Ahh, Hydrogen! How stupid of me! I read the article, honest, but didn't catch that it was powered by Hydrogen. Thanks for the knock upside the head, y'all.:) Obviously, it's time to go home.
I hear that. I know the subject just begs for rhetoric, but I think you've illustrated why it isn't the black and white case some of us wish it was. It's just frusterating.. like homophobia, the intentions may be there (purity, preservation, respect, etc... ), but it always boils down to making sure we're eating, sleeping, loving and fucking.:) I figure that as long as the human race keeps doing that, why not let the 'immoral' 3% 'waste their lives' according to some. These are, after all, the principals I thought these western democracies where build on, no?:) I realize I may just be preaching to the converted, but I just find it hard to believe that you're free to waste your life (accoring to me) on being a hardcore (no pun intented) Buffy fan, but not on pornography or loving men or [insert intolerance here].
Of course, if I had my way, big budget hollywood movies would be illegal for their propensity to chip away at cultural and tolerant values, and offer the lower common denominator brainfood, so I know its all subjective. Funny tho, I like how mindless entertainment and sexual allusion is valued in our world (look at Maxim), but mindless erotica is not. You'd think mass market depictions of women being sub 120lbs is worse on our more female's populations self-esteem than porn (what little ends up in front of the eyes of women) is. At least one keeps your sperm count high..;)
But where does the exhaust go?
And isn't this kind of a step back in our attempt to stop using fossil fuels, or is it still a better alternative by the messes left by batteries in land fills?
The Mom test is about values that may (of course, or may not) have changed. I should hope the millions of gays out there didn't use the "Mom Test" as the acid test in determining whether or not to be gay.
And since he's considering the job, I'm pretty sure he's weighed against his own values too. Ironically, I hope more 'normal' people get swept up into the porn industry.. there's no doubt its a seedy industry, but the fact that it might 'tarnish' a resume is a pretty good example of why the current attitude will keep it that way.:) We'll never get rid of porn (just ask many well adjusted, mature friends of mine who sate the exhibitionist in themselves by being amatuers), so why not accept that, and try to make it a cleaner, safer, and more socially acceptable industry for all involved?
Sadly enough, most of the people who wouldn't hire you because you worked for a porn site have probably subscribed to one at one time or another. I'm quite good at getting people to feel comfortable about talking about sensitive subjects, and I've met very few males that havn't resorted to 'creative meaterial' to help their right hand when they're between parteners (not literally of course;) Women are taught that porn is bad for women (and it is, these days, in many many ways), but in keeping it an underground, men-dominated industry and the demand only male oriented, we'll never encounter the neccessity to make it a proper and equal industry. In fact, I've met a number of females who wanted porn, but simply could not find suitable material for all the male oriented noise out there.. the local woman-oriented sexuality store (toys/materials/etc) owes me some referral money, but it's sad that guys are raised to be more accepting of pornography as an acceptable inspiration to sexual release.
On a side note, Suicide Girls (the website he mentions) looks very cool, tho. Catering to specific cultures and communities is another thing the pornography industry could do to work away from it's sleeze-factor cash-grab image. We all have different tastes, and mainstream pornography does very little to aknowledge the different tastes and interests of the population.
> cancel the merchants account of anyone compromising data that badly
Which goes back to my point about the public understanding of a technology. You can't do this right now, because in the public's eyes, werbserver admin = smart guy, web crawler = invasive nameless/screenshotless technology. Therefore, public opinion, should push come to shove, would likely fall on the shoulders of Google. I would imagine, in this case, that Joe Shmoe likens Google seeing your credit card number to hooligans breaking into your house, not as the census taker who spots you naked through your curtainless bedroom window.
As He Who Owns And Runs What becomes clearer to the average joe (usually though sitcom jokes, cliches, movies, Journalists Finally Getting It (it usually happens eventually after years of a technology existing) etc), the consumer will know where the brunt of the blame lies. And while we have too much blame in our society, it does have its legitimate place (as in, publicly accepted accountability and a fair assement of a failure), so effort to make sure the blame is going to the proper places, and making sure the support from the public is directed at the correct entities, will enable the accountability in situations to fall where it should; in this case, the users operating/admin'ing the webserver. But until that admin isn't your uncle or brother (hopefully, it'll be 'you' as being able to offer services becomes more accessible to users), and Google is seen as more of a cencus taker than a peeping tom, it's unlikely that the public at large will know who to pressure for administrative mismanagement of your sensitive data, and it's subsequent accessability via search engines.
Yep. Well, unfrotunately, we're still stuck in the rut of thinking technology solves social problems. Fraud is a social problem, but thinking we can create technology to prevent it (beyond reasonable measures that inconvenience noone but go a long way to prevent spur-of-the-moment offences and casual fraud) is a paradox. Creating technology that cannot be used for questionable purposes is impossible. People who study the interaction between social behaviour and technology know its pretty much the other way around; technology changes and evolves human behaviour above and beyond how it was pre-adoption of a technology, but never ever causes humans to/stop/ doing something.
For instance, the breathalizer that may be installed on car ignitions in the future may prevent some drinking in driving, it is far more likely to change people's behaviours surrounding the issue of drunk driving - for instance, it may form a social pattern where by sober friends help drunk friends start their cars. Engineers (including software engineers) are unable to devine how their innovations will be used (ie, nobody can predict the future beyond reasonable assumptions). Should we be putting the inventor of the aerosol whipped cream can in jail for getting all those high school students high... ?
More poingant than the actual way the government goes about assinging blame for misused technology is the hypocracy of it all. Considering the pace at which we are forced to invent and deploy to drive capitalism, these types of situations should be considered the cost of doing business the way it's currently done. Now we are stuck with an infrascructure that only a MINUTE percentage of the population actually understands, and the creators of that technology are the ones being blamed for its mismanagement and misuse. Sigh. I can only hopy that in 30 years, the population will be more in tune with the limitations of computer and software technology, in the same way that people have enough of an understanding of cars now so as not to immediately lay blame on the manufacturer when someone drives at 180kph into their local river.
I agree. I was going to say the same thing as the subject of your post.. should the cencus guy get charged with being a peeping tom if he comes up to your house while you're buck naked in front of an open livingroom window?
>.. "software to behave itself."
When asked to clarify furthur, Gary said, "Uh.. you know, like.. uh, C3PO.. and.. uh, Data." I hate idiots like that... I suppose he thinks Windows should 'ask' you if you want to install viruses (cause heaven forbid a user should have to know anything about protecting their computer), and your hard drive should kindly suggest you upgrade a few days before it bites the dust? Yeah.. technology.. thats the problem.. we just havn't invented anything perfectly enough yet. Sigh.. grab the O'Reilly, it's time for a good old-fashioned CTO beating.
Actually, I havn't really figured out what age group we're talkin about here, but for kindergarten, I'm actually against computers in the classroom. Kindergarten may be where you learn your ABCs, but it's also a crucial environment in so far as developing your social values and how you communicate and interact. I think computers at this age would only imbed a value along the lines of: "It takes a computer to learn." Obviously, the only true way to learn is either through teaching yourself, or communication with someone else that has that knowledge and is aware of the best way to communicate it to you. (For instance, what about kids with special needs? Can you see a day where kids will not seek help from people, but rather from off-white boxes that are, at best, a clumsy interface for learning?) I'd hate for anyone to believe that computers are/solutions/ to problems. Scientists (or artists, or sales managers) use computers because the amount of data or the complexity of the problems requires a computer, for all practical purposes. ABCs do not.
Once you get into, say, grade 5 or 6, computers can become useful in order to provide a means of illustrating the abstractions of math, or to provide easier access to things like maps for geography, etc. But thats also around the age where the computer saavy start their tinkering (or some of them, at least). Which leads me to believe that it's a good age where kids can start to understand what a computer is, what software is, etc... do poor schools actually NEED computers to teach ABCs? I was under the impression that it was for the specific purpose of teaching kids how to USE a computer, in which case, it's best to start with material thats as close to the source as possible. Don't forget, everyone can afford a calculator, but we still value teaching long hand devision, because one day, that tool that makes it easy might not be available; in the same way that one day, that windows partition may be corrupted. If the kids know what a partition is, like people generally know what a transmission is, they'll know what questions to ask, and how to go about either solving the problem or seeking someone who can.
> let them use computers with an OS their parents are likely to have on their home computer
Considering this is for poor schools, this is a glaring example of how you're projecting your situation or values on another demographic. These schools, and likely the parents of the kids who go there, don't, and may likely never be able to afford a computer. Best to reserve your input until you've reformed it within the social and material context of the situation. IE, we've got a clean slate here.. why not take advantage of it; humans have incredible abilities to learn provided they are taught at a young age (religious fanatics are keenly aware of this), so why not go above and beyond what the market currently dictates and prepare them for a future we cannot predict? And if they want to learn windows, well... lets just say that despite the fact that most people who live in the mountains of nepal havn't the foggiest idea how to use a telephone, our kids know how to use it without being sent to "Telephone class".
BTW, what happens in 5 years, when everyone has upgraded? It's unlikely these schools will suddenly have license money.. so you'd end up teaching 3 years of 'cutting edge' 'office environment' software, and 15 years of outdated software until MS has a chance to be punished for being anti-competative again. With OS, this would not be an issue, and, in fact, it's likely these schools would be captable of supporting infrastructure even more advanced that some of their financially off sibling schools who run Windows. I came from a middle class arts school, and while our photog teacher was very pro-tech, and kept the school first in line for technology grants from the school board, we still had Mac Plus'es in our library in 1997.
However, there is one factor in your favor: it's unlikely the teachers at these schools will know how to handle Linux any better than the kids, should RedHat get deployed, so I'm not entirely sure that OS software is a practical solution. Of course, if RedHat provides on-site admins and such, then, problem solved. And finally, as a parting shot, don't forget, if you're a truely tech-helpless student, KDE offers a very very very similar experience to Windows.. so much so that the transition later in life, should it need to be made, would be fairly transparent for the non-tech crowd.
All I know is that the most important institutions in our world, ie schools, general hospitals (exluding specialty wings, wards, etc), etc are the ones most often strapped for cash and lagged behind current technology, due to price. Socialist values are on the decline, so why the hell should we pour less money into taxes, and then turn around and demand those institutions run what (in many cases) only the private sector can afford?
Hah! Everyone who knows Linux should have NO problem learning Windows.
BTW, isn't that the message in every single goddamn ad for Windows? Ie, "So easy to use, even if you're a freaking moron who fell asleep in the middle ages and just woke up, you'll be emailing movies to your grandson in no time."
To that end, thats the argument Redhat should take to court. "If windows is so easy to use, whats the benifit of putting kids on them so early on?" At least that'd force MS to actually admit that using an operating system (tho I suppose they'd use the euphamism "computer") requires some learning and training.
But like I said, knowing Linux forces you to know computers. And knowing computers, its pretty easy to pick up Windows at your own leisure. The reverse is not true, as one of the main purposes and selling points of windows is that it allows people who don't have a clue about hardware and software to email, surf the web, and use word processing.
Noble intentions? It's not like they woke up one morning, and offered what they did out of the goodness of their hearts. It's being proposed as a punishment, and everyone knows it.
MS and Bill Gates, despite their business practices, are still fairly active in the charity community, however, so I don't think you can paint this one black and white.
All I know, is that, if I were a teacher in a poor school, I'd be livid that it takes a mammoth corperation to engage in anti-competative business practices, in order to receive new equipment. I guess we really have forgotten what the government and taxes are for..
I really don't think anyone needs to be sold a 'nice' image of Microsoft. Microsoft is successful because their software is the best at helping the computer illiterate at actually accomplishing some tasks (and/or making them think it is), in the same way that Titanic and Ammargeddon were successful because those movies are good at helping the culturally illiterate sit through a movie.
If you don't know what questions to ask, you'll probably be satisfied with whatever answer is thrown at you. Anything more, that might cause you to re-evaluate your own motives and tasks you wish to accomplish (or culture and values with respect to movies) will drive away people en masse.
[offtopic]What's a non-terrible ask slashdot, or are you just upset that half of them don't involve games anymore? Given current events, I find it hard to believe that trying to get some of the more poor places in the world up 'n running in so far as marketable skills and data goes constitutes a poor Ask Slashdot.[/offtopic]
> That is NOT the same thing as a Superman movie teaching a kid to jump off the roof. There's no 'urge' for the kid to jump off the roof, and Superman doing so doesn't teach the kid that it's okay to give in to his 'urge'.
Okayokay. I retract my Superman example.
Any violent movie. Bruce Willis is the hero. Does he teach us that killing is okay? That, if you have the urge to kill someone (as people tend to do), just find a bunch of wrong doers, and then shoot the living shit out of them? No, because is PRETEND killing, and the sane ones out there, know it. Just like pornography in which the subject 'appears young' tells us that it is OKAY to pretend.. it does NOT teach us that the real thing IS OKAY. People go to see it, not for the plot, or the acting, but because they want to see a PRETEND VERSION OF SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINATELY NOT OKAY WHEN DONE FOR REAL.
Also:
Diaper fetish movies. Athromorphic pornography. Rape fantasy movies. All are examples of situations or imagery that depict acts that, if carried out in real life, would inflict hurt on people (or animals.) I've had two girlfriends who loved rape porn. Does having pornography that ENACTS a scenario that participants and audiences know are wrong in real life constitute a violation of the rights of anyone? NO.
I was abused as a child. I was abused as a teenager. Fuck you for telling me to keep my mouth shut about a subject I know nothing about, and double fuck you (unless you were also abused) for assuming you know the ramifications of such pornography.
Urges are like earthquake faults. It's far better to let them out in small, consentual ways than to force someone into seeking out the 'big one' when the urges get too much with no release.
So tell me.. were you abused, or are you just looking out for the poor helpless clueless defenseless abuse victims like me?
Oh grow up. By that logic, the creators of Superman should be held accountable for kids leaping off the top of their building. Or old models should be held accountable for Billy Bob raping his 78 year old neighbour. Actually, maybe you should join that suit that the columnbine parents brought against ID software (they were 'simulating killing'!)
Moron. Like everyone else, you forget that social patterns drive media and communication, not vice versa as we are taught to believe. Does my country, by destroying lesbian porn imports at the border, prevent women from seeking 'deviant lesbian' lifestyles? Of course not. It just forces them to make the porn themselves, which, SURPRISE, is counter the intentions of the conservative minds in charge. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, blah blah blah...
Thats why I love Mac. But since most casual users don't get it (ie, they dont know anything about computers, thus can't spot the superiority), the price is still a factor in being an Apple customer. I wish more people would buy; at least that would bring down the price somewhat.
> You don't think the CPU on your computer knows English, do you?
Probably not for awhile. But on the flipside, hardware would probable be more understandable to humans if we attempted to minimize the abstraction between hardware/software; causing hardware developers to think about the interface to their componants, both physical and virtual, and how to make them intuative and simple enough for a wider range of users (Ie, no jumper pins, SCSI-like device IDS instead of IRQ/DMAs/etc). Abstraction simply alleviates the engineer of social responsibility, although I understand that in current times, the engineer is thought to have no place in being involved in determining the social relevance of the product.
I really can't believe you can't see the difference between imposing your cultural/social/financial/etc context and values on someone else, only to use it as evidence that the story is unplausible. I'm not going to argue this.. (well, geez, the guy has been LIVING CNN.com for the last 8 years, I think the last thing he need to know is what is going on in the world)
Also, consider that what he said he wants is heavily affected by who he's talking to. Katz used to work for wired; its only natural that Junis would want to diplay his 'withitness' to a former wired journalist.
You see, you're only furthur proving my point, by placing your values, prioties and experiences over a world so far removed from yours that any attempt to judge is viewed by some people from other countries as completely self involved.
The point is, everyone seems to be disproving Katz with evidence along the lines of:
1./I/ wouldn't do that!
2./I/ can't believe that!
See, dog bites man happens every day, so it's not news. But dog bites man.. now THATS news. So, in this case, Afghan kid knows whats up in the world and wants an iPod. Thats NEWS, sadly enough, because it's unique. Interesting. I'm sure he did look at CNN.com, but is that news? Had he told that to Katz, Katz probably wouldn't have even mentionned it. (In fact, whos to say that he didn't?)
ARG. Just comment on the story.. if you're so intent on surmising that anything out of your social norm is probably untrue, that's why you'll be standing still why the rest of the world flies by ya. You're not commenting on your neighbour down the street here.
Re:Haha .. you poor Americans. (BTW, no one said C
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 2
<obvious>Why not hook the kids up to CocaCola and BigMac's, IV'd.</obvious>
This is kind of backwards if you want your next generation to be tech-saavy. Windows ABSTRACTS computers, removing the need (for most people) to actually know how a computer (and software) operates. In this respect, the world will be FORCED to at least have a small understanding of the technology.. don't let your kids get left behind by forcing them to think "My Documents" is where their files are, no matter which computer/OS/etc they are on.
At any rate, it's insane. Would we let Coke donate lots of Coke to kids as a settlement (knowing that they'll/surely/ be stuck in places when they grow up when only Coke is available).
What strikes me the most is the acceptance that Windows will be the dominant platform for the next 80 years. Fortunately, this will not be true. Very few companies even stay in business that long.
Ahh.. additional development/cuztomization is where its at. Agreed. I was only referring to technical support and training.
When it comes to customizing solutions or adding features at a customer's request, I think those are definate opportunities to get revenue, in a context where the customer feels they are getting something for it in return, other than the ability to _use_ the OS'd software.
Anyways, point taken.
Haha .. you poor Americans. (BTW, no one said C64)
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 2
Whether Katz is being accurate and honest here is up for debate, but what I love is the incredulousness. Like:
What?! He can download movies? He knew about the MS case? Baywatch? Damnit.. it's imPOSSIBLE that he had those things, otherwise we might be forced to admit that the 'liberty' of being American really isn't that far off of many other places in the world. (Heck, do you really think a woman could be the president of the USA?)
At any rate, it's absolutely infuriating to see Americans so indignantly resolute in their assuption that Afganistan = Backwards = No One has a Clue What Goes On in the Real World. They were under an oppressive rule, and could be KILLED for simple things like using computers. That doesn't mean they sat around for 8 years with their thumbs up their asses, waiting for the Americans to get pissed off at their leaders, only to 'liberate' them into a world of higher pop culture conciousness. Sheesh. No doubt some Afgans secretly kept short wave radios. It's possible that some of the US Army commandos are providing satillite uplinks (just a guess, probably not). There are LOTS of reasons why Katz' story could be true.
When people talk about Americans being self-involved, this is what they are talking about! What bothers me is not whether Katz is being honest or not (and you don't really need to make up stories in times like this unless you're gunning for public support of military action or resctriction of civil liberties), but how people cannot ACCEPT things.
Shit, it's not like the entire population of Afghanistan ICQ'd Katz 2 minutes after the Taliban were driven south.
And Commadore made PCs.. no where did he say it was a 64
Agreed. Thats what I was saying.. charging for Services and Support doesn't work. It's akin to saying 'The software is free, but you have to pay when it breaks/you can use it.' It's like banking your business model on your softwares lack of ease of use or propesity for not working.
Slashdot Mirror
And noise pollusion .. this thing can't be totally silent, for all ears of all species?
Heat pollusion is definately a concern for areas with sensitive ecosystems. Good point.
Ahh, Hydrogen! How stupid of me! I read the article, honest, but didn't catch that it was powered by Hydrogen. Thanks for the knock upside the head, y'all. :) Obviously, it's time to go home.
I hear that. I know the subject just begs for rhetoric, but I think you've illustrated why it isn't the black and white case some of us wish it was. It's just frusterating .. like homophobia, the intentions may be there (purity, preservation, respect, etc ... ), but it always boils down to making sure we're eating, sleeping, loving and fucking. :) I figure that as long as the human race keeps doing that, why not let the 'immoral' 3% 'waste their lives' according to some. These are, after all, the principals I thought these western democracies where build on, no? :) I realize I may just be preaching to the converted, but I just find it hard to believe that you're free to waste your life (accoring to me) on being a hardcore (no pun intented) Buffy fan, but not on pornography or loving men or [insert intolerance here].
.. ;)
Of course, if I had my way, big budget hollywood movies would be illegal for their propensity to chip away at cultural and tolerant values, and offer the lower common denominator brainfood, so I know its all subjective. Funny tho, I like how mindless entertainment and sexual allusion is valued in our world (look at Maxim), but mindless erotica is not. You'd think mass market depictions of women being sub 120lbs is worse on our more female's populations self-esteem than porn (what little ends up in front of the eyes of women) is. At least one keeps your sperm count high
Okok, I couldn't resist. I never do that.
But where does the exhaust go?
And isn't this kind of a step back in our attempt to stop using fossil fuels, or is it still a better alternative by the messes left by batteries in land fills?
The Mom test is about values that may (of course, or may not) have changed. I should hope the millions of gays out there didn't use the "Mom Test" as the acid test in determining whether or not to be gay.
.. there's no doubt its a seedy industry, but the fact that it might 'tarnish' a resume is a pretty good example of why the current attitude will keep it that way. :) We'll never get rid of porn (just ask many well adjusted, mature friends of mine who sate the exhibitionist in themselves by being amatuers), so why not accept that, and try to make it a cleaner, safer, and more socially acceptable industry for all involved?
;) Women are taught that porn is bad for women (and it is, these days, in many many ways), but in keeping it an underground, men-dominated industry and the demand only male oriented, we'll never encounter the neccessity to make it a proper and equal industry. In fact, I've met a number of females who wanted porn, but simply could not find suitable material for all the male oriented noise out there .. the local woman-oriented sexuality store (toys/materials/etc) owes me some referral money, but it's sad that guys are raised to be more accepting of pornography as an acceptable inspiration to sexual release.
And since he's considering the job, I'm pretty sure he's weighed against his own values too. Ironically, I hope more 'normal' people get swept up into the porn industry
Sadly enough, most of the people who wouldn't hire you because you worked for a porn site have probably subscribed to one at one time or another. I'm quite good at getting people to feel comfortable about talking about sensitive subjects, and I've met very few males that havn't resorted to 'creative meaterial' to help their right hand when they're between parteners (not literally of course
On a side note, Suicide Girls (the website he mentions) looks very cool, tho. Catering to specific cultures and communities is another thing the pornography industry could do to work away from it's sleeze-factor cash-grab image. We all have different tastes, and mainstream pornography does very little to aknowledge the different tastes and interests of the population.
> cancel the merchants account of anyone compromising data that badly
Which goes back to my point about the public understanding of a technology. You can't do this right now, because in the public's eyes, werbserver admin = smart guy, web crawler = invasive nameless/screenshotless technology. Therefore, public opinion, should push come to shove, would likely fall on the shoulders of Google. I would imagine, in this case, that Joe Shmoe likens Google seeing your credit card number to hooligans breaking into your house, not as the census taker who spots you naked through your curtainless bedroom window.
As He Who Owns And Runs What becomes clearer to the average joe (usually though sitcom jokes, cliches, movies, Journalists Finally Getting It (it usually happens eventually after years of a technology existing) etc), the consumer will know where the brunt of the blame lies. And while we have too much blame in our society, it does have its legitimate place (as in, publicly accepted accountability and a fair assement of a failure), so effort to make sure the blame is going to the proper places, and making sure the support from the public is directed at the correct entities, will enable the accountability in situations to fall where it should; in this case, the users operating/admin'ing the webserver. But until that admin isn't your uncle or brother (hopefully, it'll be 'you' as being able to offer services becomes more accessible to users), and Google is seen as more of a cencus taker than a peeping tom, it's unlikely that the public at large will know who to pressure for administrative mismanagement of your sensitive data, and it's subsequent accessability via search engines.
Yep. Well, unfrotunately, we're still stuck in the rut of thinking technology solves social problems. Fraud is a social problem, but thinking we can create technology to prevent it (beyond reasonable measures that inconvenience noone but go a long way to prevent spur-of-the-moment offences and casual fraud) is a paradox. Creating technology that cannot be used for questionable purposes is impossible. People who study the interaction between social behaviour and technology know its pretty much the other way around; technology changes and evolves human behaviour above and beyond how it was pre-adoption of a technology, but never ever causes humans to /stop/ doing something.
... ?
For instance, the breathalizer that may be installed on car ignitions in the future may prevent some drinking in driving, it is far more likely to change people's behaviours surrounding the issue of drunk driving - for instance, it may form a social pattern where by sober friends help drunk friends start their cars. Engineers (including software engineers) are unable to devine how their innovations will be used (ie, nobody can predict the future beyond reasonable assumptions). Should we be putting the inventor of the aerosol whipped cream can in jail for getting all those high school students high
More poingant than the actual way the government goes about assinging blame for misused technology is the hypocracy of it all. Considering the pace at which we are forced to invent and deploy to drive capitalism, these types of situations should be considered the cost of doing business the way it's currently done. Now we are stuck with an infrascructure that only a MINUTE percentage of the population actually understands, and the creators of that technology are the ones being blamed for its mismanagement and misuse. Sigh. I can only hopy that in 30 years, the population will be more in tune with the limitations of computer and software technology, in the same way that people have enough of an understanding of cars now so as not to immediately lay blame on the manufacturer when someone drives at 180kph into their local river.
I agree. I was going to say the same thing as the subject of your post .. should the cencus guy get charged with being a peeping tom if he comes up to your house while you're buck naked in front of an open livingroom window?
.. "software to behave itself."
.. you know, like .. uh, C3PO .. and .. uh, Data." I hate idiots like that ... I suppose he thinks Windows should 'ask' you if you want to install viruses (cause heaven forbid a user should have to know anything about protecting their computer), and your hard drive should kindly suggest you upgrade a few days before it bites the dust? Yeah .. technology .. thats the problem .. we just havn't invented anything perfectly enough yet. Sigh .. grab the O'Reilly, it's time for a good old-fashioned CTO beating.
>
When asked to clarify furthur, Gary said, "Uh
Maybe your co-slashdotters will get lucky and some bright poster will moderate your ass.
> by buying Sun workstations to run GIMP on?
Seriously, get a life. You are going to "comment on Ask Slashdot" without reading the story?
I hope your post is another troll.
Amen. Kinda hard to swallow all this when it still funds the NED, etc ...
well said and point taken :)
Actually, I havn't really figured out what age group we're talkin about here, but for kindergarten, I'm actually against computers in the classroom. Kindergarten may be where you learn your ABCs, but it's also a crucial environment in so far as developing your social values and how you communicate and interact. I think computers at this age would only imbed a value along the lines of: "It takes a computer to learn." Obviously, the only true way to learn is either through teaching yourself, or communication with someone else that has that knowledge and is aware of the best way to communicate it to you. (For instance, what about kids with special needs? Can you see a day where kids will not seek help from people, but rather from off-white boxes that are, at best, a clumsy interface for learning?) I'd hate for anyone to believe that computers are /solutions/ to problems. Scientists (or artists, or sales managers) use computers because the amount of data or the complexity of the problems requires a computer, for all practical purposes. ABCs do not.
... do poor schools actually NEED computers to teach ABCs? I was under the impression that it was for the specific purpose of teaching kids how to USE a computer, in which case, it's best to start with material thats as close to the source as possible. Don't forget, everyone can afford a calculator, but we still value teaching long hand devision, because one day, that tool that makes it easy might not be available; in the same way that one day, that windows partition may be corrupted. If the kids know what a partition is, like people generally know what a transmission is, they'll know what questions to ask, and how to go about either solving the problem or seeking someone who can.
.. why not take advantage of it; humans have incredible abilities to learn provided they are taught at a young age (religious fanatics are keenly aware of this), so why not go above and beyond what the market currently dictates and prepare them for a future we cannot predict? And if they want to learn windows, well ... lets just say that despite the fact that most people who live in the mountains of nepal havn't the foggiest idea how to use a telephone, our kids know how to use it without being sent to "Telephone class".
.. so you'd end up teaching 3 years of 'cutting edge' 'office environment' software, and 15 years of outdated software until MS has a chance to be punished for being anti-competative again. With OS, this would not be an issue, and, in fact, it's likely these schools would be captable of supporting infrastructure even more advanced that some of their financially off sibling schools who run Windows. I came from a middle class arts school, and while our photog teacher was very pro-tech, and kept the school first in line for technology grants from the school board, we still had Mac Plus'es in our library in 1997.
.. so much so that the transition later in life, should it need to be made, would be fairly transparent for the non-tech crowd.
Once you get into, say, grade 5 or 6, computers can become useful in order to provide a means of illustrating the abstractions of math, or to provide easier access to things like maps for geography, etc. But thats also around the age where the computer saavy start their tinkering (or some of them, at least). Which leads me to believe that it's a good age where kids can start to understand what a computer is, what software is, etc
> let them use computers with an OS their parents are likely to have on their home computer
Considering this is for poor schools, this is a glaring example of how you're projecting your situation or values on another demographic. These schools, and likely the parents of the kids who go there, don't, and may likely never be able to afford a computer. Best to reserve your input until you've reformed it within the social and material context of the situation. IE, we've got a clean slate here
BTW, what happens in 5 years, when everyone has upgraded? It's unlikely these schools will suddenly have license money
However, there is one factor in your favor: it's unlikely the teachers at these schools will know how to handle Linux any better than the kids, should RedHat get deployed, so I'm not entirely sure that OS software is a practical solution. Of course, if RedHat provides on-site admins and such, then, problem solved. And finally, as a parting shot, don't forget, if you're a truely tech-helpless student, KDE offers a very very very similar experience to Windows
All I know is that the most important institutions in our world, ie schools, general hospitals (exluding specialty wings, wards, etc), etc are the ones most often strapped for cash and lagged behind current technology, due to price. Socialist values are on the decline, so why the hell should we pour less money into taxes, and then turn around and demand those institutions run what (in many cases) only the private sector can afford?
Hah! Everyone who knows Linux should have NO problem learning Windows.
BTW, isn't that the message in every single goddamn ad for Windows? Ie, "So easy to use, even if you're a freaking moron who fell asleep in the middle ages and just woke up, you'll be emailing movies to your grandson in no time."
To that end, thats the argument Redhat should take to court. "If windows is so easy to use, whats the benifit of putting kids on them so early on?" At least that'd force MS to actually admit that using an operating system (tho I suppose they'd use the euphamism "computer") requires some learning and training.
But like I said, knowing Linux forces you to know computers. And knowing computers, its pretty easy to pick up Windows at your own leisure. The reverse is not true, as one of the main purposes and selling points of windows is that it allows people who don't have a clue about hardware and software to email, surf the web, and use word processing.
Noble intentions? It's not like they woke up one morning, and offered what they did out of the goodness of their hearts. It's being proposed as a punishment, and everyone knows it.
..
MS and Bill Gates, despite their business practices, are still fairly active in the charity community, however, so I don't think you can paint this one black and white.
All I know, is that, if I were a teacher in a poor school, I'd be livid that it takes a mammoth corperation to engage in anti-competative business practices, in order to receive new equipment. I guess we really have forgotten what the government and taxes are for
I really don't think anyone needs to be sold a 'nice' image of Microsoft. Microsoft is successful because their software is the best at helping the computer illiterate at actually accomplishing some tasks (and/or making them think it is), in the same way that Titanic and Ammargeddon were successful because those movies are good at helping the culturally illiterate sit through a movie.
If you don't know what questions to ask, you'll probably be satisfied with whatever answer is thrown at you. Anything more, that might cause you to re-evaluate your own motives and tasks you wish to accomplish (or culture and values with respect to movies) will drive away people en masse.
[offtopic]What's a non-terrible ask slashdot, or are you just upset that half of them don't involve games anymore? Given current events, I find it hard to believe that trying to get some of the more poor places in the world up 'n running in so far as marketable skills and data goes constitutes a poor Ask Slashdot.[/offtopic]
> That is NOT the same thing as a Superman movie teaching a kid to jump off the roof. There's no 'urge' for the kid to jump off the roof, and Superman doing so doesn't teach the kid that it's okay to give in to his 'urge'.
.. it does NOT teach us that the real thing IS OKAY. People go to see it, not for the plot, or the acting, but because they want to see a PRETEND VERSION OF SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINATELY NOT OKAY WHEN DONE FOR REAL.
.. were you abused, or are you just looking out for the poor helpless clueless defenseless abuse victims like me?
Okayokay. I retract my Superman example.
Any violent movie. Bruce Willis is the hero. Does he teach us that killing is okay? That, if you have the urge to kill someone (as people tend to do), just find a bunch of wrong doers, and then shoot the living shit out of them? No, because is PRETEND killing, and the sane ones out there, know it. Just like pornography in which the subject 'appears young' tells us that it is OKAY to pretend
Also:
Diaper fetish movies. Athromorphic pornography. Rape fantasy movies. All are examples of situations or imagery that depict acts that, if carried out in real life, would inflict hurt on people (or animals.) I've had two girlfriends who loved rape porn. Does having pornography that ENACTS a scenario that participants and audiences know are wrong in real life constitute a violation of the rights of anyone? NO.
I was abused as a child. I was abused as a teenager. Fuck you for telling me to keep my mouth shut about a subject I know nothing about, and double fuck you (unless you were also abused) for assuming you know the ramifications of such pornography.
Urges are like earthquake faults. It's far better to let them out in small, consentual ways than to force someone into seeking out the 'big one' when the urges get too much with no release.
So tell me
Oh grow up. By that logic, the creators of Superman should be held accountable for kids leaping off the top of their building. Or old models should be held accountable for Billy Bob raping his 78 year old neighbour. Actually, maybe you should join that suit that the columnbine parents brought against ID software (they were 'simulating killing'!)
...
Moron. Like everyone else, you forget that social patterns drive media and communication, not vice versa as we are taught to believe. Does my country, by destroying lesbian porn imports at the border, prevent women from seeking 'deviant lesbian' lifestyles? Of course not. It just forces them to make the porn themselves, which, SURPRISE, is counter the intentions of the conservative minds in charge. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, blah blah blah
Thats why I love Mac. But since most casual users don't get it (ie, they dont know anything about computers, thus can't spot the superiority), the price is still a factor in being an Apple customer. I wish more people would buy; at least that would bring down the price somewhat.
> You don't think the CPU on your computer knows English, do you?
Probably not for awhile. But on the flipside, hardware would probable be more understandable to humans if we attempted to minimize the abstraction between hardware/software; causing hardware developers to think about the interface to their componants, both physical and virtual, and how to make them intuative and simple enough for a wider range of users (Ie, no jumper pins, SCSI-like device IDS instead of IRQ/DMAs/etc). Abstraction simply alleviates the engineer of social responsibility, although I understand that in current times, the engineer is thought to have no place in being involved in determining the social relevance of the product.
> I'd think he'd be reading CNN.com
.. (well, geez, the guy has been LIVING CNN.com for the last 8 years, I think the last thing he need to know is what is going on in the world)
/I/ wouldn't do that!
/I/ can't believe that!
.. now THATS news. So, in this case, Afghan kid knows whats up in the world and wants an iPod. Thats NEWS, sadly enough, because it's unique. Interesting. I'm sure he did look at CNN.com, but is that news? Had he told that to Katz, Katz probably wouldn't have even mentionned it. (In fact, whos to say that he didn't?)
.. if you're so intent on surmising that anything out of your social norm is probably untrue, that's why you'll be standing still why the rest of the world flies by ya. You're not commenting on your neighbour down the street here.
I really can't believe you can't see the difference between imposing your cultural/social/financial/etc context and values on someone else, only to use it as evidence that the story is unplausible. I'm not going to argue this
Also, consider that what he said he wants is heavily affected by who he's talking to. Katz used to work for wired; its only natural that Junis would want to diplay his 'withitness' to a former wired journalist.
You see, you're only furthur proving my point, by placing your values, prioties and experiences over a world so far removed from yours that any attempt to judge is viewed by some people from other countries as completely self involved.
The point is, everyone seems to be disproving Katz with evidence along the lines of:
1.
2.
See, dog bites man happens every day, so it's not news. But dog bites man
ARG. Just comment on the story
Actually, you kind proove my point. Being:
How do you (or I) actually know?
I guess your answer would be 'I do'.
Case closed,
QED
<obvious>Why not hook the kids up to CocaCola and BigMac's, IV'd.</obvious>
.. don't let your kids get left behind by forcing them to think "My Documents" is where their files are, no matter which computer/OS/etc they are on.
/surely/ be stuck in places when they grow up when only Coke is available).
This is kind of backwards if you want your next generation to be tech-saavy. Windows ABSTRACTS computers, removing the need (for most people) to actually know how a computer (and software) operates. In this respect, the world will be FORCED to at least have a small understanding of the technology
At any rate, it's insane. Would we let Coke donate lots of Coke to kids as a settlement (knowing that they'll
What strikes me the most is the acceptance that Windows will be the dominant platform for the next 80 years. Fortunately, this will not be true. Very few companies even stay in business that long.
Ahh .. additional development/cuztomization is where its at. Agreed. I was only referring to technical support and training.
When it comes to customizing solutions or adding features at a customer's request, I think those are definate opportunities to get revenue, in a context where the customer feels they are getting something for it in return, other than the ability to _use_ the OS'd software.
Anyways, point taken.
Whether Katz is being accurate and honest here is up for debate, but what I love is the incredulousness. Like:
.. it's imPOSSIBLE that he had those things, otherwise we might be forced to admit that the 'liberty' of being American really isn't that far off of many other places in the world. (Heck, do you really think a woman could be the president of the USA?)
.. no where did he say it was a 64
What?! He can download movies? He knew about the MS case? Baywatch? Damnit
At any rate, it's absolutely infuriating to see Americans so indignantly resolute in their assuption that Afganistan = Backwards = No One has a Clue What Goes On in the Real World. They were under an oppressive rule, and could be KILLED for simple things like using computers. That doesn't mean they sat around for 8 years with their thumbs up their asses, waiting for the Americans to get pissed off at their leaders, only to 'liberate' them into a world of higher pop culture conciousness. Sheesh. No doubt some Afgans secretly kept short wave radios. It's possible that some of the US Army commandos are providing satillite uplinks (just a guess, probably not). There are LOTS of reasons why Katz' story could be true.
When people talk about Americans being self-involved, this is what they are talking about! What bothers me is not whether Katz is being honest or not (and you don't really need to make up stories in times like this unless you're gunning for public support of military action or resctriction of civil liberties), but how people cannot ACCEPT things.
Shit, it's not like the entire population of Afghanistan ICQ'd Katz 2 minutes after the Taliban were driven south.
And Commadore made PCs
Agreed. Thats what I was saying .. charging for Services and Support doesn't work. It's akin to saying 'The software is free, but you have to pay when it breaks/you can use it.' It's like banking your business model on your softwares lack of ease of use or propesity for not working.