Regardless of the content of the book (which may be good), I think "a special correspondent for Wired and a former staff writer for The New Yorker" says a lot here. Katz's praise-heaping prose is an obvious favor for an old buddy. Another "old media" type who sees finanicial opportunity in "computer/geek" media. Expect to see a blurb about Katz and "those silly SlashDot geeks" in an upcoming New Yorker.
Seriously, haven't the "evil Bill Gates" articles and books gotten passe already? Seen much about some of the morons that run GM lately?
The book mentioned in the article has been long debated elsewhere (and here), and can be generally described as narrow-minded, stereotyped, bigoted, et.al. from someone who generally feels their own elitist status threatened by technology. They (like Katz I feel at times) sat down and tried to figure out a way to use their 'mechanical' skills of wordsmithing and rhetoric generation to make their own buck off of the 'tech' world. In this case, I feel the book is being re-hashed here as simple post-fodder.
Even the basic assumptions in this 'short' piece are faulty in the extreme. I'll avoid a long treatise on all the points (I'm sure others will have their point to make), but here are a few.
* That the people involved in the whole wide world of digital technology can be wrapped up in a neat package with a nice well-printed tag attached. This is a favored tactic by the traditional media to create material for the sort of shallow, sound-bite, barometer reading type of stories they substitute for journalism in many cases. 'Napster! Let's see what the 'techies' think about it! Coming up next!'.
Every time the news story tries to ram fat, white, male, anti-social stereotype hackers down our throats, up pops a proud Indian woman who managed to break through the traditional female roles in her society by starting a web-based business of her own. And so on and so forth.
The people that want to generate this tag (see Yuppie, Boomer, Hippie, etc.) seem to get more and more frustrated and upset by their inability to do so. It's a bit of a mystery on its own.
* The idea that there is a 'technical elite'. Hey, I'm a developer, why didn't I get voted in? Again, it exists simply to create a 'straw man' to throw spears at.
* I couldn't help but get a laugh at the line (I'm paraphrasing) 'mistaking mechanical activity like designing an operating system with technological knowledge'. I think someone at there end is mistaking an advanced liberal arts degree with 'valuable insight'.
Oh yeah, Gene Cernan. Do I get any of those karma points back;)
I was think more of the context of the article. I thought it was a "hollow" argument in an article posted somewhere like Feed by a Science Fiction author. I would think at least some of the feed audience would appreciate the space program as something more than an entertainment vehicle for Joe Average.
It seems like the public's short attention span is a definite problem as well.
When you visit KSC, come and see a launch! And if you can take the pay cut, submit a resume.
And Yes (*sigh*), Neal Stephenson wrote Cryptonomicon (see earlier post)...
Hey, I know Neal Stephenson wrote Cryptonomicon, Not Bruce Stirling (I am a fan of both of their books). It was meant to be a poke at Stirling. I was told (by an author) that it was one of the best ways to annoy them (authors). Particularly when you "confuse" them with a well-known work.
I kind of had visions (I should really stop coding a while before I post this stuff) of Bruce hisownself reading the talk backs and feeling as annoyed as I did by reading his article.
Oh well, it flopped (the joke), and I've been getting beat up unmercifully by my so-called "friends" about it. There goes that one karma point I earned last month...
Well, Neal's signature on the cover IS a little difficult to read;)
First off, as a disclaimer, I am a big fan of most of Stirling's work.
That said, his more recent non-book work sounds way too much like "infomercials" for his books. "For more information, read 'Stirling Book', available at your bookstore for only 'price'". This latest rant, which ignores all space ventures that have succeeded (communications satellites and GPS are just a fad, after all), virtually screams "Rockets aren't cool, because I don't write anything about rockets or space".
Then again, when you've just written your magnum opus (Cryptonomicon), where do you go? Not to mention getting lost, focus-wise, in the heaps of praise you receive for such a worthy work.
Then again, maybe this is a little tongue in cheek. Something Stirling is quite accomplished at, after all. I mean, why can't we laugh at a companies miscue, just because space (not even exploration) is involved? Because it's such a waste? Most failed large ventures are. I don't remember anybody crying over the PCjr., but I'm sure some folks at IBM were. If this was Microsoft (Teledesic?), you guys would be falling all over yourselves to pull the re-entry switch.
Come on, scientists don't do research because it's "cool". And slamming later Apollo missions as "boring" rings extremely hollow. I can't believe the article was completely serious. More of an attention-getting slap in the face.
Generalizing about "nasty old contractors" and "dedicated and hard-working" scientists is faulty at best.
There are plenty of "dedicated and hard-working" contractors that work "above and beyond" in all phases of a mission. Some of these jobs can result in serious injury or death if not done properly every single time. This is something mission scientists and managers usually watch from a far away video monitor.
I do agree that scientists involved with construction is a good idea, but sometimes it is so the contractor can read the scientist the Riot Act as well. A space mission is group cooperation on a grand scale.
It seems that the only way for the space program to get positive attention these days is have an extremely risky mission that works. Well thought out, pragmatic and "Occam's Rasor" type missions that work are usually too "boring", and risky missions that fail lead to the public questioning all types of space exploration (not to mention lots of Monday-morning quarterbacking).
Having done both (admittedly more programming), I disagree. Doing network design always got more respect, because management saw the dollar value of the hardware and line costs. So why did I go back to programming. More fun, less beepers.
But seriously, software is the heart of both computers and networks of computers. And there are so many ways of solving a problem with code. It's inevitable that there would be contests.
I can think of a good network test. There are certain routers I have used that could provide material for a contest. Just try to get them to work!
It is amazing to me that many still (apparently) give so much credence to this relic. Not only are major magazines losing cultural significance in general, Time in specific is no where near the icon it once was.
The decision probably had more to do with how an Xmas-time magazine about an E-commerce legend would boost circulation than any actual contribution to society. I believe the award was originally a way to boost sales in a slow time to begin with.
They do this every year. While it is easy to point out some memorable (and controversial) winners, there have been plenty of obscure and simply poor choices in the past, even when the award actually "meant" something...
Floridians would like to ignore that law, but many vendors won't let us. Say you want to buy a large-ticket item (like a computer) over the internet. The large mail-order firm will see that you are from Florida, and add the requisite sales tax.
All other things being equal, I will choose a vendor that does not automatically add the tax.
Also, to be fair, when considering how agressive Florida is on collecting these taxes (a policy I don't agree with), consider that we have no state income tax.
Does that mean we can look forward to Microsoft playing the "800 pound gorilla" in the XML world? Seeing their effect on Java (fortunately Sun is even a bigger gorilla in that arena), I sure hope not.
I think it's not too late for Java (fortunately) to reach it's true potential as a portable, network friendly language. Considering its relative youth as a language, it would still seem to have some growth potential, despite Microsoft's muddying of the waters.
Now all Sun has to do is release it to a standards organization and open source it...
Be sure and drop by the Kennedy Space Center while you're in the area. I think its proximity to the tourist parks, its own status as a tourist attraction would add important perspective to your work. Also, the hardscrabble dedication to the long-term promise of technology (versus short-term consumerism) displayed by many employees here would contrast well with Orlando's tourist industry.
Also, a visit to the to some of the tech companies developing around the UCF (University of Central Florida) may show a different side of the city.
One of my former employers (Time Warner) did a major test roll out of interactive cable service here, emptying out the group I was working with in the process. I often wonder what became of it.
Is this the kind of help you meant? Or were you just looking for a "sound byte" on technology?
Why the comparison with environmental issues ("trashing the biosphere")? Hasn't NASA done more for earth research than nearly any other organization? We wouldn't know nearly as much about the earth's environment if not for earth observation satellites (rainforest depletion for example)? Not to mention the remote observation stations on earth that use commsats to transmit their data.
You propose waiting until we have a perfect condition here on earth before doing any space research or exploration. That isn't going to happen. We need to develop new technologies to sustain our over-populated world. Otherwise, it will be too late to do the research later.
Spending money to bring agrarian societies "up to our level" of conspicuous consumption only accelerates the problem, and is somewhat egotistical to boot.
The money we spend on NASA is fair for return, and has been cut plenty (in adjusted dollars) over the years from its heyday. I don't think our current economic situation justifies a severe cutback this year.
At least if it's going to be done (a bad idea), give NASA a lump sum, and let them spend it as they wish. Don't let the government tell them what programs they must keep and what they must cut.
Most of NASA's problems mentioned in other posts are as a result of past assaults by the government "streamliners" and budget-cutters.
The shuttle was built, but what it was supposed to do was delayed (support a space platform). Once its purpose was diluted by the powers that be, it was redesigned to be more "economical", which in the long-run made it more expensive to operate (and more dangerous).
The space station was budgetarily hacked and slashed into a shadow of its planned capability. NASA was then forced into an alliance with economically troubled Russia, which has caused extensive further delays.
"Publicity stunts" like the Glenn launch (don't forget there were other astronauts up there doing their usual scientific work at the time), are necessary for an organization that has to yearly beg for money to stay in existance. It brought a huge popularity to the program at little cost (Glenn had to pull his weight while in orbit). Don't forget he was the *third* politician that took a shuttle ride.
There are many other cases. In fact, this is the entire history of the program after the first moon landing.
Privatizing the program is laughable. Of course private companies have the technology, they are doing the work *now* (USA, Boeing, Lockeed, etc.). But the only financial gain is putting up communications satellites, and that is currently dominated by private industry. This will not fund basic research or exploration. Would Microsoft spend billions to sponsor the Chandra (or in this case Gates) X-Ray observatory? Damned unlikely. As much as I would like to see a Pan-Am Space Clipper, it won't be happening anytime soon.
The one advantage private industry would have is holding on to the technologies they developed and selling them. Imagine if NASA could do that!
What nay-sayers are really getting at is that basic research and exploration have no financial value. This type of research is in such rarified air, it is a difficult sentiment to disprove (who really knows what astronomical physicists are up to these days, outside of the field?). However, the computer industry and the internet show at least some small benefit from the past basic research that gave birth to them...
Speaking as someone who is "over the hill" (38), I'd have to agree.
The "traditional career" model really doesn't involve as much continual change as software development, and many folks have had a tough time adapting. Look at almost any other profession, and you are unlikely to see the same rate of change as the computer field. You usually only have to look as far as your immediate manager to see that not everyone wants to continually build new job skills. I think some people just get to a point where they're tired of learning new things jobwise, and just want to show up and do the familiar. The familiar is comfortable, and make no mistake, can still be challenging (It's not any easier to write/maintain large mainframe programs!).
I am fortunate that I enjoy learning, and that is what attracted me to programming to begin with. It seemed to be (and so far still is) completely open-ended, always changing.
The key is finding a job where you can keep learning as part of your work. I now have this (for the moment), and am happily walking near or on "the bleeding edge", where I like it! However, getting here has involved more frequent job changes than I would like, which definitely becomes more difficult as you get older.
My "trap" was a high-paying job with a major computer vendor as a "specialist" in one of their operating systems. When sales of the proprietary OS slipped, I was offered a lower-paying tech support job on the other side of the country. I left, and they later closed the tech support center I would have been going to. I can't say "I never looked back", cause I missed being the comfort of being a "guru" in my daily job (not to mention my company car). I had to take some jobs in my speciality until I could find a place that would allow me to expand my skills on the job (as I had always been doing on my own). It involved a pay-cut at the time, but it was worth it.
In closing, age has nothing to do with it, but adaptability, love of learning new things, and undying curiosity do. Unfortunately, stereotypes are rampant, as judged by a number (fortunately small) of posts here. I'm sure it's considerably worse in the hiring field, which is notoriously close-minded.
To date I haven't had a problem getting jobs, and even get unsolicited offers (of jobs, that is;)). Getting a good job is, as always, difficult.
I've only looked through a few issues, and they were probably later ones, so I must have missed the "good old days" of Wired. Unfortunately, what I read tended to be mostly annoying, and seemed to do more harm than good by being overly speculative , emphasizing concept over actual advances and style over substance.
It presented a set of technologies as a style. An interesting concept to be sure, but in this case I feel some real harm was done. Namely, technology "style victims" were produced. The idea of having the "coolest" technology has always existed among geeks (mostly harmlessly), but became a aberration when handed over to the "hip" crowd. This has produced some of the fervor for things like Office 2000 and Pentium III's, not to mention insipid TV programming such as "Cool Tech".
As far as revolutionary "soul", I was seeing the converse of your description (a half-full/half-empty kind of thing I suppose). My view was that every failed 60's revolutionary or half-baked philosopher was re-introducing their old pet theories with a technological spin (yeah, you know, LSD is kind of like... uh... Cyberspace!"). Typically it was a poor fit, and paled with what was actually going on.
That being said, the Magazine occasionally rose above its "high style media" pretentiousness, primarily due to the wonderful contributors it sometimes hosted. Also, the online "spinoffs" of Wired I have found mostly entertaining and informative.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of the content of the book (which may be good), I think "a special correspondent for Wired and a former staff writer for The New Yorker" says a lot here. Katz's praise-heaping prose is an obvious favor for an old buddy. Another "old media" type who sees finanicial opportunity in "computer/geek" media. Expect to see a blurb about Katz and "those silly SlashDot geeks" in an upcoming New Yorker.
Seriously, haven't the "evil Bill Gates" articles and books gotten passe already? Seen much about some of the morons that run GM lately?
Smilodon
V V
What has the open source movement gained?
ans: nuffin.
IBM, HP, Intel, NEC Announce Open Source Lab (141)
This, among other things...
The book mentioned in the article has been long debated elsewhere (and here), and can be generally described as narrow-minded, stereotyped, bigoted, et.al. from someone who generally feels their own elitist status threatened by technology. They (like Katz I feel at times) sat down and tried to figure out a way to use their 'mechanical' skills of wordsmithing and rhetoric generation to make their own buck off of the 'tech' world. In this case, I feel the book is being re-hashed here as simple post-fodder.
Even the basic assumptions in this 'short' piece are faulty in the extreme. I'll avoid a long treatise on all the points (I'm sure others will have their point to make), but here are a few.
* That the people involved in the whole wide world of digital technology can be wrapped up in a neat package with a nice well-printed tag attached. This is a favored tactic by the traditional media to create material for the sort of shallow, sound-bite, barometer reading type of stories they substitute for journalism in many cases. 'Napster! Let's see what the 'techies' think about it! Coming up next!'.
Every time the news story tries to ram fat, white, male, anti-social stereotype hackers down our throats, up pops a proud Indian woman who managed to break through the traditional female roles in her society by starting a web-based business of her own. And so on and so forth.
The people that want to generate this tag (see Yuppie, Boomer, Hippie, etc.) seem to get more and more frustrated and upset by their inability to do so. It's a bit of a mystery on its own.
* The idea that there is a 'technical elite'. Hey, I'm a developer, why didn't I get voted in? Again, it exists simply to create a 'straw man' to throw spears at.
* I couldn't help but get a laugh at the line (I'm paraphrasing) 'mistaking mechanical activity like designing an operating system with technological knowledge'. I think someone at there end is mistaking an advanced liberal arts degree with 'valuable insight'.
Smilodon
Point taken.
;)
Oh yeah, Gene Cernan. Do I get any of those karma points back
I was think more of the context of the article. I thought it was a "hollow" argument in an article posted somewhere like Feed by a Science Fiction author. I would think at least some of the feed audience would appreciate the space program as something more than an entertainment vehicle for Joe Average.
It seems like the public's short attention span is a definite problem as well.
When you visit KSC, come and see a launch! And if you can take the pay cut, submit a resume.
And Yes (*sigh*), Neal Stephenson wrote Cryptonomicon (see earlier post)...
Hey, I know Neal Stephenson wrote Cryptonomicon, Not Bruce Stirling (I am a fan of both of their books). It was meant to be a poke at Stirling. I was told (by an author) that it was one of the best ways to annoy them (authors). Particularly when you "confuse" them with a well-known work.
;)
I kind of had visions (I should really stop coding a while before I post this stuff) of Bruce hisownself reading the talk backs and feeling as annoyed as I did by reading his article.
Oh well, it flopped (the joke), and I've been getting beat up unmercifully by my so-called "friends" about it. There goes that one karma point I earned last month...
Well, Neal's signature on the cover IS a little difficult to read
First off, as a disclaimer, I am a big fan of most of Stirling's work.
That said, his more recent non-book work sounds way too much like "infomercials" for his books. "For more information, read 'Stirling Book', available at your bookstore for only 'price'". This latest rant, which ignores all space ventures that have succeeded (communications satellites and GPS are just a fad, after all), virtually screams "Rockets aren't cool, because I don't write anything about rockets or space".
Then again, when you've just written your magnum opus (Cryptonomicon), where do you go? Not to mention getting lost, focus-wise, in the heaps of praise you receive for such a worthy work.
Then again, maybe this is a little tongue in cheek. Something Stirling is quite accomplished at, after all. I mean, why can't we laugh at a companies miscue, just because space (not even exploration) is involved? Because it's such a waste? Most failed large ventures are. I don't remember anybody crying over the PCjr., but I'm sure some folks at IBM were. If this was Microsoft (Teledesic?), you guys would be falling all over yourselves to pull the re-entry switch.
Come on, scientists don't do research because it's "cool". And slamming later Apollo missions as "boring" rings extremely hollow. I can't believe the article was completely serious. More of an attention-getting slap in the face.
Smilodon
VvvV
Generalizing about "nasty old contractors" and "dedicated and hard-working" scientists is faulty at best.
There are plenty of "dedicated and hard-working" contractors that work "above and beyond" in all phases of a mission. Some of these jobs can result in serious injury or death if not done properly every single time. This is something mission scientists and managers usually watch from a far away video monitor.
I do agree that scientists involved with construction is a good idea, but sometimes it is so the contractor can read the scientist the Riot Act as well. A space mission is group cooperation on a grand scale.
It seems that the only way for the space program to get positive attention these days is have an extremely risky mission that works. Well thought out, pragmatic and "Occam's Rasor" type missions that work are usually too "boring", and risky missions that fail lead to the public questioning all types of space exploration (not to mention lots of Monday-morning quarterbacking).
Talk about a difficult order to fill!
Having done both (admittedly more programming), I disagree. Doing network design always got more respect, because management saw the dollar value of the hardware and line costs. So why did I go back to programming. More fun, less beepers.
But seriously, software is the heart of both computers and networks of computers. And there are so many ways of solving a problem with code. It's inevitable that there would be contests.
I can think of a good network test. There are certain routers I have used that could provide material for a contest. Just try to get them to work!
It is amazing to me that many still (apparently) give so much credence to this relic. Not only are major magazines losing cultural significance in general, Time in specific is no where near the icon it once was.
The decision probably had more to do with how an Xmas-time magazine about an E-commerce legend would boost circulation than any actual contribution to society. I believe the award was originally a way to boost sales in a slow time to begin with.
They do this every year. While it is easy to point out some memorable (and controversial) winners, there have been plenty of obscure and simply poor choices in the past, even when the award actually "meant" something...
Floridians would like to ignore that law, but many vendors won't let us. Say you want to buy a large-ticket item (like a computer) over the internet. The large mail-order firm will see that you are from Florida, and add the requisite sales tax.
All other things being equal, I will choose a vendor that does not automatically add the tax.
Also, to be fair, when considering how agressive Florida is on collecting these taxes (a policy I don't agree with), consider that we have no state income tax.
Does that mean we can look forward to Microsoft playing the "800 pound gorilla" in the XML world? Seeing their effect on Java (fortunately Sun is even a bigger gorilla in that arena), I sure hope not.
I think it's not too late for Java (fortunately) to reach it's true potential as a portable, network friendly language. Considering its relative youth as a language, it would still seem to have some growth potential, despite Microsoft's muddying of the waters.
Now all Sun has to do is release it to a standards organization and open source it...
Be sure and drop by the Kennedy Space Center while you're in the area. I think its proximity to the tourist parks, its own status as a tourist attraction would add important perspective to your work. Also, the hardscrabble dedication to the long-term promise of technology (versus short-term consumerism) displayed by many employees here would contrast well with Orlando's tourist industry.
Also, a visit to the to some of the tech companies developing around the UCF (University of Central Florida) may show a different side of the city.
One of my former employers (Time Warner) did a major test roll out of interactive cable service here, emptying out the group I was working with in the process. I often wonder what became of it.
Is this the kind of help you meant? Or were you just looking for a "sound byte" on technology?
Why the comparison with environmental issues ("trashing the biosphere")? Hasn't NASA done more for earth research than nearly any other organization? We wouldn't know nearly as much about the earth's environment if not for earth observation satellites (rainforest depletion for example)? Not to mention the remote observation stations on earth that use commsats to transmit their data.
You propose waiting until we have a perfect condition here on earth before doing any space research or exploration. That isn't going to happen. We need to develop new technologies to sustain our over-populated world. Otherwise, it will be too late to do the research later.
Spending money to bring agrarian societies "up to our level" of conspicuous consumption only accelerates the problem, and is somewhat egotistical to boot.
The money we spend on NASA is fair for return, and has been cut plenty (in adjusted dollars) over the years from its heyday. I don't think our current economic situation justifies a severe cutback this year.
At least if it's going to be done (a bad idea), give NASA a lump sum, and let them spend it as they wish. Don't let the government tell them what programs they must keep and what they must cut.
Most of NASA's problems mentioned in other posts are as a result of past assaults by the government "streamliners" and budget-cutters.
The shuttle was built, but what it was supposed to do was delayed (support a space platform). Once its purpose was diluted by the powers that be, it was redesigned to be more "economical", which in the long-run made it more expensive to operate (and more dangerous).
The space station was budgetarily hacked and slashed into a shadow of its planned capability. NASA was then forced into an alliance with economically troubled Russia, which has caused extensive further delays.
"Publicity stunts" like the Glenn launch (don't forget there were other astronauts up there doing their usual scientific work at the time), are necessary for an organization that has to yearly beg for money to stay in existance. It brought a huge popularity to the program at little cost (Glenn had to pull his weight while in orbit). Don't forget he was the *third* politician that took a shuttle ride.
There are many other cases. In fact, this is the entire history of the program after the first moon landing.
Privatizing the program is laughable. Of course private companies have the technology, they are doing the work *now* (USA, Boeing, Lockeed, etc.). But the only financial gain is putting up communications satellites, and that is currently dominated by private industry. This will not fund basic research or exploration. Would Microsoft spend billions to sponsor the Chandra (or in this case Gates) X-Ray observatory? Damned unlikely. As much as I would like to see a Pan-Am Space Clipper, it won't be happening anytime soon.
The one advantage private industry would have is holding on to the technologies they developed and selling them. Imagine if NASA could do that!
What nay-sayers are really getting at is that basic research and exploration have no financial value. This type of research is in such rarified air, it is a difficult sentiment to disprove (who really knows what astronomical physicists are up to these days, outside of the field?). However, the computer industry and the internet show at least some small benefit from the past basic research that gave birth to them...
Speaking as someone who is "over the hill" (38), I'd have to agree.
;)). Getting a good job is, as always, difficult.
The "traditional career" model really doesn't involve as much continual change as software development, and many folks have had a tough time adapting. Look at almost any other profession, and you are unlikely to see the same rate of change as the computer field. You usually only have to look as far as your immediate manager to see that not everyone wants to continually build new job skills. I think some people just get to a point where they're tired of learning new things jobwise, and just want to show up and do the familiar. The familiar is comfortable, and make no mistake, can still be challenging (It's not any easier to write/maintain large mainframe programs!).
I am fortunate that I enjoy learning, and that is what attracted me to programming to begin with. It seemed to be (and so far still is) completely open-ended, always changing.
The key is finding a job where you can keep learning as part of your work. I now have this (for the moment), and am happily walking near or on "the bleeding edge", where I like it! However, getting here has involved more frequent job changes than I would like, which definitely becomes more difficult as you get older.
My "trap" was a high-paying job with a major computer vendor as a "specialist" in one of their operating systems. When sales of the proprietary OS slipped, I was offered a lower-paying tech support job on the other side of the country. I left, and they later closed the tech support center I would have been going to. I can't say "I never looked back", cause I missed being the comfort of being a "guru" in my daily job (not to mention my company car). I had to take some jobs in my speciality until I could find a place that would allow me to expand my skills on the job (as I had always been doing on my own). It involved a pay-cut at the time, but it was worth it.
In closing, age has nothing to do with it, but adaptability, love of learning new things, and undying curiosity do. Unfortunately, stereotypes are rampant, as judged by a number (fortunately small) of posts here. I'm sure it's considerably worse in the hiring field, which is notoriously close-minded.
To date I haven't had a problem getting jobs, and even get unsolicited offers (of jobs, that is
I've only looked through a few issues, and they were probably later ones, so I must have missed the "good old days" of Wired. Unfortunately, what I read tended to be mostly annoying, and seemed to do more harm than good by being overly speculative , emphasizing concept over actual advances and style over substance.
It presented a set of technologies as a style. An interesting concept to be sure, but in this case I feel some real harm was done. Namely, technology "style victims" were produced. The idea of having the "coolest" technology has always existed among geeks (mostly harmlessly), but became a aberration when handed over to the "hip" crowd. This has produced some of the fervor for things like Office 2000 and Pentium III's, not to mention insipid TV programming such as "Cool Tech".
As far as revolutionary "soul", I was seeing the converse of your description (a half-full/half-empty kind of thing I suppose). My view was that every failed 60's revolutionary or half-baked philosopher was re-introducing their old pet theories with a technological spin (yeah, you know, LSD is kind of like... uh... Cyberspace!"). Typically it was a poor fit, and paled with what was actually going on.
That being said, the Magazine occasionally rose above its "high style media" pretentiousness, primarily due to the wonderful contributors it sometimes hosted. Also, the online "spinoffs" of Wired I have found mostly entertaining and informative.
I don't think I'll miss the magazine though...