or not.
While everyone mentions their own favourite CMS, I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention mine as well. Check out Sitellite at http://www.sitellite.org/ as well as our company website where you can get professional support and add-ons at http://www.simian.ca/. The company website also features some articles from well-known pros in the CMS industry about content management, online publishing, writing for the WWW, etc. at http://www.simian.ca/index/content-management-101
:)
Being the lead developer of Sitellite means it's obviously my first choice, however it does have many features useful for medium-sized websites that are lacking in lower-end systems like Mambo and Contribute, as well as lots of documentation and a very usable GUI.
Anyway, good luck on your pursuit of the best CMS for your site.
Feel free to check out our CMS, called Sitellite. I won't claim it's the leading CMS in PHP by any means, but its code is architected and mostly pretty clean (there are a few rough spots around the edges, but the core is very much OOP + MVC). Plus we just released a major new version with lots of great stuff in it. For more info, see:
http://www.sitellite.org/
Disclaimer: My sig links to the company that supports Sitellite and funds its main developers (incl. me).
My apologies for taking your word "self-aggrandizement" the wrong way. I read it differently than I think you intended. Although, to be honest, I do think most art (modern at least) is self-flattering and/or self-aggrandizing. :)
;)), but to distinguish whether programming is a science at all, and if so, what part of it is and what part isn't.
As for science, it's a method. So is mathematics. So is logic and intellection, dialectic, etc. Science is the method of applying logic and math to observations made about the material world. The results of programming (the program) can obviously be used for this, but the act of programming itself is usually not one of discovery but of implementation.
Of course, all programmers cross over into computer science at times, and do make discoveries about the nature of programming itself. My question wasn't an attempt to say programming is art (not everything is art that isn't science
Cheers,
Lux
Not all art is self-flattering. Anyway, please explain how programming fits the actual definition of science, being:
"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary.
Cheers,
Lux
Two halves of a coin. A complete human being will be the right combination of both, IMO. A great book on this very idea is "The Unknown Quantity" by Hermann Broch. Pure brilliance.
"You could probably recognize who actually wrote that particular piece of code because eventually the great programmers develop their own particular style."
This hits the nail on the head. The word "style" is used to refer to a artisan, not a scientist. Even when it is applied to somebody within a scientific domain, it is meant that they are displaying a creative (even mystical) sense about their endeavour. Look at Einstein's mysticism as an example of this.
Scientists don't develop a style, they develop a specialization. Mathematicians develop a style, and it took me a long time to learn (despite some of my friends' best efforts) that math is indeed an art also.
Anyway, your point was beautifully said!
Cheers,
Lux
Science can broadly be defined as the pursuit of knowledge about the material universe via the method of observation (via the senses or aids such as measuring instruments), combined with additional methods such as logic and mathematics.
How exactly does programming, which is an act of building or creating something (craft, engineering, or art), fit into that? The answer is that it doesn't.
I don't think I can find much to argue with in your points. I definitely don't intend offense against anyone, to be sure. My issue with mediation (online or offline, the latter being much worse than the former) is that when used in lieu of unmediated communication it can prevent us from accessing the human being on the other side. Connecting and sharing experiences with other people is the entire purpose of communication, and the very thing that gives meaning to our lives.
Technology can be a great facilitator as well as a great hindrance to this. But then again anything with the potential to do great good (ie. connect families oceans apart), has the potential for greatly negative things as well.
Balance, I guess, is the lesson here.
Cheers,
Lux
While there are additional causes (bad parenting often being one of them) to anti-social behaviour, I believe my point still stands. Regardless of the causes for our anti-social behaviour, a tool that enables us to act on these urges is inherently also part of the problem (for the people afflicted by this condition). It's an enabler. An extreme example would be a gun. A gun can be used for self-defense, but having guns around does make it more likely to use them. Put that together with someone who doesn't have the most moderate temper, and you've got a recipe for trouble.
;) this teenager is not the teen-angst kind, not any more than is natural to feel due to hormones and such. He would perfectly well admit to loving his real family. He's a good and moderate kid (and not in the "I can't believe he shot up his school, he was such a nice kid" kind of way), that's why what he said made such a strong impression.
Also, while I appreciate your stereotypical frankness
Good points.
I have a hard time believing most myspace users are there to meet real-life people when I see the line "So-and-soo has as 44392 friends." I can't comment on xanga or the others, as I haven't used them.
One piece of software that is an interesting use of technology for real-world social purposes is http://www.dodgeball.com/ (recently acquired by Google). Their slogan is "see your friends more" and since it's all cellphone-based, its pretty much determined that their service only really works in the real world.
Cheers,
Lux
Despite software being able to be used for social uses (within the context of software usage), the use of such software to the ordinary user is inherently an anti-social activity in that it serves as a preferred communication medium to better choices that are available to them. The software has social aspects, but its use by many computer users has an aspect of avoidance of real social interaction (there are of course exceptions, where a given technology is the best they've got -- these exceptions don't mean my point is untrue, they mean it's not true for everyone).
:)
I say this being a full-time software developer for the past 6 years (and an amateur coder for many years before that), so it's not like I'm against software or anything. But I've learned that chatting/blogging/sharing links/etc. has its limits, whereas I can tell you I've seen many teenagers who don't know this. You may "get it", but that doesn't mean everybody does. I'm also an extremely social person, whose hobbies happen to be rather anti-social in nature...
I hope this makes sense now. I think I'm just repeating myself at this point.
Cheers,
Lux
Off Topic: Guilty. Mostly anyway. It's the term I take issue with, not the site.
;)
Cheers,
Lux
I suspect you were also as disappointed as I was in school when I found out that "Social Studies" wasn't a place to talk to other students.
I never found out, but I was confused as to why I got kicked out for talking too much...
I don't know if that validates your point or just shows how strange I am, though.
;)
Perhaps a little of both.
Have you seen the British comedy "The Office"? It's an hilarious example of the failures of communication (among many other failures too) in a professional setting. Highly recommended.
Oh, my view of human social behaviour isn't as narrow as you interpret. Please don't assume I'm an absolutist simply because I point out problems with overuse/misapplication of technology.
9 29098
:)
I tried to clarify my point a bit in this post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154127&cid=12
Hopefully that clears up any confusion I created in my first post.
Cheers,
Lux
"Is there a qualitative difference between the two types of social interaction?"
;) If I didn't believe in communication through mediation, I wouldn't be here on /. right now.
;).
While you did answer your own question ("Probably..."), I do like your response. You raise good questions. I definitely don't believe that only face-to-face communication is real social interaction, but I could have been clearer on this point. I'm not an absolutist, and I'm not pining for the dark ages or anything like that
Anyway, my real point is that these online substitutes are serving more and more people as substitutes for the real thing, to the point where young'uns are being brought up not knowing that there is a difference. Instead of getting together (in cases that are actually able to) they go online and "chat". Mediated communication inherently encourages more mediation because we as human beings form habits. And while mediation can still produce relationships (I can't deny that), they are less rich than direct unmediated ones. And technology is inherently a mediator, no getting around it (pun slightly intended
To be perfectly honest though, most face-to-face relationships are just as mediated as those maintained through technology. Real-world mediators include our political and religious views, our egos, etc. which inhibit our ability to relate directly and honestly with one another just as much as the inability to see facial expressions on a forum.
I definitely use technology where appropriate to augment relationships at distances. I only see my family twice a year, but I keep in touch via telephone all the time, and I post photos to flickr for them to see. My sisters email me once in a while, which is great too. These things definitely have value, but they are no substitute for being able to see and hug my family. They simply help make the time between visits bearable.
Cheers,
Lux
I just wanted to point out that so-called "social software" is not social. Person-to-person communication through computers is mediated and indirect. Technology is a barrier to communication as much as it is an enabler. I agree that it is an enabler in situations where it is used to help overcome disabilities and things of that nature, however technology is used moreso by people who are actually avoiding being social. Email is often preferable to a telephone because it creates an additional barrier between ourselves and the "recipient" (aka person).
A prime example of software in a "social" context is the chatter that accompanies networked video games. This does not form real relationships between people. I heard a teenager recently say that his gaming buddies, who he doesn't even know by name, are like family to him. Technology has helped a whole generation and then some to fail to learn what real relationships are. When a teenager can't distinguish between somebody he's only ever witnessed virtually shoot ze germans and the people who nurtured him before he was able to take care of himself, we have a problem Houston.
And it's only getting worse. Now we've begun adding "social" in front of all kinds of new web applications. Anything that lets other users see your profile and the items you post and comment on them is seen as a valid replacement for real human contact.
There was a line from a movie I saw recently called Crash, where Don Cheadle's character says to his girlfriend "It's the sense of touch. Any real city you walk, you know. You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that sense of touch so much, that we crash into each other just so we can feel something.". The next time we use the word "social" to describe a new type of web application, I think we should give that some thought first.