Katz has been ranting about the impending downfall of traditional media for years. Thus far, time has proven him wrong (yes, Katz is wrong again). Well established, traditional sources of news are still valued for their depth of coverage.
Of course, the savvy Internet weenie makes use of a variety of news sources. Some are specialized, such as SlashDot, GoVote.Com, Voodoo-Extreme, Skinz.Org, etc, and provide information uniquely tailored to meet the user's interests. However, sites such as these cannot begin to match the depth of coverage on numerous issues that organizations such as the BBC, New York TImes, Washington Post, Times of London, etc offer. When I want to spend some time chewing on world events and politics I go to the BBC, New York Times, or equivalent websites. No other site/organizations can provide the level of coverage I seek.
Katz's ridiculous arguments are perhaps illustrated by the following statements:
"It is no accident that the companies that have managed to profit most from the information revolution are the ones that devote the most energy to maximizing customer responsiveness."
"That would be mean neither the newspaper nor publishing industries, both of which have made it a sacred virtue to be disconnected from and unresponsive to their customers."
Now, what large, mainstream English-speaking metropolitan newspaper does NOT provide free access to most, if not all, of it's news content? The Wall Street Journal is the only one I know of and it can be argued that the WSJ is actually a specialized publication, rather than a standard "big-city" paper.
So, the newspaper industry is 'disconnected' from and 'unresponsive to their customers' yet they provide free access to their entire publications to every Internet-capable human being on the planet? What a load of crap!
One of the most fascinating things about the Internet, IMHO: people complain constantly about FREE STUFF! A couple of examples that I've seen repeated often: "Hey, these girlie pictures I downloaded from the Centerfold newsgroup don't have indices, so I'm forced to wade through all of these pictures of beautiful women to find out which ones I want to keep. Post indexes next time, A-Hole" "This freeware doesn't do this or that, so the author is an idiot" Check out Skinz.Org: All of the thousands of skins/wallpapers are free, but there's usually a rude whiner or two that beats up on the artists, with no attempt to provide constructive criticism.
Now, Newspapers that give away all of their content gratis are somehow disconnected from and unresponsive to their customers. IT'S FREE KATZ! HELLO! It doesn't get more responsive than that!
Katz is, as always, simplistic, whiny, predictable and sensationalist. However, in the past year, he's finally punched through my irritation barrier and has entered the "boring" zone. I'm not even sure why I've wasted time responding to this piece...I'm convinced he'll rehash this material (a favorite topic, based on his record) in a year or so, with the same illogic and "shoot-from-the-hip" stance.
Why in the world does SlashDot continue to provide Katz with such a high-profile venue? Are we so hard-up we can't find anyone capable of rational argument and original thought?
It baffles me that any American can ask whether or not another form of taxation matters. Have you done your taxes yet this year? I have, and I can tell you, taxes matter: most of us work exclusively for Uncle Sam from January to what, March or April? And that's just FEDERAL INCOME TAX! Add Social Security, Medicare, State Income Tax, Gasoline Tax, Cigarette Tax, Inheritance Tax, on and on and on....
We've gone from a country that had NO income tax at the end of the nineteenth century to a country that wants to tax the pennies in our eyes at the end of the twentieth.
Understand this: let Uncle Sam dig a finger into your pocket, and eventually he'll get his whole hand in there. Social Security is the ultimate example: We're FORCED to participate in an antiquated system designed and implemented long before most of us were born. Furthermore, although Social Security withholding has generated many, many millions more than the system pays out, the PERCENTAGE OF DEDUCTION HAS INCREASED AT LEAST THREE TIMES IN THE PAST 50 YEARS! In other words, the citizenry is paying a much greater percentage of their wages into Social Security today than they were fifty years ago, despite the fact that the withholdings generate vast sums of money, much more than is needed to support those currently collecting benefits.
Why? Because, for 50 years, POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY REVENUE ON OTHER THINGS, programs and projects completely unrelated to our retirement. In place of the cash various Congresses and Presidents have left "IOUs".
Now, one of the greatest debates currently making the rounds in Washington: How to "Save" Social Security? What happened to all of the money Politiicans have siphoned off over the years? POOF!, gone... And the IOU's? Worthless, of course.
Amazingly, NO politician other than Steve Forbes, I believe, has suggested a complete conversion to a privatized form of Social Security. Uncle Sam just can't conceive of that, especilly under the scrutiny of powerfull lobbies like the AARP. The only things Politicians have managed to change: increasing withholding percentages or, as of today, eliminating the earnings cap, legislation the AARP fully supports.
How many Americans know that the Supreme Court has ruled that NO CITIZEN has a right to Social Security money, despite the length of time and/or the amount of money they've contributed.
Who in the hell gave Uncle Sam the right to decide what's best for my retirement? Can they do a better job of it than I? Why is it any business of the Government's? Most importantly, what portion of the Constitution gives any Branch of Government the authority to meddle in these matters?
I use the example of Social Security to illustrate a point: Uncle Sam begins by taking a little bit of money, but soon comes back for more and more. What's worse, he's not even a good steward of our money. He swears that he's taking it for this purpose but, pretty soon, it's paying for everything but.
We should be fighting proposals favoring any Internet related taxation just as energeticaly as we fight for free-speech issues. We know how best to spend our money: Let's not give Uncle Sam the opportunity to waste more of are hard-earned greenbacks.
(By the way, for further information on Social Security I suggest a vist to Cato.Org)
There are many "hot-button" and high-profile issues in this debate: the right of taxpayers to decide how their taxes are spent, the welfare of children, unfettered access to the miracle of the info-bahn, State's rights vs Federalism, the First Amendment, pornography.....and those are the ones I came up with off the top of my head.
In fact, there are so many intricate and crucial elements to this issue that, after giving serious consideration to the question, I'm still not certain what I would do if I had to make a similar decision.
However difficult the issue might be to unravel, I'm comforted by one thought: if the community makes a terribly wrong decision the Judicial branch of our Government will eventually correct it, based on careful analysis of Constitutional principles. If the solution the community adopts runs contrary to the Constitution then the matter will be decided in the Courts, State first (most likely), then Federal.
I wouldn't be surprised if an issue as convoluted as this one makes it to the top of the Judicial food chain, the Supreme Court. Thus far, the Supreme Court has been a supporter of the freedom of speech as it pertains to the Internet. That's encouraging: it suggests that the Court will give proper consideration to the First Amendment as it intersects all of the other crucial issues at stake in this debate.
Of course, that's certainly wouldn't be the the end of the controversy; some might say it would actually be the beginning. A Supreme Court ruling that is contrary to the community's wishes will stir up the 200+ year old controversy over Federalism vs State's rights.
Furthermore, it doesn't help one bit when the time comes for me to make the sort of decision citizens of Holland are making. However, it's somewhat comforting to know that if I do make a drastic mistake the Judicial Branch will correct it. It worked for the CDA, and it's worked for 200+ years. Looks like the men that created the Constitution knew what they were doing.
Re:Depends on the person.
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
You've made some very interesting points. I'd like to expand on them by describing some of the ways people's social lives can be drastically enhanced by the Internet. The Internet can provide a wealth of social experiences for the elderly, who can become isolated and disabled, for the severely physically handicapped, who are unable to interact and communicate with others face to face, for those who are physically disfigured and whose appearance might interefere with normal human interaction, for those that are chronically shy and reclusive, for those with severe speach disabilities, for the deaf and in some cases the blind, etc, etc. Sure the Internet might (has, in my case) replace some portion of traditional human interaction, but let's not forget the flip side.
Yes, the Internet offers new and unfamilar forms of social interaction. However, as the study shows, young folks seem to be more comfortable with the concepts than those my age (mid-30s). I can't escape the nagging feeling that time on the Internet is time I should be spending doing other, more worthwhile things, things I did before I knew what the internet was. And i think that way, although I know that a good part of what I do on the net enriches my life in important ways. Old habits die hard, as they say....
Re:Adults yes younger people no.
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 2
I saw that piece too (and I'll take a second to plug the outstanding Newshour to anyone that's interested in balanced, in-depth news coverage:BTW, Robin McNeil retired a few years ago and is no longer affiliated with the Newshour, AFIK)
I'd have to agree that I've allowed the Internet to supplant part of my non-virtual social life. However, the Internet has had a drastic and positive effect upon other areas of my life.
An example: Anyone familar with GoVote.Com, the site devoted to American politics? The site is amazing: large amounts of information about each of the Presidential candidates, backed up by quotes from the candidates themselves, as well as frequently updated links to major Online news source news stories about the candidates and the elections. Finally, somewhere I can go to find out each candidates position on a very wide variety of issues.
Where did we go to get information of that sort before the Internet? Nowhere, unless you chose to buy a handfull of newspapers on a daily basis and read every election-related article, hoping to achieve some sense of balance. Think of the expense and time involved in all of that. Now, imagine imagine all of that information at your fingertips, laid out for you, all virtually for free, and you've begun to understand the power of the Net. Perhaps that's a bit cliched, but it's still true: the Internet truly has the potential to change all of our lives for the better...
Unfortunately, I've allowed the Net to negatively impact certain aspects of my life. In one or two aspects the negative impact has been drastic, particularly the gut I've grown since becoming attached to this damn keyboard. However, I'm confident that I'll correct for those things in time. Eventually, life will become more balanced.
Finally, I think it's important to remember that the study is one of the first of it's kind on such a scale and, by the researcher's own admission, was limited in the breadth of it's conclusions. In other words, the study merely gauged one aspect of the impact of the Iternet upon users, albeit an important one. The extent to which "Virtual" socializing might have replaced socializing face to face was not a factor.
Oklahoma City will be a big stop on your Route 66 trip. I don't recall seeing any Internet Cafes around town, but I checked the Yellow Pages (i.e. business telephone listings) just in case. Unfortunately, I came up empty-handed. however, I'll dig a bit deeper and will E-Mail you if I find anything.
A problem you may have here in OKC: the metro area is very large, and finding a hotel near the cafe, if one can be found, might be difficult. Hopefully we can find something for you near the Bricktown area, a part of old Oklahoma City that's been refurbished and facelifted: there's a riverwalk, fountains, restaraunts, a baseball stadium, etc.
Another likely use of such data (if an effective long-term storage medium is implemented): A prosecutorial tool. Perhaps the collection of such data won't generate investigations, but will support investigations and prosecutions based on other sources.
For instance, a child molester is arrested for playing doctor with a local boy. His computer is examined and is found to have pedophilia-related pictures. The authorities can then use the collected ISP data to track the pedophile's connection to other pedophiles.
Well, at least I assume that's the sort of story the Russian government (and any other government, including the US) will try to sell to their population. I can't help but think that governments will be unable to resist the temptation to use the power of such tools against it's citizenry. Call me paranoid, but George Orwell's "Big Brother" concept seems less and less like a product of fiction.
Speaking of the great Orwell, here's a quote from "1984":
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
Feeding Poor vs Exploring Space: Apples vs Oranges
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
>Waterworld costed more >Amen to that. Maybe those people who scream "We should feed everyone here! But it's not my job!"
The cost of Waterworld, and whether or not it's the responsibility of the Federal Government to feed the poor of this country, have nothing to do with the issue of Federal support of Space Exploration.
The poor people of this country live next door to, or down the street from you and I. You and I, as private citizens on an individual basis, or in small, local citizens groups (Churches,Temples, Elks, VFW, etc) can feed the poor more effectively and more efficiently than the Feds will ever be able to.
The Federal government was created for the sole purpose of doing ONLY those things that we, as individuals, or the local forms of government that represent us, are ill equipped to do: provide for the national defense, regulate national/international commerce, to coin money, to establish a postal service, etc, etc. (Constitution, Article 1, Section 8)
So, should the Federal Government support space exploration? I believe so, depending upon the circumstances.
The tradition of Federally funded exploration goes back at least as far as President Jefferson's support of the Lewis and Clarke expedition. Thomas Jefferson understood the Constitution as well as anyone could and, therefore, an impeccable precedent was set early in our Nation's history.
Furthermore, space exploration is not something that local governments, let alone individuals, can accomplish effectively. The resources of the Federal government are neccesary for the success of any large-scale effort to explore and populate space.
Therefore, if the goals are worthwhile, then yes, I believe that the Federal government should be allowed to support the exploration of space.
Over the past few years, at Wired and now Slashdot, I've tried repeatedly to understand Mr. Katz's point of views. Unfortunately, I've finally concluded that Mr. Katz is actually the "Angry Geek" he describes in this, the last of his articles that I'll waste my time on. His anger and frustration have been directed at everything imagineable, from the Moviehouse Ticket Booth salesperson to those who "trample on free speach" because they don't like the idea of Hustler magazine sitting beside the Sports Illustated in the magazine rack of the local 7-11.
His sophomoric, repetitious "America does not have true free speach!" themes are particularly annoying. It's an issue that deserves discussion, but all too often Mr. Katz's eschews discussion and consideration of various aspects of an issue, preferring instead to use the Slashdot forum to rant and rave in a single-minded, uninformative, tirade.
Hasn't Mr. Katz's Wired credentials carried him far enough? Aren't folks tired of his brand of "button pushing"? Surely there are many Techie journalists who'd love the chance to actually present new and interesting ideas about Internet issues in a non-inflammatory manner? I say give them a chance, and then Mr. Katz can go rant on Usenet like everyone else.
I've been an @Home subscriber for several years. I was one of the first half-dozen or so in my part of the Metro Area to get the service: I'd been anticipating it for months, excited by the enormous potential of broadband Internet access. In some ways, @Home delivered on their promises. However, there were, and are, glaring examples of neglect and incompetence. @Home's Usenet feed has been at the top of the list since day 1.
@Home's usenet philosophy has always been single-pronged: speed is the one and only aspect of Usenet that @Home has administered effectively and, on regular occasions, they've failed in this respect. As far as I can tell, @Home could care less about any Usenet issue beyond that single one. Many of @Home's servers have pathetic retention. Incomplete capture of multipart messages is a problem on most, if not all, of @Home's servers. Occasional outtages leave Usenet users high and dry. Lack of communication and/or response on the part of @Home tech support regarding Usenet issues is another principle complaint. @Home's lack of interest in usenet extends to the inclusion of new groups: in my experience, @Home only adds new groups if those groups are specifically requested by @Home subscribers. Most other major ISPs I've used have had enough motivation to regularly update their groups.
I was not aware of the @Home-Spam connection, but it doesn't surprise me in the least: it's completely in keeping with my observations of @Home's Usenet (mis)management.
I'm a male Radar System's Technician and, while not professionaly involved in the computer industry, I've been a PC and Internet Geek since '95. I've worked side by side with many females since beginning my career 17 years ago. My attitude regarding females in the workplace: I could care less about the gender or race of my co-worker. My only concerns regarding my colleagues: their technical ability, their desire to do their job, and whether or not they can function effectively within a group.
My primary concern, based on my experience, is that artificial attempts to equalize the gender ratio in workplaces will negatively impact creativity and productivity. In other words, Federal mandates designed to increase the number of females in the workplace will force employers to hire a certain percentage of females, whether or not those female applicants are as qualified as the male applicants they're competing with.
I've seen such things time and time again.
I believe that Technically oriented workplaces will be among those most affected by such legislation. Although I've encountered female Technicians that were as capable as any of their male counterparts, they've been the exception and certainly not the rule. I don't know why there seems to be such a disparity between the abilities of the two genders in Technical environments. Whatever the reason(s), such drastic disparities don't seem to exist in other workplace environments I'm familar with.
The botttom line: Females that have the brains, drive, and all of the other neccesary capabilities WILL be "creators of software and virtual communities" Females that don't have those qualities shouldn't be given an advantage over men that do.
Regarding your suggestion of Turing: as a footnote I'd mention the little-known British Postal worker whose basic design was used by Turing and those at Bletchley Park to create Colossus, the first "programmable computer". I'm not terribly familar with the man, but the fact that he played such an important role in the War and in the early development of computational devices, yet remains almost completely unknown, attests to his "Geek" status.
"Ignored" was used as a "Geek" qualifier in this discussion, and I can't think of anyone that the word applies to more than this individual. "Colossus" remained a top-secret project for many years after the War's end. In fact, this man, who played a crucial role in it's development, died in obscurity, before he was allowed to enjoy the public praise he deserved. His invention, Colossus, fared little better: All but one were destroyed immediately after the War. The one that survived was used in the Cold War as a Communist code-breaker. Eventually, it was destroyed as well.
Can anyone remember this man's name? I've searched the web without luck.
Rather than post the same message to the board every time DaVinci is mentioned, I'll just provide a link to my previous response to the question of DaVinci and Michelangelo as "Geeks of the Millenium"
DaVinci immediately sprang to mind as a front-runner but, based strictly on the criterion "What oppressed, nerdy, ignored, and shunned individuals proved everyone wrong" he would be disqaulified; DaVinci was very well-liked. He was cultured and pleasant, and his company wes enjoyable and sought after.
I might nominate one of the few people that didn't like Leonardo (primarily due to an envy of the universal affection for Leonardo): A personal hero of mine, Michelangelo. Michelangelo was more the misanthrope than Leonardo. He could be difficult to get along with, bull-headed, occasionally a physical coward, envious and, I think, prone to complain a bit more than the average person. In short, unlike DaVinci and the other member of the triumvirate, Raphael Sanzio, Michelangelo was not always the life of the party.
Of course, I specified that I "might" nominate him. However, there are two reasons why I don't believe he would qualify.
First, Michelangelo was not a scientist, not even a naturalist, although he was curious about nature insofar as the knowledge of nature might improve his art (e.g. he dissected human bodies to study musculature and bone structure) I assume that part of "geekness" is an interest in science of some sort, and I don't believe Michelangelo had much interest in science for it's own sake.
Finally, both Michelangelo and DaVinci fail the "...proved everyone wrong" test. Michelangelo was an acknowledged genius upon completion of the "Pieta" at age 23 or 24. He was hailed as the greatest sculptor since the Classical age and his reputation only increased over time. I know less about Leonardo's young life, but I believe that he too was an acknowledged genius while still quite young. In other words, the western world immediately realized the genius of both men and there was no "...proved everyone wrong" about it: early on, both men set an artistic standard that lasted for generations.
DaVinci immediately sprang to mind as a front-runner but, based strictly on the criterion "What oppressed, nerdy, ignored, and shunned individuals proved everyone wrong" he would be disqaulified; DaVinci was very well-liked. He was cultured and pleasant, and his company wes enjoyable and sought after.
I might nominate one of the few people that didn't like Leonardo (due, in part, to an envy of the universal affection for Leonardo): A personal hero of mine, Michelangelo. Michelangelo was more the misanthrope than Leonardo. He could be difficult to get along with, bull-headed, occasionally a physical coward, envious and, I think, prone to complain a bit more than the average person. In short, unlike DaVinci and the other member of the triumvirate, Raphael Sanzio, Michelangelo was not always the life of the party.
Of course, I specified that I "might" nominate him. However, there are two reasons why I don't believe he would qualify.
First, Michelangelo was not a scientist, not even a naturalist, although he was curious about nature insofar as the knowledge of nature might improve his art (e.g. he dissected human bodies to study musculature and bone structure) I assume that part of "geekness" is an interest in science of some sort, and I don't believe Michelangelo had much interest in science for it's own sake.
Finally, both Michelangelo and DaVinci fail the "...proved everyone wrong" test. Michelangelo was an acknowledged genius upon completion of the "Pieta" at age 23 or 24. He was hailed as the greatest sculptor since the Classical age and his reputation only increased over time. I know less about Leonardo's young life, but I believe that he too was an acknowledged genius while still quite young. In other words, the western world immediately realized the genius of both men and there was no "...proved everyone wrong" about it: early on, both men set an artistic standard that lasted for generations.
I agree: the article is out of focus from the first sentence: "One of America's most enduring and self-deluded myths about itself is that it's a free, thus morally superior country"
No responsible, intelligent American believes that they're free to do as they please: the very idea is silly. Freedom will be absolute the day that a Utopian society is created, which is to say freedom will never be absolute.
What American's believe is that America has more freedom than most other countries. Does that lead to a "Superiority Complex"? Unfortunately, in some cases, yes. Moral Superiority? No. It would be more accurate to use the term "Political Superiority".
Unfortunately, more often than not, Katz makes assumptions and generalizations that are incorrect (or insufficiently defined) then attempts to tear down the supposed ideals of an ignorant and outdated society. His Wired pieces often suffered from the same myopia.
One thing has become increasingly obvious about Mr. Katz: he's hell-bent on de-bunking the mores and beliefs of mainstream society, even if he has to manufacute those mores and beliefs, as he has in this piece.
What is most fascinating about this article is that Mr. Katz has absolutely missed the point: the very fact that Mr. Singer can publicly express his controversial, and in some quarters, unpopular opinions is proof that America is relatively free country.
Don't like the term "relatively free"? Well, the word "relatively" can be removed just as soon as we create a Utopian society, in which all members are absolutely responsible and absolutely free. In the mean time America, and other countries that hold the ideals of freedom in high regard, will have to make do with their imperfect attempts at freedom.
Finally, I agree whole-heartedly with PB's last sentence: Mr. Katz's piece could have done without the inflammatory rhetoric (ie, "Dying Babies and The Myth of American Freedom" Mr. Katz should offer his headline-creating services to Rupert Murdoch: Copy like that is right up Murdoch's alley) It obscures what might have been an interesting and insightful article. I sometimes think that Mr. Katz is more interested in controversy than content, and this article does nothing but confirm my suspicions.
A recent study proved that, without any doubt, MP3 audio can be at, or near, CD quality. Of course, there are many variables: Hardware quality (Stereo System, Speakers, etc), software quality (encoder) and the quality of the listener's ears. However, most of those that took part in the study were unable to significantly distinguish between CD and MP3 audio (and those that participated were audiophiles) However, the three participants that the author predicted would be most likely capable of distinguishing between the two formats (because of their background) scored higher than the others.
I don't recall the URL, but Slashdot had a story and a link just a few days ago. Try doing a search of recent posts: The article's a must-read for anyone interested in MP3
My reply doesn't involve personal charity, but local technology-related charity on the part of a sizeable business.
I work at a large FAA facility in Oklahoma City. The FAA's logistics center is here and, eventually, most of the FAA's outdated equipment is sent here for disposal. A section of the warehouse here in OKC is earmarked for this equipment and, once or twice a year, whenever enough old stuff accumulates, the FAA auctions it off by the pallet load to the highest bidder.
The equipment sent to the logistics center is of every sort imagineable: from old radar systems to aircraft parts, furniture, test equipment, etc. Many older (286/386/486) desktop PCs are turned in as well.
The folks that run the show in the warehouse have developed a program whereby the local school district has first pick of the desktop PCs, before the items go out to auction. The schools get the equipment for free.
I'm impressed with the program: it's a great way to help kids out as well as en excellent community relations builder.
My sentiments exactly. It's a mini-computer: It can be used strictly for games or business or some combination of both. The Pilot's flexibility is a good part of it's value: The article mentioned that a boy enjoyed playing games on his father's V. The author didn't make the connection that the Father might very well enjoy the other aspects of the Palm Pilot: it's ability to simply and effectively organize many aspects of modern life. It's certainly worked for me: I began a year or two ago with a Pilot 5000 and enjoyed it so much that I recently upgraded to a IIIx. I use it for everything: home and office.
In the end, though, it dcepends on the individual. Some people don't feel comfortable with computers and associated gadgets. Personally, I think they're missing out, but that's their choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Katz has been ranting about the impending downfall of traditional media for years. Thus far, time has proven him wrong (yes, Katz is wrong again). Well established, traditional sources of news are still valued for their depth of coverage.
Of course, the savvy Internet weenie makes use of a variety of news sources. Some are specialized, such as SlashDot, GoVote.Com, Voodoo-Extreme, Skinz.Org, etc, and provide information uniquely tailored to meet the user's interests. However, sites such as these cannot begin to match the depth of coverage on numerous issues that organizations such as the BBC, New York TImes, Washington Post, Times of London, etc offer. When I want to spend some time chewing on world events and politics I go to the BBC, New York Times, or equivalent websites. No other site/organizations can provide the level of coverage I seek.
Katz's ridiculous arguments are perhaps illustrated by the following statements:
"It is no accident that the companies that have managed to profit most from the information revolution are the ones that devote the most energy to maximizing customer responsiveness."
"That would be mean neither the newspaper nor publishing industries, both of which have made it a sacred virtue to be disconnected from and unresponsive to their customers."
Now, what large, mainstream English-speaking metropolitan newspaper does NOT provide free access to most, if not all, of it's news content? The Wall Street Journal is the only one I know of and it can be argued that the WSJ is actually a specialized publication, rather than a standard "big-city" paper.
So, the newspaper industry is 'disconnected' from and 'unresponsive to their customers' yet they provide free access to their entire publications to every Internet-capable human being on the planet? What a load of crap!
One of the most fascinating things about the Internet, IMHO: people complain constantly about FREE STUFF! A couple of examples that I've seen repeated often: "Hey, these girlie pictures I downloaded from the Centerfold newsgroup don't have indices, so I'm forced to wade through all of these pictures of beautiful women to find out which ones I want to keep. Post indexes next time, A-Hole" "This freeware doesn't do this or that, so the author is an idiot" Check out Skinz.Org: All of the thousands of skins/wallpapers are free, but there's usually a rude whiner or two that beats up on the artists, with no attempt to provide constructive criticism.
Now, Newspapers that give away all of their content gratis are somehow disconnected from and unresponsive to their customers. IT'S FREE KATZ! HELLO! It doesn't get more responsive than that!
Katz is, as always, simplistic, whiny, predictable and sensationalist. However, in the past year, he's finally punched through my irritation barrier and has entered the "boring" zone. I'm not even sure why I've wasted time responding to this piece...I'm convinced he'll rehash this material (a favorite topic, based on his record) in a year or so, with the same illogic and "shoot-from-the-hip" stance.
Why in the world does SlashDot continue to provide Katz with such a high-profile venue? Are we so hard-up we can't find anyone capable of rational argument and original thought?
It baffles me that any American can ask whether or not another form of taxation matters. Have you done your taxes yet this year? I have, and I can tell you, taxes matter: most of us work exclusively for Uncle Sam from January to what, March or April? And that's just FEDERAL INCOME TAX! Add Social Security, Medicare, State Income Tax, Gasoline Tax, Cigarette Tax, Inheritance Tax, on and on and on....
We've gone from a country that had NO income tax at the end of the nineteenth century to a country that wants to tax the pennies in our eyes at the end of the twentieth.
Understand this: let Uncle Sam dig a finger into your pocket, and eventually he'll get his whole hand in there. Social Security is the ultimate example: We're FORCED to participate in an antiquated system designed and implemented long before most of us were born. Furthermore, although Social Security withholding has generated many, many millions more than the system pays out, the PERCENTAGE OF DEDUCTION HAS INCREASED AT LEAST THREE TIMES IN THE PAST 50 YEARS! In other words, the citizenry is paying a much greater percentage of their wages into Social Security today than they were fifty years ago, despite the fact that the withholdings generate vast sums of money, much more than is needed to support those currently collecting benefits.
Why? Because, for 50 years, POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY REVENUE ON OTHER THINGS, programs and projects completely unrelated to our retirement. In place of the cash various Congresses and Presidents have left "IOUs".
Now, one of the greatest debates currently making the rounds in Washington: How to "Save" Social Security? What happened to all of the money Politiicans have siphoned off over the years? POOF!, gone... And the IOU's? Worthless, of course.
Amazingly, NO politician other than Steve Forbes, I believe, has suggested a complete conversion to a privatized form of Social Security. Uncle Sam just can't conceive of that, especilly under the scrutiny of powerfull lobbies like the AARP. The only things Politicians have managed to change: increasing withholding percentages or, as of today, eliminating the earnings cap, legislation the AARP fully supports.
How many Americans know that the Supreme Court has ruled that NO CITIZEN has a right to Social Security money, despite the length of time and/or the amount of money they've contributed.
Who in the hell gave Uncle Sam the right to decide what's best for my retirement? Can they do a better job of it than I? Why is it any business of the Government's? Most importantly, what portion of the Constitution gives any Branch of Government the authority to meddle in these matters?
I use the example of Social Security to illustrate a point: Uncle Sam begins by taking a little bit of money, but soon comes back for more and more. What's worse, he's not even a good steward of our money. He swears that he's taking it for this purpose but, pretty soon, it's paying for everything but.
We should be fighting proposals favoring any Internet related taxation just as energeticaly as we fight for free-speech issues. We know how best to spend our money: Let's not give Uncle Sam the opportunity to waste more of are hard-earned greenbacks.
(By the way, for further information on Social Security I suggest a vist to Cato.Org)
There are many "hot-button" and high-profile issues in this debate: the right of taxpayers to decide how their taxes are spent, the welfare of children, unfettered access to the miracle of the info-bahn, State's rights vs Federalism, the First Amendment, pornography.....and those are the ones I came up with off the top of my head.
In fact, there are so many intricate and crucial elements to this issue that, after giving serious consideration to the question, I'm still not certain what I would do if I had to make a similar decision.
However difficult the issue might be to unravel, I'm comforted by one thought: if the community makes a terribly wrong decision the Judicial branch of our Government will eventually correct it, based on careful analysis of Constitutional principles. If the solution the community adopts runs contrary to the Constitution then the matter will be decided in the Courts, State first (most likely), then Federal.
I wouldn't be surprised if an issue as convoluted as this one makes it to the top of the Judicial food chain, the Supreme Court. Thus far, the Supreme Court has been a supporter of the freedom of speech as it pertains to the Internet. That's encouraging: it suggests that the Court will give proper consideration to the First Amendment as it intersects all of the other crucial issues at stake in this debate.
Of course, that's certainly wouldn't be the the end of the controversy; some might say it would actually be the beginning. A Supreme Court ruling that is contrary to the community's wishes will stir up the 200+ year old controversy over Federalism vs State's rights.
Furthermore, it doesn't help one bit when the time comes for me to make the sort of decision citizens of Holland are making. However, it's somewhat comforting to know that if I do make a drastic mistake the Judicial Branch will correct it. It worked for the CDA, and it's worked for 200+ years. Looks like the men that created the Constitution knew what they were doing.
You've made some very interesting points. I'd like to expand on them by describing some of the ways people's social lives can be drastically enhanced by the Internet. The Internet can provide a wealth of social experiences for the elderly, who can become isolated and disabled, for the severely physically handicapped, who are unable to interact and communicate with others face to face, for those who are physically disfigured and whose appearance might interefere with normal human interaction, for those that are chronically shy and reclusive, for those with severe speach disabilities, for the deaf and in some cases the blind, etc, etc. Sure the Internet might (has, in my case) replace some portion of traditional human interaction, but let's not forget the flip side.
Yes, the Internet offers new and unfamilar forms of social interaction. However, as the study shows, young folks seem to be more comfortable with the concepts than those my age (mid-30s). I can't escape the nagging feeling that time on the Internet is time I should be spending doing other, more worthwhile things, things I did before I knew what the internet was. And i think that way, although I know that a good part of what I do on the net enriches my life in important ways. Old habits die hard, as they say....
I saw that piece too (and I'll take a second to plug the outstanding Newshour to anyone that's interested in balanced, in-depth news coverage:BTW, Robin McNeil retired a few years ago and is no longer affiliated with the Newshour, AFIK)
I'd have to agree that I've allowed the Internet to supplant part of my non-virtual social life. However, the Internet has had a drastic and positive effect upon other areas of my life.
An example: Anyone familar with GoVote.Com, the site devoted to American politics? The site is amazing: large amounts of information about each of the Presidential candidates, backed up by quotes from the candidates themselves, as well as frequently updated links to major Online news source news stories about the candidates and the elections. Finally, somewhere I can go to find out each candidates position on a very wide variety of issues.
Where did we go to get information of that sort before the Internet? Nowhere, unless you chose to buy a handfull of newspapers on a daily basis and read every election-related article, hoping to achieve some sense of balance. Think of the expense and time involved in all of that. Now, imagine imagine all of that information at your fingertips, laid out for you, all virtually for free, and you've begun to understand the power of the Net. Perhaps that's a bit cliched, but it's still true: the Internet truly has the potential to change all of our lives for the better...
Unfortunately, I've allowed the Net to negatively impact certain aspects of my life. In one or two aspects the negative impact has been drastic, particularly the gut I've grown since becoming attached to this damn keyboard. However, I'm confident that I'll correct for those things in time. Eventually, life will become more balanced.
Finally, I think it's important to remember that the study is one of the first of it's kind on such a scale and, by the researcher's own admission, was limited in the breadth of it's conclusions. In other words, the study merely gauged one aspect of the impact of the Iternet upon users, albeit an important one. The extent to which "Virtual" socializing might have replaced socializing face to face was not a factor.
Oklahoma City will be a big stop on your Route 66 trip. I don't recall seeing any Internet Cafes around town, but I checked the Yellow Pages (i.e. business telephone listings) just in case. Unfortunately, I came up empty-handed. however, I'll dig a bit deeper and will E-Mail you if I find anything.
A problem you may have here in OKC: the metro area is very large, and finding a hotel near the cafe, if one can be found, might be difficult. Hopefully we can find something for you near the Bricktown area, a part of old Oklahoma City that's been refurbished and facelifted: there's a riverwalk, fountains, restaraunts, a baseball stadium, etc.
I'll let you know what I come up with.
Another likely use of such data (if an effective long-term storage medium is implemented): A prosecutorial tool. Perhaps the collection of such data won't generate investigations, but will support investigations and prosecutions based on other sources.
For instance, a child molester is arrested for playing doctor with a local boy. His computer is examined and is found to have pedophilia-related pictures. The authorities can then use the collected ISP data to track the pedophile's connection to other pedophiles.
Well, at least I assume that's the sort of story the Russian government (and any other government, including the US) will try to sell to their population. I can't help but think that governments will be unable to resist the temptation to use the power of such tools against it's citizenry. Call me paranoid, but George Orwell's "Big Brother" concept seems less and less like a product of fiction.
Speaking of the great Orwell, here's a quote from "1984":
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
>Waterworld costed more
>Amen to that. Maybe those people who scream "We should feed everyone here! But it's not my job!"
The cost of Waterworld, and whether or not it's the responsibility of the Federal Government to feed the poor of this country, have nothing to do with the issue of Federal support of Space Exploration.
The poor people of this country live next door to, or down the street from you and I. You and I, as private citizens on an individual basis, or in small, local citizens groups (Churches,Temples, Elks, VFW, etc) can feed the poor more effectively and more efficiently than the Feds will ever be able to.
The Federal government was created for the sole purpose of doing ONLY those things that we, as individuals, or the local forms of government that represent us, are ill equipped to do: provide for the national defense, regulate national/international commerce, to coin money, to establish a postal service, etc, etc. (Constitution, Article 1, Section 8)
So, should the Federal Government support space exploration? I believe so, depending upon the circumstances.
The tradition of Federally funded exploration goes back at least as far as President Jefferson's support of the Lewis and Clarke expedition. Thomas Jefferson understood the Constitution as well as anyone could and, therefore, an impeccable precedent was set early in our Nation's history.
Furthermore, space exploration is not something that local governments, let alone individuals, can accomplish effectively. The resources of the Federal government are neccesary for the success of any large-scale effort to explore and populate space.
Therefore, if the goals are worthwhile, then yes, I believe that the Federal government should be allowed to support the exploration of space.
Over the past few years, at Wired and now Slashdot, I've tried repeatedly to understand Mr. Katz's point of views. Unfortunately, I've finally concluded that Mr. Katz is actually the "Angry Geek" he describes in this, the last of his articles that I'll waste my time on. His anger and frustration have been directed at everything imagineable, from the Moviehouse Ticket Booth salesperson to those who "trample on free speach" because they don't like the idea of Hustler magazine sitting beside the Sports Illustated in the magazine rack of the local 7-11.
His sophomoric, repetitious "America does not have true free speach!" themes are particularly annoying. It's an issue that deserves discussion, but all too often Mr. Katz's eschews discussion and consideration of various aspects of an issue, preferring instead to use the Slashdot forum to rant and rave in a single-minded, uninformative, tirade.
Hasn't Mr. Katz's Wired credentials carried him far enough? Aren't folks tired of his brand of "button pushing"? Surely there are many Techie journalists who'd love the chance to actually present new and interesting ideas about Internet issues in a non-inflammatory manner? I say give them a chance, and then Mr. Katz can go rant on Usenet like everyone else.
I've been an @Home subscriber for several years. I was one of the first half-dozen or so in my part of the Metro Area to get the service: I'd been anticipating it for months, excited by the enormous potential of broadband Internet access. In some ways, @Home delivered on their promises. However, there were, and are, glaring examples of neglect and incompetence. @Home's Usenet feed has been at the top of the list since day 1.
@Home's usenet philosophy has always been single-pronged: speed is the one and only aspect of Usenet that @Home has administered effectively and, on regular occasions, they've failed in this respect. As far as I can tell, @Home could care less about any Usenet issue beyond that single one. Many of @Home's servers have pathetic retention. Incomplete capture of multipart messages is a problem on most, if not all, of @Home's servers. Occasional outtages leave Usenet users high and dry. Lack of communication and/or response on the part of @Home tech support regarding Usenet issues is another principle complaint. @Home's lack of interest in usenet extends to the inclusion of new groups: in my experience, @Home only adds new groups if those groups are specifically requested by @Home subscribers. Most other major ISPs I've used have had enough motivation to regularly update their groups.
I was not aware of the @Home-Spam connection, but it doesn't surprise me in the least: it's completely in keeping with my observations of @Home's Usenet (mis)management.
I'm a male Radar System's Technician and, while not professionaly involved in the computer industry, I've been a PC and Internet Geek since '95. I've worked side by side with many females since beginning my career 17 years ago. My attitude regarding females in the workplace: I could care less about the gender or race of my co-worker. My only concerns regarding my colleagues: their technical ability, their desire to do their job, and whether or not they can function effectively within a group.
My primary concern, based on my experience, is that artificial attempts to equalize the gender ratio in workplaces will negatively impact creativity and productivity. In other words, Federal mandates designed to increase the number of females in the workplace will force employers to hire a certain percentage of females, whether or not those female applicants are as qualified as the male applicants they're competing with.
I've seen such things time and time again.
I believe that Technically oriented workplaces will be among those most affected by such legislation. Although I've encountered female Technicians that were as capable as any of their male counterparts, they've been the exception and certainly not the rule. I don't know why there seems to be such a disparity between the abilities of the two genders in Technical environments. Whatever the reason(s), such drastic disparities don't seem to exist in other workplace environments I'm familar with.
The botttom line: Females that have the brains, drive, and all of the other neccesary capabilities WILL be "creators of software and virtual communities" Females that don't have those qualities shouldn't be given an advantage over men that do.
Regarding your suggestion of Turing: as a footnote I'd mention the little-known British Postal worker whose basic design was used by Turing and those at Bletchley Park to create Colossus, the first "programmable computer". I'm not terribly familar with the man, but the fact that he played such an important role in the War and in the early development of computational devices, yet remains almost completely unknown, attests to his "Geek" status.
"Ignored" was used as a "Geek" qualifier in this discussion, and I can't think of anyone that the word applies to more than this individual. "Colossus" remained a top-secret project for many years after the War's end. In fact, this man, who played a crucial role in it's development, died in obscurity, before he was allowed to enjoy the public praise he deserved. His invention, Colossus, fared little better: All but one were destroyed immediately after the War. The one that survived was used in the Cold War as a Communist code-breaker. Eventually, it was destroyed as well.
Can anyone remember this man's name? I've searched the web without luck.
Rather than post the same message to the board every time DaVinci is mentioned, I'll just provide a link to my previous response to the question of DaVinci and Michelangelo as "Geeks of the Millenium"
DaVinci immediately sprang to mind as a front-runner but, based strictly on the criterion "What oppressed, nerdy, ignored, and shunned individuals proved everyone wrong" he would be disqaulified; DaVinci was very well-liked. He was cultured and pleasant, and his company wes enjoyable and sought after.
I might nominate one of the few people that didn't like Leonardo (primarily due to an envy of the universal affection for Leonardo): A personal hero of mine, Michelangelo. Michelangelo was more the misanthrope than Leonardo. He could be difficult to get along with, bull-headed, occasionally a physical coward, envious and, I think, prone to complain a bit more than the average person. In short, unlike DaVinci and the other member of the triumvirate, Raphael Sanzio, Michelangelo was not always the life of the party.
Of course, I specified that I "might" nominate him. However, there are two reasons why I don't believe he would qualify.
First, Michelangelo was not a scientist, not even a naturalist, although he was curious about nature insofar as the knowledge of nature might improve his art (e.g. he dissected human bodies to study musculature and bone structure) I assume that part of "geekness" is an interest in science of some sort, and I don't believe Michelangelo had much interest in science for it's own sake.
Finally, both Michelangelo and DaVinci fail the "...proved everyone wrong" test. Michelangelo was an acknowledged genius upon completion of the "Pieta" at age 23 or 24. He was hailed as the greatest sculptor since the Classical age and his reputation only increased over time. I know less about Leonardo's young life, but I believe that he too was an acknowledged genius while still quite young. In other words, the western world immediately realized the genius of both men and there was no "...proved everyone wrong" about it: early on, both men set an artistic standard that lasted for generations.
DaVinci immediately sprang to mind as a front-runner but, based strictly on the criterion "What oppressed, nerdy, ignored, and shunned individuals proved everyone wrong" he would be disqaulified; DaVinci was very well-liked. He was cultured and pleasant, and his company wes enjoyable and sought after.
I might nominate one of the few people that didn't like Leonardo (due, in part, to an envy of the universal affection for Leonardo): A personal hero of mine, Michelangelo. Michelangelo was more the misanthrope than Leonardo. He could be difficult to get along with, bull-headed, occasionally a physical coward, envious and, I think, prone to complain a bit more than the average person. In short, unlike DaVinci and the other member of the triumvirate, Raphael Sanzio, Michelangelo was not always the life of the party.
Of course, I specified that I "might" nominate him. However, there are two reasons why I don't believe he would qualify.
First, Michelangelo was not a scientist, not even a naturalist, although he was curious about nature insofar as the knowledge of nature might improve his art (e.g. he dissected human bodies to study musculature and bone structure) I assume that part of "geekness" is an interest in science of some sort, and I don't believe Michelangelo had much interest in science for it's own sake.
Finally, both Michelangelo and DaVinci fail the "...proved everyone wrong" test. Michelangelo was an acknowledged genius upon completion of the "Pieta" at age 23 or 24. He was hailed as the greatest sculptor since the Classical age and his reputation only increased over time. I know less about Leonardo's young life, but I believe that he too was an acknowledged genius while still quite young. In other words, the western world immediately realized the genius of both men and there was no "...proved everyone wrong" about it: early on, both men set an artistic standard that lasted for generations.
I agree: the article is out of focus from the first sentence: "One of America's most enduring and self-deluded myths about itself is that it's a free, thus morally superior country"
No responsible, intelligent American believes that they're free to do as they please: the very idea is silly. Freedom will be absolute the day that a Utopian society is created, which is to say freedom will never be absolute.
What American's believe is that America has more freedom than most other countries. Does that lead to a "Superiority Complex"? Unfortunately, in some cases, yes. Moral Superiority? No. It would be more accurate to use the term "Political Superiority".
Unfortunately, more often than not, Katz makes assumptions and generalizations that are incorrect (or insufficiently defined) then attempts to tear down the supposed ideals of an ignorant and outdated society. His Wired pieces often suffered from the same myopia.
One thing has become increasingly obvious about Mr. Katz: he's hell-bent on de-bunking the mores and beliefs of mainstream society, even if he has to manufacute those mores and beliefs, as he has in this piece.
What is most fascinating about this article is that Mr. Katz has absolutely missed the point: the very fact that Mr. Singer can publicly express his controversial, and in some quarters, unpopular opinions is proof that America is relatively free country.
Don't like the term "relatively free"? Well, the word "relatively" can be removed just as soon as we create a Utopian society, in which all members are absolutely responsible and absolutely free. In the mean time America, and other countries that hold the ideals of freedom in high regard, will have to make do with their imperfect attempts at freedom.
Finally, I agree whole-heartedly with PB's last sentence: Mr. Katz's piece could have done without the inflammatory rhetoric (ie, "Dying Babies and The Myth of American Freedom" Mr. Katz should offer his headline-creating services to Rupert Murdoch: Copy like that is right up Murdoch's alley) It obscures what might have been an interesting and insightful article. I sometimes think that Mr. Katz is more interested in controversy than content, and this article does nothing but confirm my suspicions.
A recent study proved that, without any doubt, MP3 audio can be at, or near, CD quality. Of course, there are many variables: Hardware quality (Stereo System, Speakers, etc), software quality (encoder) and the quality of the listener's ears. However, most of those that took part in the study were unable to significantly distinguish between CD and MP3 audio (and those that participated were audiophiles) However, the three participants that the author predicted would be most likely capable of distinguishing between the two formats (because of their background) scored higher than the others.
I don't recall the URL, but Slashdot had a story and a link just a few days ago. Try doing a search of recent posts: The article's a must-read for anyone interested in MP3
Hi,
My reply doesn't involve personal charity, but local technology-related charity on the part of a sizeable business.
I work at a large FAA facility in Oklahoma City. The FAA's logistics center is here and, eventually, most of the FAA's outdated equipment is sent here for disposal. A section of the warehouse here in OKC is earmarked for this equipment and, once or twice a year, whenever enough old stuff accumulates, the FAA auctions it off by the pallet load to the highest bidder.
The equipment sent to the logistics center is of every sort imagineable: from old radar systems to aircraft parts, furniture, test equipment, etc. Many older (286/386/486) desktop PCs are turned in as well.
The folks that run the show in the warehouse have developed a program whereby the local school district has first pick of the desktop PCs, before the items go out to auction. The schools get the equipment for free.
I'm impressed with the program: it's a great way to help kids out as well as en excellent community relations builder.
My sentiments exactly. It's a mini-computer: It can be used strictly for games or business or some combination of both. The Pilot's flexibility is a good part of it's value: The article mentioned that a boy enjoyed playing games on his father's V. The author didn't make the connection that the Father might very well enjoy the other aspects of the Palm Pilot: it's ability to simply and effectively organize many aspects of modern life. It's certainly worked for me: I began a year or two ago with a Pilot 5000 and enjoyed it so much that I recently upgraded to a IIIx. I use it for everything: home and office.
In the end, though, it dcepends on the individual. Some people don't feel comfortable with computers and associated gadgets. Personally, I think they're missing out, but that's their choice.