Actually I do have experience in what it's like to be truly poor. My family was in a tough bind for several years straight. When one of my relatives died, we got some money and my mom decided to put part of it to a new computer. It HAS changed my life. With it I was able to start accumulating skills that allowed me to escape the quagmire of poverty. The same went for the rest of my family.
Computers are a gateway to knowledge, and knowledge, when used effectively, is power. And in our society, power is money.
The basic difference between computers and TV is that TV is a passive medium, and computers are an active medium. That's why I worry about current trends in making computers more user-friendly (or in some case replacing them with passive medium type devices, like WebTV for example). You take the challenge out of it, and then you take away the opportunity. Good-bye knowledge, say hello to all the couch potatoes.
Unfortunately, our culture (American culture that is) thrives on mass media, and mass media thrives on people who don't think and just act on impulse. The World Wide Web was a reversal in that trend... suddenly a mass medium that challenged you and made you a part of a community, rather than a spoon-fed society! But the reversal has reversed again, and we're going back to dumb mass-consumerism.
This is precisely the reason why I don't have much sympathy for those who won't take on new challenges because it might be "too hard". If it's too hard for you, then step aside for someone willing to take on the challenge. You're only standing in the way.
Back to the original article that started this thread: If we want minorty and poor families to get involved with technology, making things easier and more user-friendly won't solve the problem. To them, it's just another type of TV. Why bother? Present them with the challenge of opportunity. Believe me, there will quite a few people who are currently disadvantaged economically who will answer the call.
I just recently started my collection on O'Reilly books (Learning Perl, Programming Perl, and Advanced Perl Programming). I've bought other technical manuals in the past, and the primary distinction between O'Reilly and their competition is not the animal covers.:^)
Most technical manuals are written in the style of a college professor lecturing to his class. "This is the right way to do it." they usually proclaim. The Perl books (and others I have parused) from O'Reilly are written by someone who will tell you, "Well, this is how I got this to work. Give it a try, and see if it works for you." No lecturing involved, just straightforward handy information.
The animals, however, are a bonus. Creativity in a world usually devoid of such. I'm dreading the day, however, when some other publisher starts to publish "copycat" titles with animals gracing their covers. Eek.
BTW, I see a lot of "What a lamer! I could write a better article than this Lion guy!" I'll say bullshit. If you *can* write a better paper, I want to see it. Otherwise, quit talking out of your asses.
Believe me when I say you don't want to learn the raw XWindow programming stuff... toolkits exist for a reason, namely to provide a source of sanity for the poor developer.
If it weren't for GTK I'd probably be programming Motif (well, OK, actually I'd be programming in QT, but that's besides the point). Motif is much like raw X Window System calls, except that Motif is MUCH MUCH WORSE! Motif is much like the stinky dead fish that your dog insists on digging up every time you try to throw it away. The world needs more Motif applications like I need a hole in my head. I can go on and on about this. Really, I can.
Moral of the story: Learn a toolkit. Believe me on this one. I've made dumber comments, but few have been more true. Just don't do Motif.:^)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I do have experience in what it's like to be truly poor. My family was in a tough bind for several years straight. When one of my relatives died, we got some money and my mom decided to put part of it to a new computer. It HAS changed my life. With it I was able to start accumulating skills that allowed me to escape the quagmire of poverty. The same went for the rest of my family.
Computers are a gateway to knowledge, and knowledge, when used effectively, is power. And in our society, power is money.
The basic difference between computers and TV is that TV is a passive medium, and computers are an active medium. That's why I worry about current trends in making computers more user-friendly (or in some case replacing them with passive medium type devices, like WebTV for example). You take the challenge out of it, and then you take away the opportunity. Good-bye knowledge, say hello to all the couch potatoes.
Unfortunately, our culture (American culture that is) thrives on mass media, and mass media thrives on people who don't think and just act on impulse. The World Wide Web was a reversal in that trend... suddenly a mass medium that challenged you and made you a part of a community, rather than a spoon-fed society! But the reversal has reversed again, and we're going back to dumb mass-consumerism.
This is precisely the reason why I don't have much sympathy for those who won't take on new challenges because it might be "too hard". If it's too hard for you, then step aside for someone willing to take on the challenge. You're only standing in the way.
Back to the original article that started this thread: If we want minorty and poor families to get involved with technology, making things easier and more user-friendly won't solve the problem. To them, it's just another type of TV. Why bother? Present them with the challenge of opportunity. Believe me, there will quite a few people who are currently disadvantaged economically who will answer the call.
Ok, where the hell is R2D2??? he fixes everything, not only that, he's responsible for the whole series.
Most technical manuals are written in the style of a college professor lecturing to his class. "This is the right way to do it." they usually proclaim. The Perl books (and others I have parused) from O'Reilly are written by someone who will tell you, "Well, this is how I got this to work. Give it a try, and see if it works for you." No lecturing involved, just straightforward handy information.
The animals, however, are a bonus. Creativity in a world usually devoid of such. I'm dreading the day, however, when some other publisher starts to publish "copycat" titles with animals gracing their covers. Eek.
Well, at least it still responds to pings. :^)
BTW, I see a lot of "What a lamer! I could write a better article than this Lion guy!" I'll say bullshit. If you *can* write a better paper, I want to see it. Otherwise, quit talking out of your asses.
Ah... feel better.
Believe me when I say you don't want to learn the raw XWindow programming stuff... toolkits exist for a reason, namely to provide a source of sanity for the poor developer.
:^)
If it weren't for GTK I'd probably be programming Motif (well, OK, actually I'd be programming in QT, but that's besides the point). Motif is much like raw X Window System calls, except that Motif is MUCH MUCH WORSE! Motif is much like the stinky dead fish that your dog insists on digging up every time you try to throw it away. The world needs more Motif applications like I need a hole in my head. I can go on and on about this. Really, I can.
Moral of the story: Learn a toolkit. Believe me on this one. I've made dumber comments, but few have been more true. Just don't do Motif.
I'm getting one now!
But does it have the Unix 2038 bug? I think that is just as important
There are more important things to worry about than KDE/Gnome. I don't fret myself over it. I use both of them interchangeably.
Think happy thoughts! Happy happy Happy HAppY HAPPY HAPPY GODDAMMIT I'M HAPPY! HAHAHAHAHAHA! (strokes fluffy white cat named "Precious" and pushes evil buttons).