My 0.02$ as an instructor (cultural anthropology, African studies, linguistic anthropology, ethnomusicology).
Contrary to what some people seem to think, some of us instructors do care about the price of textbooks. Many of us see textbooks as a necessary evil and some of us get almost allergic reactions when sales representatives from publishing houses come to our offices. (Got several visits and calls myself, even as a visiting lecturer.) For those of us who care about reasonably-priced textbooks, some publishing houses' practises are anti-competitive and unfair. Case in point. Decide to use a short, inexpensive textbook for one of my introductory-level classes, two semesters in a row. Price and length did have an impact on my decision (the textbook was itself better than more expensive ones). at tIt was published just in time for the first of those semesters and cost about 40$ at that point. The second semester, without notifying me, the publisher had bundled that textbook with another book. The bundle was 60$. Not that expensive. But my students still had to buy something that we never used. One problem for an instructor, when the textbook is cost-prohibitive, is that students are more likely to complain if the course doesn't follow the textbook very closely. Secondly, different editions are often confusing for students and it's difficult for an instructor to keep track of all of those discrepancies. Not to mention that an expensive textbook may discourage students from buying other material for that subject. According to someone close to me who used to work at a publishing house, textbooks are the main source of income for several publishers. A bit like "hits" for record labels, but students aren't free to choose textbooks as they please. Obviously, the financial model is skewed.
Those issues should be enough to encourage everyone to adopt a new model. But there's even more. Textbooks are typically written by a handful of authors who may be well qualified for explaining several of the issues included in those textbooks but who still have areas of limited expertise. The result in cultural anthropology, for instance, is that textbook chapters on language are usually full of inaccuracies while chapters on the authors' areas of expertise appear quite decent. In some cases, an instructor might even end up having to "fight the textbook" instead of using it as a reference. Online material accompanying textbooks in some disciplines generally seem like an afterthought instead of representing a central part of the approach. The ultimate effect is that students get disinterested in that material and will come to rely on other (and often unreliable) sources. While some publishers offer instructors the possibility to use material from different books, these sources should all be from the same publisher. So an instructor can't use Chapter 3 from Jane Smith's textbook published by one of Thomson's many subsidiaries and Chapter 4 from Amy Johnson's textbook published by Oxford University Press. How can we get a diversity of viewpoints, in such a situation?
The solution, IMVHO? Open textbooks. Teaching material based on an open content model. Supported by instructors and their institutions. With a flexible, modular design. Yes, Wikibooks may be part of that solution. But there are other issues to think about. How do we motivate instructors to contribute content to such a project? Does it count for tenure? Who will lead the effort to complete such a textbook? How can we integrate those books in our teaching? Will students use those textbooks the way they were intended or discount them based on perceived quality? Are students without Internet access out of luck? Who will provide "technical" support to students and instructors? How can we produce affordable dead-tree copies for those who need them? How can we make deals with publishers to integrate excerpts from primary texts? How can we share material to instructors without giving too much away to students? How can we integrate this material
This might be well-known but what's quite frustrating is that it's not clearly stated.
The tv shows may only acquire a license through a U.S.-based Internet connection so, if you're outside the U.S. and don't have a proxy or VPN, you can't play that content. (Some previews work, though.) Using a VPN is a bit cumbersome and much slower for streaming media. The "Hi-Q" local files require a license/connection every time they're played.
Fascinating threads, both on- and off-topic. As is often the case, the diversity of perspectives makes/. comments into a broad picture. Not just "a Ph.D. is worthless/you can't do anything without a Ph.D." but a whole array of different points. Not much to add, probably, but my $0.02 anyway, focusing on my own perspective which happens to be exactly as worthy (neither more nor less) as anyone else's.
I'm a Ph.D. candidate in a non-tech field. You can't realistically be hired for academic jobs in my field without a Ph.D. and it's rather hard to be hired even with a Post-Doc. Of course, a lot of people I know work with "only" a B.S./B.A. or M.S./M.A. but none of them has the type of job I'm aspiring to, which happens to be academic. There's a lingering feeling that college degrees are like honorific titles that "institutions of higher learning" thrust upon bright people. Of course, this feeling seems stronger with people who associate education with employment than with people who are driven by their passion for knowledge. For a variety of reasons, I happen to belong to the latter category: I'm an academic because I'm passionate about select academic subjects. Though I'm really looking forward to other phases in my academic career, I thoroughly enjoy the life I chose. Thing is, I'm not the only one like that. Sure, some grads constantly complain about not being free to do what they please but academia's incredibly satisfying for those who do it for the "right reasons." Yes, I'm helplessly naive in thinking I'll get a tenure-track position relatively soon, but since high school I've been prepared (by advisors, peers, etc.) to fight my way through. In other words, contrary to popular belief, you don't begin your career after you get your degree. Your degree is an acknowledgement of a certain of things you have done at an educational institution and your career began with your choices.
Interestingly, I've been looking for menial/mindless work before I take up a teaching fellowship. It seems that my résumé showed me to be overqualified to flip burgers or force people to buy security systems but I eventually found work in a nearby café. It might surprise some, but I'm quite happy about this. The reason is, it's not necessarily about the money. It's about doing what you like and liking what you do. Most of the time, doing so goes with inspiration, perspiration, fun, friendship, and most likely some beer.
Well, some beers do age well. It has less to do with being made of grain or fruit but more to do with the degree of alcohol. Hops do help keep the beer, but degree of alcohol is what's need for aging. And lees. You need yeast there.
Strong beers (9% by volume and up) include Belgian Tripels, "Barleywines," Imperial Stouts, some Baltic Porters, etc.
Distilled sake would certainly work and would keep well. After all, whiskey's really close to being distilled unhopped beer...
What part of beer don't you understand?
Well, it has been done in that several brewpubs do serve coffee beer and that the caffeine does remain in the beer.
But patenting beer? Come on! Maybe if this were a Pfizer message board or something. But/.?
Ah well...
As both a partly self-labeled linguistic anthropologist and a cultural anthropologist, I would like to respectfully qualify the parent's statements on the state of the field. This really isn't meant as a flame but I do enjoy discussions on the difficult relationship between linguistics and anthropology. First, while anthropology seems to emphasize linguistics to a much lesser degree than in Boas' era, a large number of anthropologists do work on language, in one way or another. Granted, the groundwork of deciphering unknown languages isn't really part of the discipline anymore, but thorough research projects on how language and language varieties work in social and cultural settings are prominent in the work of many anthropologists, from Michael Silverstein to Alessandro Duranti. Whether or not you call this type of language science "linguistics" is a matter of choice. The fact remains that language still plays a prominent role in contemporary anthropology. The matter of whether or not "post-modernism" killed cultural anthropology is also open to debate. While I understand the claim and did feel some frustrations caused by "post-modern" anthropology, I think that the ultimate impact is that of enhancing anthropology. True, most cultural anthropologists have stopped writing monographs about "The Xs," but "post-modern" self-criticism is now being replaced by hybrid research activities combining theory and practice. Interestingly enough, language has a large impact on much of this work, at least in the form of meaningful exchanges. Again, maybe not "linguistic" in the strictest sense, but surely enough to warrant language training.
As is often the case in Social Sciences, [cr,h]acker identity is negotiated and not necessarily an intrinsic quality of the subject. It's very hard to say anything based on the secondary article but the very fact that these people consider themselves to be "hackers," "crackers," "phreakers," or any other common association with illegal technology-based activity tells us something about the social status of "hacking" in general. After all, there's no MSCE-type l33t h4x0r certification program but there's a lot of work being done by some people to prove themselves as crackers. Even this sketchy article mentions the process of proving yourself as a worthy candidate. IMHO, even "script kiddies" and "social engineers" (who may crack code by schmoozing instead of technical merit) are even more interesting *sociologically* than uber-geeks who happen to take part in criminal activities. "Real" crackers make for fascinating movie scripts but they don't show much in terms of social trends.
The article's very sketchy, unfortunately. I'd be interested in knowing what this system uses for input. A standard score (five-line staves, syllables associated to notes?) or a custom representation system with both full phonetic transcription and enhanced MIDI-type musical information?
It's one thing to generate a computerized singing voice. Even if you need to tweak it, it's a cool achievement and may be useful to composers. But it's another thing entirely to have all the text-to-speech and intonation work without any human intervention.
As others have said, computer singing has been done before. Here's one example:
Virtual Singer
As a casual observer of the Free Software and Open-Source movements (I'm not a coder), I find the situation fascinating. The movements themselves are often put along political lines, especially on/. and similar FOSS media. The difference between Free Software and Open-Source is in fact stated by some as a matter of politicization with RMS being among the most politicized and Linus or Eric Raymond being the most "neutral." But even the most "Open-Source for purely practical reasons" initiative carries political implications, at least of the "Your Rights Online" kind. Slashdotters often joke about all the M$/Gates-bashing but it's quite clear that most 'dotters would favour, say, Linus over Gates in an election for a hypothetical "Department of Software Decisions" and the possible use of DRM in Linux has showed a limited political involvement. Still, political ideas that are well-represented among members the movements aren't (and shouldn't) at the basis of specific projects.
"GNU"-Darwin's case is quite specific and has been described adequately by other posters. Among Open-Source advocating Mac OS X users, "GNU"-Darwin has been seen as either a joke or a problem. In fact, I've been naive enough to install a few GD packages at one point and I'm sorry I did. The/usr/local thing makes them harder to remove and they often clash with Fink packages.
Both in the way the interview was framed and in much of the discussion here, there seems to be an assumed correlation between geniuses and academics. While being an academic (Ph.D. Candidate), I personally don't think this correlation holds. Granted, there's probably a higher proportion of geniuses in academic positions than anywhere else. In fact, despite what Stephenson (the interviewee) may say, I think Academia is probably the best place for a genius. But, MacArthur "Genius Grants" notwithstanding, this possibility doesn't imply anything in terms of academic geniuses, however defined.
Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, Academia isn't a trophy but a place to do a specific type of work centered on teaching and/or research. The prestige associated to academic positions in some contexts has very little to do with the work academics do.
As for eccentricity, Academia does tolerate it in many ways and there's clearly a significant level of freedom in most academic contexts, at least for those who hold jobs. And applications for academic jobs do, IMHO, tolerate a larger margin of eccentricity and originality than most other applications. Interestingly enough, there seems to be an increasing number of jobs opening up in academic institutions. Not a boom per se, but a situation where job prospects are on the increase nonetheless.
[Disclaimer: I don't work in the IT industry and I'm not affected by the current situation.]
As a social scientist, I tend to take a "neutral" stance to most social phenomena. This is a case in point where the situation can be seen as extremely bad or extremely good, depending on who it has an impact on. From the point of view of IT workers from less wealthy societies, it can be a very good thing. So-called "Third World" countries tend to be dependent upon the production of goods that are quite expensive to export. Working as an IT worker for a US company while living in a place where the cost of living is extremely low is an improvement for the individual who does it, even if this person is paid less than the US equivalent. My personal (naive) philosophy is that it all evens out in the end. Now, one thing that non-US IT workers need is education. Computer training but also a broader education. Notice the number of "international" students on campuses. More students means more teaching opportunities. And going to teach overseas can be an extremely enriching experience. True, the situation seems bleak for those who arguably "had it easy" during the tech boom. But, quite possibly, education might be the next best opportunity. Of course, it requires a lot of time to retrain but think of those "international students" who switched their careers around. Flexibility is the best asset in the current situation. And it's what a good education gives you.
Non, c'pas Ãa! If you temporarily switch your language, it also switch the decimals, at least on my setup (just tried it with Process Viewer.app in 10.2.6).
[Obviously, this won't be read by anyone because it's so late in the game...]
When I started homebrewing, I kept thinking about how it was the perfect mix of science and creativity. Understanding fermentation, isolating variables in brewing experiments, trying to achieve specific results through trial and error...these are all (valid) scientific principles. Crafting the very beer that you want, moving away from established standards (a malty "bitter"...), pushing the limit, improving your skills, delighting your friends...those would be the artistic/creative aspects.
At least, it worked for me. And I'm not really a hacker (at least, not as a coder) but I see a similar combination of logic and craft, science and art, knowledge and creation.
And if I want to wax poetic, I'd say something about "homebrewed computers" but this doesn't look like the right time...
Dunno if others are getting the same thing but moving around the "store" throught iTunes, I get a number of access problems. Maybe we can't/. the Apple site but iTunes might already be too busy for its own good...
Apple's pay-per-song system is ideal for times when you want to own a song now. This may happen for several reasons, some of which are pure marketing (ever wanted to buy a CD because of a song you heard on TV or on the radio?) while some others are more subtle: you feel such song would perfectly fit your current mood. It's close to the jukebox idea "and you get to keep a copy"...
OTOH, those for whom music is important likely want more than just "Instant Gratification(tm)". For this, there will always be free concerts, CD swapping, actual record stores with dedicated personnel, used CD stores, and garages to rehearse in. My point is, the iTunes Music Store isn't an end-all solution, but it might just work for some situations.
The issue of size seems to be a difficult one, especially with any device requiring visual I/O. How about voice? A cell-phone size would do. Speech recognition and synthesis are coming along and there's a lot you can do with your voice. Dictate something, have it read back, edit it, send it. Look for info using standardized commands. Play audio games...;-)
Disclaimer: Not a coder, just an observer...
Doesn't the OSS community work as a culture where one's motivation comes, in part, from emulating what others have done? A culture isn't centralized, it doesn't have committees or even goals. In many ways, "it just works"...
There are obvious leading figures and groups, of course. And, surely, some people start coding because they read The Cathedral and the Bazaar or they look up to RMS or Linus. Others are just part of it because it works...
On the other hand, contrary to a "real" society, (almost) nobody's born into it. Come to think of it, we also choose our affiliations IRL, so the difference isn't so great...
And whose call is it? To put it lightly, would the Slashdot community like to have Bill Gates or Hillary Rosen decide who is enhanced?
Isn't the open-source community proof that diversity helps more than the selection of specific individuals?
Recently, genetic manipulation have come to involve most of the deepest philosophical issues of human nature. Not simply the morality of "playing God" nor the sociological effect genetic enhancement may have (as alluded to by the original post), but the complete set of issues that affect humanity. As such, it must be handled with care and we need to consider the effects of genetic "enhancement" at several levels.
As biologists know, gene pool variability is essential for the survival of a species as a whole. Individual "fitness" matters relatively little in natural selection. Artificial selection for specific traits, which has been practiced for times immemorial, tends to produce "fragile" individuals because of the random nature of selective pressures. We need to account for the risk of jeopardizing the human species by making it inapt at coping with future pressures.
As a cultural anthropologist, I tend to favor cultural factors over genotype. Call me naive but I personally believe in the equal value of all human beings. Because of this, I tend to disapprove of the mindset behind some people's expectations of genetic enhancement. Especially so when it comes to the selection for desired behavioral traits as opposed to the selection against genuine diseases.
As a side note I must say that this thread is rather impressive by its quality. It does show the powers of Slashdot moderation.
Does anybody else think the Core Box has more to offer as news for the online Mac community (those who read every Mac-centric publication and post comments) than to an actual market?;-)
is the strength of social networks and the ease with which people cope with situations.
Sorry for the self-serving perspective...I was in Mali (mostly the Bamako region) last year for the fieldwork part of my dissertation research (which has little to do with computers). As I had brought my iBook and went to an Internet café every day, computing and communication came up often in informal conversations. My personal feeling is that the well-known "leapfrog effect" could work there if the technology is integrated in the wider culture.
The article (correctly) points out the importance of "phone booths" in the region. Having spent numerous hours sipping tea and chatting at a local phone booth, I can see how it fits in a broader plan for Internet access. Add to it the amazing entrepreneurship of young Africans, the existing social networks linking Africans everywhere, and the low cost of online communication as opposed to road transportation, you have a winning proposition, in the long term.
Not exactly sure how it'll work in practice, but my bet is that it'll come from local initiatives more than from government plans.
Anybody else to remember SixDegrees? You stated your links (and they could be specified as "friend," "co-worker," "acquaintance"...) and you were connected with them when they acknowledged you. Extremely interesting sociologically. But it went down for (apparently) economical reasons.
And for those who are genuinely interested in Internet applications of network analysis, you might want to try the Oracle of Bacon. It's an online version of the "Kevin Bacon Game" (who starred with whom) using data from IMDB.
Slashdot Mirror
My 0.02$ as an instructor (cultural anthropology, African studies, linguistic anthropology, ethnomusicology).
Contrary to what some people seem to think, some of us instructors do care about the price of textbooks. Many of us see textbooks as a necessary evil and some of us get almost allergic reactions when sales representatives from publishing houses come to our offices. (Got several visits and calls myself, even as a visiting lecturer.) For those of us who care about reasonably-priced textbooks, some publishing houses' practises are anti-competitive and unfair.
Case in point. Decide to use a short, inexpensive textbook for one of my introductory-level classes, two semesters in a row. Price and length did have an impact on my decision (the textbook was itself better than more expensive ones). at tIt was published just in time for the first of those semesters and cost about 40$ at that point. The second semester, without notifying me, the publisher had bundled that textbook with another book. The bundle was 60$. Not that expensive. But my students still had to buy something that we never used.
One problem for an instructor, when the textbook is cost-prohibitive, is that students are more likely to complain if the course doesn't follow the textbook very closely. Secondly, different editions are often confusing for students and it's difficult for an instructor to keep track of all of those discrepancies. Not to mention that an expensive textbook may discourage students from buying other material for that subject.
According to someone close to me who used to work at a publishing house, textbooks are the main source of income for several publishers. A bit like "hits" for record labels, but students aren't free to choose textbooks as they please.
Obviously, the financial model is skewed.
Those issues should be enough to encourage everyone to adopt a new model. But there's even more.
Textbooks are typically written by a handful of authors who may be well qualified for explaining several of the issues included in those textbooks but who still have areas of limited expertise. The result in cultural anthropology, for instance, is that textbook chapters on language are usually full of inaccuracies while chapters on the authors' areas of expertise appear quite decent. In some cases, an instructor might even end up having to "fight the textbook" instead of using it as a reference.
Online material accompanying textbooks in some disciplines generally seem like an afterthought instead of representing a central part of the approach. The ultimate effect is that students get disinterested in that material and will come to rely on other (and often unreliable) sources.
While some publishers offer instructors the possibility to use material from different books, these sources should all be from the same publisher. So an instructor can't use Chapter 3 from Jane Smith's textbook published by one of Thomson's many subsidiaries and Chapter 4 from Amy Johnson's textbook published by Oxford University Press. How can we get a diversity of viewpoints, in such a situation?
The solution, IMVHO? Open textbooks. Teaching material based on an open content model. Supported by instructors and their institutions. With a flexible, modular design.
Yes, Wikibooks may be part of that solution. But there are other issues to think about. How do we motivate instructors to contribute content to such a project? Does it count for tenure? Who will lead the effort to complete such a textbook? How can we integrate those books in our teaching? Will students use those textbooks the way they were intended or discount them based on perceived quality? Are students without Internet access out of luck? Who will provide "technical" support to students and instructors? How can we produce affordable dead-tree copies for those who need them? How can we make deals with publishers to integrate excerpts from primary texts? How can we share material to instructors without giving too much away to students? How can we integrate this material
This might be well-known but what's quite frustrating is that it's not clearly stated. The tv shows may only acquire a license through a U.S.-based Internet connection so, if you're outside the U.S. and don't have a proxy or VPN, you can't play that content. (Some previews work, though.) Using a VPN is a bit cumbersome and much slower for streaming media. The "Hi-Q" local files require a license/connection every time they're played.
Fascinating threads, both on- and off-topic. /. comments into a broad picture. Not just "a Ph.D. is worthless/you can't do anything without a Ph.D." but a whole array of different points.
As is often the case, the diversity of perspectives makes
Not much to add, probably, but my $0.02 anyway, focusing on my own perspective which happens to be exactly as worthy (neither more nor less) as anyone else's.
I'm a Ph.D. candidate in a non-tech field. You can't realistically be hired for academic jobs in my field without a Ph.D. and it's rather hard to be hired even with a Post-Doc. Of course, a lot of people I know work with "only" a B.S./B.A. or M.S./M.A. but none of them has the type of job I'm aspiring to, which happens to be academic.
There's a lingering feeling that college degrees are like honorific titles that "institutions of higher learning" thrust upon bright people. Of course, this feeling seems stronger with people who associate education with employment than with people who are driven by their passion for knowledge. For a variety of reasons, I happen to belong to the latter category: I'm an academic because I'm passionate about select academic subjects. Though I'm really looking forward to other phases in my academic career, I thoroughly enjoy the life I chose. Thing is, I'm not the only one like that. Sure, some grads constantly complain about not being free to do what they please but academia's incredibly satisfying for those who do it for the "right reasons." Yes, I'm helplessly naive in thinking I'll get a tenure-track position relatively soon, but since high school I've been prepared (by advisors, peers, etc.) to fight my way through.
In other words, contrary to popular belief, you don't begin your career after you get your degree. Your degree is an acknowledgement of a certain of things you have done at an educational institution and your career began with your choices.
Interestingly, I've been looking for menial/mindless work before I take up a teaching fellowship. It seems that my résumé showed me to be overqualified to flip burgers or force people to buy security systems but I eventually found work in a nearby café. It might surprise some, but I'm quite happy about this. The reason is, it's not necessarily about the money. It's about doing what you like and liking what you do.
Most of the time, doing so goes with inspiration, perspiration, fun, friendship, and most likely some beer.
Well, some beers do age well. It has less to do with being made of grain or fruit but more to do with the degree of alcohol. Hops do help keep the beer, but degree of alcohol is what's need for aging. And lees. You need yeast there.
Strong beers (9% by volume and up) include Belgian Tripels, "Barleywines," Imperial Stouts, some Baltic Porters, etc.
Distilled sake would certainly work and would keep well. After all, whiskey's really close to being distilled unhopped beer...
What part of beer don't you understand?
Obligatory Seinfeld reference
Well, it has been done in that several brewpubs do serve coffee beer and that the caffeine does remain in the beer. /.?
But patenting beer? Come on! Maybe if this were a Pfizer message board or something. But
Ah well...
As both a partly self-labeled linguistic anthropologist and a cultural anthropologist, I would like to respectfully qualify the parent's statements on the state of the field. This really isn't meant as a flame but I do enjoy discussions on the difficult relationship between linguistics and anthropology.
First, while anthropology seems to emphasize linguistics to a much lesser degree than in Boas' era, a large number of anthropologists do work on language, in one way or another. Granted, the groundwork of deciphering unknown languages isn't really part of the discipline anymore, but thorough research projects on how language and language varieties work in social and cultural settings are prominent in the work of many anthropologists, from Michael Silverstein to Alessandro Duranti. Whether or not you call this type of language science "linguistics" is a matter of choice. The fact remains that language still plays a prominent role in contemporary anthropology.
The matter of whether or not "post-modernism" killed cultural anthropology is also open to debate. While I understand the claim and did feel some frustrations caused by "post-modern" anthropology, I think that the ultimate impact is that of enhancing anthropology. True, most cultural anthropologists have stopped writing monographs about "The Xs," but "post-modern" self-criticism is now being replaced by hybrid research activities combining theory and practice. Interestingly enough, language has a large impact on much of this work, at least in the form of meaningful exchanges. Again, maybe not "linguistic" in the strictest sense, but surely enough to warrant language training.
As is often the case in Social Sciences, [cr,h]acker identity is negotiated and not necessarily an intrinsic quality of the subject.
It's very hard to say anything based on the secondary article but the very fact that these people consider themselves to be "hackers," "crackers," "phreakers," or any other common association with illegal technology-based activity tells us something about the social status of "hacking" in general.
After all, there's no MSCE-type l33t h4x0r certification program but there's a lot of work being done by some people to prove themselves as crackers. Even this sketchy article mentions the process of proving yourself as a worthy candidate.
IMHO, even "script kiddies" and "social engineers" (who may crack code by schmoozing instead of technical merit) are even more interesting *sociologically* than uber-geeks who happen to take part in criminal activities. "Real" crackers make for fascinating movie scripts but they don't show much in terms of social trends.
The article's very sketchy, unfortunately. I'd be interested in knowing what this system uses for input. A standard score (five-line staves, syllables associated to notes?) or a custom representation system with both full phonetic transcription and enhanced MIDI-type musical information?
It's one thing to generate a computerized singing voice. Even if you need to tweak it, it's a cool achievement and may be useful to composers. But it's another thing entirely to have all the text-to-speech and intonation work without any human intervention.
As others have said, computer singing has been done before. Here's one example:
Virtual Singer
[Very interesting thread, BTW]
/. and similar FOSS media. The difference between Free Software and Open-Source is in fact stated by some as a matter of politicization with RMS being among the most politicized and Linus or Eric Raymond being the most "neutral." But even the most "Open-Source for purely practical reasons" initiative carries political implications, at least of the "Your Rights Online" kind. Slashdotters often joke about all the M$/Gates-bashing but it's quite clear that most 'dotters would favour, say, Linus over Gates in an election for a hypothetical "Department of Software Decisions" and the possible use of DRM in Linux has showed a limited political involvement.
/usr/local thing makes them harder to remove and they often clash with Fink packages.
As a casual observer of the Free Software and Open-Source movements (I'm not a coder), I find the situation fascinating.
The movements themselves are often put along political lines, especially on
Still, political ideas that are well-represented among members the movements aren't (and shouldn't) at the basis of specific projects.
"GNU"-Darwin's case is quite specific and has been described adequately by other posters. Among Open-Source advocating Mac OS X users, "GNU"-Darwin has been seen as either a joke or a problem. In fact, I've been naive enough to install a few GD packages at one point and I'm sorry I did. The
Both in the way the interview was framed and in much of the discussion here, there seems to be an assumed correlation between geniuses and academics. While being an academic (Ph.D. Candidate), I personally don't think this correlation holds. Granted, there's probably a higher proportion of geniuses in academic positions than anywhere else. In fact, despite what Stephenson (the interviewee) may say, I think Academia is probably the best place for a genius. But, MacArthur "Genius Grants" notwithstanding, this possibility doesn't imply anything in terms of academic geniuses, however defined.
Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, Academia isn't a trophy but a place to do a specific type of work centered on teaching and/or research. The prestige associated to academic positions in some contexts has very little to do with the work academics do.
As for eccentricity, Academia does tolerate it in many ways and there's clearly a significant level of freedom in most academic contexts, at least for those who hold jobs. And applications for academic jobs do, IMHO, tolerate a larger margin of eccentricity and originality than most other applications. Interestingly enough, there seems to be an increasing number of jobs opening up in academic institutions. Not a boom per se, but a situation where job prospects are on the increase nonetheless.
There really should be a Beer 101 class for geeks everywhere. Here's a start: What Part of Beer Don't You Understand?.
Unfortunately, the Homebrew computer club has little to do with homebrewing beer or even brewing software although beer geeks know the true meaning of Free as in Beer.
[Disclaimer: I don't work in the IT industry and I'm not affected by the current situation.]
As a social scientist, I tend to take a "neutral" stance to most social phenomena. This is a case in point where the situation can be seen as extremely bad or extremely good, depending on who it has an impact on.
From the point of view of IT workers from less wealthy societies, it can be a very good thing. So-called "Third World" countries tend to be dependent upon the production of goods that are quite expensive to export. Working as an IT worker for a US company while living in a place where the cost of living is extremely low is an improvement for the individual who does it, even if this person is paid less than the US equivalent.
My personal (naive) philosophy is that it all evens out in the end.
Now, one thing that non-US IT workers need is education. Computer training but also a broader education. Notice the number of "international" students on campuses. More students means more teaching opportunities. And going to teach overseas can be an extremely enriching experience.
True, the situation seems bleak for those who arguably "had it easy" during the tech boom. But, quite possibly, education might be the next best opportunity. Of course, it requires a lot of time to retrain but think of those "international students" who switched their careers around. Flexibility is the best asset in the current situation. And it's what a good education gives you.
Non, c'pas Ãa!
If you temporarily switch your language, it also switch the decimals, at least on my setup (just tried it with Process Viewer.app in 10.2.6).
Maybe it's lurking beneath my threshold. There must be an explanation.
[Obviously, this won't be read by anyone because it's so late in the game...]
When I started homebrewing, I kept thinking about how it was the perfect mix of science and creativity. Understanding fermentation, isolating variables in brewing experiments, trying to achieve specific results through trial and error...these are all (valid) scientific principles.
Crafting the very beer that you want, moving away from established standards (a malty "bitter"...), pushing the limit, improving your skills, delighting your friends...those would be the artistic/creative aspects.
At least, it worked for me.
And I'm not really a hacker (at least, not as a coder) but I see a similar combination of logic and craft, science and art, knowledge and creation.
And if I want to wax poetic, I'd say something about "homebrewed computers" but this doesn't look like the right time...
Dunno if others are getting the same thing but moving around the "store" throught iTunes, I get a number of access problems. Maybe we can't /. the Apple site but iTunes might already be too busy for its own good...
Apple's pay-per-song system is ideal for times when you want to own a song now. This may happen for several reasons, some of which are pure marketing (ever wanted to buy a CD because of a song you heard on TV or on the radio?) while some others are more subtle: you feel such song would perfectly fit your current mood. It's close to the jukebox idea "and you get to keep a copy"...
OTOH, those for whom music is important likely want more than just "Instant Gratification(tm)". For this, there will always be free concerts, CD swapping, actual record stores with dedicated personnel, used CD stores, and garages to rehearse in. My point is, the iTunes Music Store isn't an end-all solution, but it might just work for some situations.
The issue of size seems to be a difficult one, especially with any device requiring visual I/O. How about voice? A cell-phone size would do. Speech recognition and synthesis are coming along and there's a lot you can do with your voice. Dictate something, have it read back, edit it, send it. Look for info using standardized commands. Play audio games... ;-)
Disclaimer: Not a coder, just an observer...
Doesn't the OSS community work as a culture where one's motivation comes, in part, from emulating what others have done? A culture isn't centralized, it doesn't have committees or even goals. In many ways, "it just works"...
There are obvious leading figures and groups, of course. And, surely, some people start coding because they read The Cathedral and the Bazaar or they look up to RMS or Linus. Others are just part of it because it works...
On the other hand, contrary to a "real" society, (almost) nobody's born into it. Come to think of it, we also choose our affiliations IRL, so the difference isn't so great...
And whose call is it? To put it lightly, would the Slashdot community like to have Bill Gates or Hillary Rosen decide who is enhanced?
Isn't the open-source community proof that diversity helps more than the selection of specific individuals?
Recently, genetic manipulation have come to involve most of the deepest philosophical issues of human nature. Not simply the morality of "playing God" nor the sociological effect genetic enhancement may have (as alluded to by the original post), but the complete set of issues that affect humanity. As such, it must be handled with care and we need to consider the effects of genetic "enhancement" at several levels.
As biologists know, gene pool variability is essential for the survival of a species as a whole. Individual "fitness" matters relatively little in natural selection. Artificial selection for specific traits, which has been practiced for times immemorial, tends to produce "fragile" individuals because of the random nature of selective pressures. We need to account for the risk of jeopardizing the human species by making it inapt at coping with future pressures.
As a cultural anthropologist, I tend to favor cultural factors over genotype. Call me naive but I personally believe in the equal value of all human beings. Because of this, I tend to disapprove of the mindset behind some people's expectations of genetic enhancement. Especially so when it comes to the selection for desired behavioral traits as opposed to the selection against genuine diseases.
As a side note I must say that this thread is rather impressive by its quality. It does show the powers of Slashdot moderation.
Does anybody else think the Core Box has more to offer as news for the online Mac community (those who read every Mac-centric publication and post comments) than to an actual market? ;-)
is the strength of social networks and the ease with which people cope with situations.
Sorry for the self-serving perspective...I was in Mali (mostly the Bamako region) last year for the fieldwork part of my dissertation research (which has little to do with computers). As I had brought my iBook and went to an Internet café every day, computing and communication came up often in informal conversations. My personal feeling is that the well-known "leapfrog effect" could work there if the technology is integrated in the wider culture.
The article (correctly) points out the importance of "phone booths" in the region. Having spent numerous hours sipping tea and chatting at a local phone booth, I can see how it fits in a broader plan for Internet access. Add to it the amazing entrepreneurship of young Africans, the existing social networks linking Africans everywhere, and the low cost of online communication as opposed to road transportation, you have a winning proposition, in the long term.
Not exactly sure how it'll work in practice, but my bet is that it'll come from local initiatives more than from government plans.
Anybody else to remember SixDegrees? You stated your links (and they could be specified as "friend," "co-worker," "acquaintance"...) and you were connected with them when they acknowledged you. Extremely interesting sociologically. But it went down for (apparently) economical reasons.
And for those who are genuinely interested in Internet applications of network analysis, you might want to try the Oracle of Bacon. It's an online version of the "Kevin Bacon Game" (who starred with whom) using data from IMDB.