There was even what seemed to be a direct reference to "Watchmen" in the conversation with the tailor who made Mr. Incredible's costume: the fact that capes are dangerous. There's a brief scene in "Watchmen" in which they describe a bank-sponsored superhero getting shot after his cape was caught in a revolving door, and then in "The Incredibles" all those little scenes of superheros dying because their of their capes.
Actually, the liberal arts weren't those arts that freed people, they were the arts that were free from physical interactions, that could be done with the mind alone. So painting and sculpture were servile arts, basically crafts that required the use of your hands. Logic, Rhetoric, and Poetry were some of the liberal arts, free from phyisical interaction.
As one who's done a little reading on the subject ("Thanks, liberal arts education!") let me object to this use of the term. A "peasant", as my best research can conclude, is someone who produces for his own consumption. This generally refers to subsistence farmers, i.e. they grow their grain so they can eat it. Who does this remind us of? Why, hackers, of course. They create code to solve their own problems.
Subverting the author's own implied metaphor, the hackers are the peasants, (the people who dig in the muck (of computer innards/rice paddies to survive/function) while other people (the local feudal lord/everyday users) reap the benefits in the form of taxes (skimming some of the peasant's grain for their own use) or open source software (using other people's coding prowess for their own everyday computer operations- I of course include myself here).
So one of the following is true:
-Hackers are really the peasants, doing work for minimal benefit to themselves (beyond everyday use/ subsistence) while others benefit greatly (either users or corporations who capitalize on their work, like IBM, Apple, et al.).
-Hackers are really communists (read some actual Marx before you respond) who believe that the means of production should be owned by the proletariat, so that no one is opressed or alienated from the products of their own labor.
-The use of the word is entirely obfuscatory. "Peasants" have nothing to do with nothing. Implied agricultural metaphors don't apply to cases where the products of labor are infinitely multipliable, unlike grain and more like source code.
Either the third is true, and the author is just careless, or one of the first two is true, and we have yet to see just who is benefiting (the hackers/proletariat or the corporations/bourgeoisie). Either way, I don't think the author meant "peasants."
Slashdot Mirror
There was even what seemed to be a direct reference to "Watchmen" in the conversation with the tailor who made Mr. Incredible's costume: the fact that capes are dangerous. There's a brief scene in "Watchmen" in which they describe a bank-sponsored superhero getting shot after his cape was caught in a revolving door, and then in "The Incredibles" all those little scenes of superheros dying because their of their capes.
Thanks, Dr. Richard Paley. BTW, the iron core of the moon still reverberates with the original aramaic words that created the universe.
If you're going to be pedantic, at least be right.
Roujin Z anyone? Better think twice before giving this to the senile elderly.
Actually, the liberal arts weren't those arts that freed people, they were the arts that were free from physical interactions, that could be done with the mind alone. So painting and sculpture were servile arts, basically crafts that required the use of your hands. Logic, Rhetoric, and Poetry were some of the liberal arts, free from phyisical interaction.
As one who's done a little reading on the subject ("Thanks, liberal arts education!") let me object to this use of the term. A "peasant", as my best research can conclude, is someone who produces for his own consumption. This generally refers to subsistence farmers, i.e. they grow their grain so they can eat it. Who does this remind us of? Why, hackers, of course. They create code to solve their own problems.
Subverting the author's own implied metaphor, the hackers are the peasants, (the people who dig in the muck (of computer innards/rice paddies to survive/function) while other people (the local feudal lord/everyday users) reap the benefits in the form of taxes (skimming some of the peasant's grain for their own use) or open source software (using other people's coding prowess for their own everyday computer operations- I of course include myself here).
So one of the following is true:
-Hackers are really the peasants, doing work for minimal benefit to themselves (beyond everyday use/ subsistence) while others benefit greatly (either users or corporations who capitalize on their work, like IBM, Apple, et al.).
-Hackers are really communists (read some actual Marx before you respond) who believe that the means of production should be owned by the proletariat, so that no one is opressed or alienated from the products of their own labor.
-The use of the word is entirely obfuscatory. "Peasants" have nothing to do with nothing. Implied agricultural metaphors don't apply to cases where the products of labor are infinitely multipliable, unlike grain and more like source code.
Either the third is true, and the author is just careless, or one of the first two is true, and we have yet to see just who is benefiting (the hackers/proletariat or the corporations/bourgeoisie). Either way, I don't think the author meant "peasants."
-Classical Studies major signing off.