In the five or so years prior to that, as the geeks were the first to establish presences on the Web (both as individuals and for their companies), we wrote the HTML, load-balanced the servers, and photo-shopped and [saints preserve us...] ShockWaved our heinies off, cuz the medium was so new, no one knew it looked like crap. It was just new tech, and we were the tech guys, so, we did it. All of it, including the design and content stuff that we had no business having anything to do with. Circa mid-90's, proper business practices began to develop, and the professional content and design people "moved on to the Web," and we geeks, for the most part, found ourselves back in the server rooms and behind our compilers where we belonged.
What are "blogs" but 21st century "personal web pages?" The content management software is slicker than the vi and notepad.exe we used 15 years ago, but the intents are the same. And we Geeks were once again at the forefront (and it showed, in most of the pedantic content). Now, big media and other corporations have caught the new-old wave, and the content people too busy with their professional deadlines up to now are finally being pointed towards the direction of the -- dare I say it? -- 'blogosphere.' Geeks, once the blogging majority, find their mindshare getting edged out by pro writers, photographers, designers, and people who just have more interesting lives about which to blog.
It's not a bad thing.
In the meantime, the geeks are moving into podcasting, and so the Circle of Life continues... (cue the zebras...)
removing their virii and others as well as great software such as CoolWebSearch and their ilk all day EVERYDAY of their sentence.
Too lenient. How about they get wired up to some slashdot server and are delivered a slight electric shock every time some idiot writes "virii?" Two shots for "cracker" every time it is not used in the context of edible wafers.
You're proving my point (and don't think I'm not appreciative).
Fact of the matter is, with the notable if farcical exception of Anton LaVey, there aren't a whole lot of non-Christians who go to the trouble Jefferson did to make their own bibles. Fact of the matter is, were he alive today, TJ would be the Bible-Thumper's Bible-Thumper. Would he split hairs with the Pope and Jerry Falwell re transubstantiation and the nature of the Trinity? Yes. Would he for a minute allow the banning of prayer in public school, the scrubbing of the 10 commandments from courtrooms, the removal of "under God" from the Pledge to happen on his watch? Guy with a frickin' Bible named after him, one he edited himself?
You are completely wrong. If anything, most of the founding fathers were Deists,
Jefferson was a deist, and please see my post elsewhere in this thread re exactly what kind of deist we're talking about here.
As for the other wig-heads, well, let's just take a look at the woodshedding they gave poor Ol' Reasonable Tom Paine shortly after he went rogue:
Sam Adams (The Statesman, not the Brewer), wrote to him, "[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?" (William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1865) III:372-73, to Thomas Paine on Nov. 30, 1802.)
and John Adams was similarly unamused:
"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will" (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, Ed., (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) III:421, dairy entry for July 26, 1796.)
Later, in a letter to Jefferson, this Wingnut, Adams, wrote:
"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System." (Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40)
And what about Ben Franklin, that skirt-chasing, France-loving, wine-tasting, electricity-discovering scientist? Surely he wasn't down with those evil, crusade-calling, inquisition-loving small-'X' xtians, was he? Let's ask:
"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Our Boy Ben, "Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania," 1749, p.22)
Benjamn Rush, Charles Carrol, and John Witherspoon -- Declaration of Independence signes all -- called Paine's work "absurd and impious"[1], "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion" [2], and Paine himself "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith." [3]
[1]Benjamin Rush, "Letters of Benjamin Rush," L.H. Butterfield, ed., (Princeton University Press, 1951) II:770, to John Dickenson on Feb 16, 1796.
[2]Joseph Gurn, "Charles Carrol of Carrolton" (NY: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932, p. 203.
[3]John Witherspoon, "The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon" (Phila: Wm W. Woodward, 1802) III:24n2, from "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men," delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man:
1. That there is one only God, and He all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion....
Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian."...in an 1822 letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907. (Memorial Edition) vol. 15, p. 383.)
Six years earlier, in a letter to Charles Thomas Bergh, TJ was quick to clarify:
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus--very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great Reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were He to return on earth, would not recognize one feature."(as above, vol. 14, pg. 385)
But yeah, he did check the box next to DEIST on his census form.
My point is that, on the value of religion at least, Tom Paine clearly ran counter to the Founding Fathers. It's become a common (albeit no longer clever) ruse to invoke Paine's name when arguing against the "Forefathers Intended Religion to be Part of US Society" angle; Paine's name is meant to spook the Forefather-invoker.
Was Paine wrong re Religion? Were Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, et. al. right? A discussion for a different thread, and I've argued both sides in my days. But there can really be no argument that the Money-Head folks intended a prominent and positive role for religion in their new nation's development. The warping of the Constitution's 'Establishment Clause' which prevents the Feds from creating a national religion into something blocking local municipalities from putting up creches or ten commandments or magic groves in their public parks if enough townies want them is just perverse.
Oh, Thomas Paine, Thomas Paine!! Poster-Child for "When Forefathers Go Rogue!" Pretty much booted from The Club with that "Age of Reason" thing. (Look it up.) Simply *NOT* what the Heads-On-Currency Crowd had in mind for this country, pure and simple. You can argue that Da Boyzz were wrong when it came to the whole Higher Power thingee, and that's fine, but then you're picking and choosing your Constitution Framer-y Goodness, and that makes you no better than either of the Left/Right Extremists.
Still and all, the Ol' "Thomas Paine Cry" remains a pretty effective argument for the average high-school-level civics of most Americans, cuz most of us think we kinda sorta remember him as being part of that whole Ben Franklin scene, so what he wrote must be in synch with the thinking of the Forefathers, right? Right? Good one. But ya needs do better on a large public forum such as/.
An ad hominem attack is attacking the speaker instead of the argument.
Um, I know that, D00d. I've borne more than my share of them online for something like 15 years.
My point here is that perspective of the speaker is valid. Putting it in/. terms: if a poster has a history of trashing Linux, denigrating it and its users, is in fact an avowed and rabid Windows devotee, his contribution to a discussion re the development of the Linux kernel should be viewed (in the very least) as, say, 'colored.' Practically speaking, he would probably get shouted down and modded as Troll. "Hungrygrue" has just such a comment history re Children, yet in a discussion re new theories for their development, his rant and namecalling got modded *up*. It's not a "you're not a parent, so you know nothing" thing, it's a "you've plainly established that you hate children so why are you even part of this discussion" thing.
you suck at life.
Beware those snap judgements, my friend. They have a way of coming and back and biting you somewhere down the line.
Man, I gotta get me some Alcoa stock, cuz the tin-foil hat population just grows and grows.
Here's the point: I have 4 children, aged 10, 7, 4, and 4. When the topic is kids and their homework, I get a say, value of 'X.' Some childless 20-something turning his nose up at all the 'breeders' and their 'brats,' he gets a say as well, but it's of considerably less value than 'X.'
Now, obviously, if the topic is the Fall line of Ikea furniture or the unfortunate choices Cher has made in her career, I yield the floor to the breeder-haters, but since we're talking about raising children here, my question to hungrygrue is valid and remains: "How many children do you have, and what are their ages?" His comment history is riddled with disparaging statements about children; why should one's anonymity afford credibility?
The *tenth* number species-wide is a fallacy invented by the marketing guys of certain magazines and cable channels so as to increase the amount they can charge for advertisements.
Of course, the minority does not dispute it because it serves their purpose, and the majority who don't believe it keep their mouths shut out of political correctness.
Free Wi-Fi? Sure. Why Not? They've been ladling out the free Kool-Aid here for months, and that's worked out well for them. Tastes great too, doesn't it?
DOESN'T IT?!?
*sigh*
OK, Citizen-Praetorian DiBona, you win. Resistance is futile, I see that now. Tell me where I report for re-programming.
Go back to whittling your stick on the porch, grandpa. We'll happily stay off your lawn if it means you'll shut the hell up.
Whassa matter, Bunky? Wake up this morning and realize that the pinnacle of your generation's techno-cultural legacy is shaping up as a tie between E-Bay and XBox? Have the images of Neil Armstrong planting a flag on the moon that they burned into your brain in Junior High School as part of a futile attempt to inspire you finally giving you a cross-generational case of penis-envy? Understandable. You have my sympathies. It must really suck.
Hey, I got an idea: why doncha come on back and play on my lawn? My gnomes are getting lonely.
And who raised the kids in such an attention-starved environment that they write to a handful (or more) of online entities just so they can feel some satisfaction and relevance in their lives?
C'mon, D00d. Take some responsibility for your life. You're embarrassing your parents again.
lifestyle you guys fought so hard for back in the 60's I was born in '60, son. More 'Blank Generation' than 'Boomer,' but don't let the facts stop you, you're on a roll.
I fear that my generation (I'm 28) might be one of those unlucky historical examples of one which didn't get to do jack shit because they were so busy catering to the needs of their wealthy elders while trying to patch up the disasterous debts they left us.
Actually, you didn't do jack shit because you were too busy blogging and trying to reconcile it as something other than vanity.
I'm firmly convinced that had we Instant Messaging and Blogs and computer administrators who fancied themselves designers (and vice versa) fifty years ago, Apollo would still be no more than a Greek god.
Why don't someone create a worm that installs FireFox, while making it seem, to the average non-tech savvy Internet Explorer, that s/he is still using IE?
You're obviously an above-average tech savvy guy; why don't you create it?
Until you trust your kids to browse the internet and use their computer responsibly, give them a desktop and orient its monitor so that it can be seen by you when you casually walk by
Funny. I give my clients this same advice, except substitute "Marketing Department" for "kids."
The astro-physicists would all be wearing low-cut gowns.
Does anybody really think there is any shortage of glamorous mathematicians or two-fisted archaeologists in Hollywood? Not to mention they are frequently written as the Voice of Reason, Saving the Day, Etc. The era of scientists being depicted as whining and dreary eggheads who cowardly scamper about in the shadow of the macho leading man left vogue with Doctor Zarkov.
Oh, and not for nothing, you can teach science, but you cannot teach creativity. The government would be better served rounding up a couple dozen young but semi-established script-writers and giving them a crash course in astronomy. Of course, commissioning some Haiku from a bunch of Quantum Physicists would be pretty cool, in a Mondo 2000 kind of way...
If you distribute copyrighted stuff from your computer without any formal agreement with the copyright holder to perform such distribution, you're liable. If you distribute non-copyrighted stuff -- public domain, creative commons, or (gods forbid!) something you've created yourself, -- you're okey doke.
One may disagree with the scope and breadth of legal protections afforded copyright holders, but that's a different debate.
Of course, you're not liable if you download only and don't (re)distribute. You're a leech, but you're a *legal* leech.
Messy and unclear? Not at all. Sticky and socially unacceptable? Now *there's* a topic worth discussing...
There were quite a number in the '90s who wouldn't upgrade to Windows 3.10 or 95 because, heck, they didn't see a need.
Didn't see a need? There WASN'T a need. 3.1 moved with the speed and grace of a wounded elephant in quicksand, while DOS spun like a top. It was the new apps (and lack of support for the old) that drove users onto Windows, not any virtues of the OS.
And Agenda!! Does anyone remember Lotus Agenda (a DOS app)? The PIM of the Gods! The most amazing open-ended information manager ever created, yet never to be seen or even re-envisioned again, like some kind of super-advanced crystal-technology from Lost Atlantis! Lotus replaced it with the cartoonish Organizer for Windows, and Life Turned a Page.
Am I a neo-luddite because I prefer to work in Xterm over pointing and clicking? Do I lose Geek Points for using fluxbox instead of KDE?
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with these interviews since they completely fall in line with PR strategy to shape opinion with the "slashdot crowd".
And just who might the "slashdot crowd" be? IT industry decision-makers? Stop it, you're killing me.
In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that the majority of slashdot readers are Windows users. Exclusively. Dual Linux/Windows booters fall in a distant second.
More to the point, I'm betting Microsoft suspects this as well (they certainly advertise enough here, do they not?). Therefore, an interview with this dude makes a lot of sense for all involved, with the regrettable exception of the zealots and the posers.
Slashdot Mirror
Have been since about 1995.
In the five or so years prior to that, as the geeks were the first to establish presences on the Web (both as individuals and for their companies), we wrote the HTML, load-balanced the servers, and photo-shopped and [saints preserve us...] ShockWaved our heinies off, cuz the medium was so new, no one knew it looked like crap. It was just new tech, and we were the tech guys, so, we did it. All of it, including the design and content stuff that we had no business having anything to do with. Circa mid-90's, proper business practices began to develop, and the professional content and design people "moved on to the Web," and we geeks, for the most part, found ourselves back in the server rooms and behind our compilers where we belonged.
What are "blogs" but 21st century "personal web pages?" The content management software is slicker than the vi and notepad.exe we used 15 years ago, but the intents are the same. And we Geeks were once again at the forefront (and it showed, in most of the pedantic content). Now, big media and other corporations have caught the new-old wave, and the content people too busy with their professional deadlines up to now are finally being pointed towards the direction of the -- dare I say it? -- 'blogosphere.' Geeks, once the blogging majority, find their mindshare getting edged out by pro writers, photographers, designers, and people who just have more interesting lives about which to blog.
It's not a bad thing.
In the meantime, the geeks are moving into podcasting, and so the Circle of Life continues... (cue the zebras...)
removing their virii and others as well as great software such as CoolWebSearch and their ilk all day EVERYDAY of their sentence.
Too lenient. How about they get wired up to some slashdot server and are delivered a slight electric shock every time some idiot writes "virii?" Two shots for "cracker" every time it is not used in the context of edible wafers.
Now, THAT's script-kiddie rehab!
i guess this shows more than russia has some awesome programmers
What, specifically, in the "code" of these viruses constitutes the "awesome" part?
You're proving my point (and don't think I'm not appreciative).
Fact of the matter is, with the notable if farcical exception of Anton LaVey, there aren't a whole lot of non-Christians who go to the trouble Jefferson did to make their own bibles. Fact of the matter is, were he alive today, TJ would be the Bible-Thumper's Bible-Thumper. Would he split hairs with the Pope and Jerry Falwell re transubstantiation and the nature of the Trinity? Yes. Would he for a minute allow the banning of prayer in public school, the scrubbing of the 10 commandments from courtrooms, the removal of "under God" from the Pledge to happen on his watch? Guy with a frickin' Bible named after him, one he edited himself?
C'mon, you know the answer...
You are completely wrong. If anything, most of the founding fathers were Deists,
Jefferson was a deist, and please see my post elsewhere in this thread re exactly what kind of deist we're talking about here.
As for the other wig-heads, well, let's just take a look at the woodshedding they gave poor Ol' Reasonable Tom Paine shortly after he went rogue:
Sam Adams (The Statesman, not the Brewer), wrote to him, "[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?" (William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1865) III:372-73, to Thomas Paine on Nov. 30, 1802.)
and John Adams was similarly unamused:
"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will" (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, Ed., (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) III:421, dairy entry for July 26, 1796.)
Later, in a letter to Jefferson, this Wingnut, Adams, wrote:
"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System." (Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40)
And what about Ben Franklin, that skirt-chasing, France-loving, wine-tasting, electricity-discovering scientist? Surely he wasn't down with those evil, crusade-calling, inquisition-loving small-'X' xtians, was he? Let's ask:
"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion. . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
Our Boy Ben, "Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania," 1749, p.22)
Benjamn Rush, Charles Carrol, and John Witherspoon -- Declaration of Independence signes all -- called Paine's work "absurd and impious"[1], "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion" [2], and Paine himself "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith." [3]
[1]Benjamin Rush, "Letters of Benjamin Rush," L.H. Butterfield, ed., (Princeton University Press, 1951) II:770, to John Dickenson on Feb 16, 1796.
[2]Joseph Gurn, "Charles Carrol of Carrolton" (NY: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932, p. 203.
[3]John Witherspoon, "The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon" (Phila: Wm W. Woodward, 1802) III:24n2, from "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men," delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776
They wer
Jefferson was a deist, sure, who wrote
...in an 1822 letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse. (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907. (Memorial Edition) vol. 15, p. 383.)
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man:
1. That there is one only God, and He all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion....
Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian."
Six years earlier, in a letter to Charles Thomas Bergh, TJ was quick to clarify:
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus--very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great Reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were He to return on earth, would not recognize one feature."(as above, vol. 14, pg. 385)
But yeah, he did check the box next to DEIST on his census form.
My point is that, on the value of religion at least, Tom Paine clearly ran counter to the Founding Fathers. It's become a common (albeit no longer clever) ruse to invoke Paine's name when arguing against the "Forefathers Intended Religion to be Part of US Society" angle; Paine's name is meant to spook the Forefather-invoker.
Was Paine wrong re Religion? Were Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, et. al. right? A discussion for a different thread, and I've argued both sides in my days. But there can really be no argument that the Money-Head folks intended a prominent and positive role for religion in their new nation's development. The warping of the Constitution's 'Establishment Clause' which prevents the Feds from creating a national religion into something blocking local municipalities from putting up creches or ten commandments or magic groves in their public parks if enough townies want them is just perverse.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
/.
Oh, Thomas Paine, Thomas Paine!! Poster-Child for "When Forefathers Go Rogue!" Pretty much booted from The Club with that "Age of Reason" thing. (Look it up.) Simply *NOT* what the Heads-On-Currency Crowd had in mind for this country, pure and simple. You can argue that Da Boyzz were wrong when it came to the whole Higher Power thingee, and that's fine, but then you're picking and choosing your Constitution Framer-y Goodness, and that makes you no better than either of the Left/Right Extremists.
Still and all, the Ol' "Thomas Paine Cry" remains a pretty effective argument for the average high-school-level civics of most Americans, cuz most of us think we kinda sorta remember him as being part of that whole Ben Franklin scene, so what he wrote must be in synch with the thinking of the Forefathers, right? Right? Good one. But ya needs do better on a large public forum such as
Grade: C+
An ad hominem attack is attacking the speaker instead of the argument.
/. terms: if a poster has a history of trashing Linux, denigrating it and its users, is in fact an avowed and rabid Windows devotee, his contribution to a discussion re the development of the Linux kernel should be viewed (in the very least) as, say, 'colored.' Practically speaking, he would probably get shouted down and modded as Troll. "Hungrygrue" has just such a comment history re Children, yet in a discussion re new theories for their development, his rant and namecalling got modded *up*. It's not a "you're not a parent, so you know nothing" thing, it's a "you've plainly established that you hate children so why are you even part of this discussion" thing.
Um, I know that, D00d. I've borne more than my share of them online for something like 15 years.
My point here is that perspective of the speaker is valid. Putting it in
you suck at life.
Beware those snap judgements, my friend. They have a way of coming and back and biting you somewhere down the line.
Peace.
ad-hominum argument
Ad hominem? I'm missing that. Don't see it, you'll have to be specific.
From my point of veiw
And what perspective is that, that of a parent or a non-parent?
What?!?
Man, I gotta get me some Alcoa stock, cuz the tin-foil hat population just grows and grows.
Here's the point: I have 4 children, aged 10, 7, 4, and 4. When the topic is kids and their homework, I get a say, value of 'X.' Some childless 20-something turning his nose up at all the 'breeders' and their 'brats,' he gets a say as well, but it's of considerably less value than 'X.'
Now, obviously, if the topic is the Fall line of Ikea furniture or the unfortunate choices Cher has made in her career, I yield the floor to the breeder-haters, but since we're talking about raising children here, my question to hungrygrue is valid and remains: "How many children do you have, and what are their ages?" His comment history is riddled with disparaging statements about children; why should one's anonymity afford credibility?
How many children do you have?
What are their ages?
Thanks.
the other *tenth* of the species
Maybe in San Francisco, where the event was held.
The *tenth* number species-wide is a fallacy invented by the marketing guys of certain magazines and cable channels so as to increase the amount they can charge for advertisements.
Of course, the minority does not dispute it because it serves their purpose, and the majority who don't believe it keep their mouths shut out of political correctness.
But, yeah, it's an ad sales thing...
Free Wi-Fi? Sure. Why Not? They've been ladling out the free Kool-Aid here for months, and that's worked out well for them. Tastes great too, doesn't it?
DOESN'T IT?!?
*sigh*
OK, Citizen-Praetorian DiBona, you win. Resistance is futile, I see that now. Tell me where I report for re-programming.
Go back to whittling your stick on the porch, grandpa. We'll happily stay off your lawn if it means you'll shut the hell up.
Whassa matter, Bunky? Wake up this morning and realize that the pinnacle of your generation's techno-cultural legacy is shaping up as a tie between E-Bay and XBox? Have the images of Neil Armstrong planting a flag on the moon that they burned into your brain in Junior High School as part of a futile attempt to inspire you finally giving you a cross-generational case of penis-envy? Understandable. You have my sympathies. It must really suck.
Hey, I got an idea: why doncha come on back and play on my lawn? My gnomes are getting lonely.
And who raised the kids in such an attention-starved environment that they write to a handful (or more) of online entities just so they can feel some satisfaction and relevance in their lives?
C'mon, D00d. Take some responsibility for your life. You're embarrassing your parents again.
lifestyle you guys fought so hard for back in the 60's
I was born in '60, son. More 'Blank Generation' than 'Boomer,' but don't let the facts stop you, you're on a roll.
I fear that my generation (I'm 28) might be one of those unlucky historical examples of one which didn't get to do jack shit because they were so busy catering to the needs of their wealthy elders while trying to patch up the disasterous debts they left us.
Actually, you didn't do jack shit because you were too busy blogging and trying to reconcile it as something other than vanity.
I'm firmly convinced that had we Instant Messaging and Blogs and computer administrators who fancied themselves designers (and vice versa) fifty years ago, Apollo would still be no more than a Greek god.
Why don't someone create a worm that installs FireFox, while making it seem, to the average non-tech savvy Internet Explorer, that s/he is still using IE?
You're obviously an above-average tech savvy guy; why don't you create it?
Until you trust your kids to browse the internet and use their computer responsibly, give them a desktop and orient its monitor so that it can be seen by you when you casually walk by
Funny. I give my clients this same advice, except substitute "Marketing Department" for "kids."
The astro-physicists would all be wearing low-cut gowns.
Does anybody really think there is any shortage of glamorous mathematicians or two-fisted archaeologists in Hollywood? Not to mention they are frequently written as the Voice of Reason, Saving the Day, Etc. The era of scientists being depicted as whining and dreary eggheads who cowardly scamper about in the shadow of the macho leading man left vogue with Doctor Zarkov.
Oh, and not for nothing, you can teach science, but you cannot teach creativity. The government would be better served rounding up a couple dozen young but semi-established script-writers and giving them a crash course in astronomy. Of course, commissioning some Haiku from a bunch of Quantum Physicists would be pretty cool, in a Mondo 2000 kind of way...
Messy? Unclear? Please.
If you distribute copyrighted stuff from your computer without any formal agreement with the copyright holder to perform such distribution, you're liable. If you distribute non-copyrighted stuff -- public domain, creative commons, or (gods forbid!) something you've created yourself, -- you're okey doke.
One may disagree with the scope and breadth of legal protections afforded copyright holders, but that's a different debate.
Of course, you're not liable if you download only and don't (re)distribute. You're a leech, but you're a *legal* leech.
Messy and unclear? Not at all. Sticky and socially unacceptable? Now *there's* a topic worth discussing...
What's your point?
I don't use Yahoo on principle"
OK, I'll bite: What principle would that be?
There were quite a number in the '90s who wouldn't upgrade to Windows 3.10 or 95 because, heck, they didn't see a need.
Didn't see a need? There WASN'T a need. 3.1 moved with the speed and grace of a wounded elephant in quicksand, while DOS spun like a top. It was the new apps (and lack of support for the old) that drove users onto Windows, not any virtues of the OS.
And Agenda!! Does anyone remember Lotus Agenda (a DOS app)? The PIM of the Gods! The most amazing open-ended information manager ever created, yet never to be seen or even re-envisioned again, like some kind of super-advanced crystal-technology from Lost Atlantis! Lotus replaced it with the cartoonish Organizer for Windows, and Life Turned a Page.
Am I a neo-luddite because I prefer to work in Xterm over pointing and clicking? Do I lose Geek Points for using fluxbox instead of KDE?
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with these interviews since they completely fall in line with PR strategy to shape opinion with the "slashdot crowd".
And just who might the "slashdot crowd" be? IT industry decision-makers? Stop it, you're killing me.
In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that the majority of slashdot readers are Windows users. Exclusively. Dual Linux/Windows booters fall in a distant second.
More to the point, I'm betting Microsoft suspects this as well (they certainly advertise enough here, do they not?). Therefore, an interview with this dude makes a lot of sense for all involved, with the regrettable exception of the zealots and the posers.