Lots of/. people have e-mailed me to meet me, and we've had good times.Just e-mail me and we'll work out a time..anonymous threats somehow don't cause a lot of trembling in the knees, but you are probably worth meeting anyway. Anyway, just e-mail me and we'll work it out.
I think this is just a description of thoughtful conservatism, not a response to the question about technology..Technology doesn't create a political environment, but the issue is whether it can affect the political environment..Size of government is important but seems a different issue to me.
.Personally, I think all parties are now too restricted to contain the explosion of ideas and opionion in evidence on the Net and elsewhere.>Why limit oneself to one way of looking at all issues, when there are countless opinions and points of view available. I really have come to dislike the ideaof parties and specific and confining ideologies, two or three or five.
..I hope the moderators get the intelligence of this post...I think Tim is correct..Technology is a mirror, not a cause, IMHO. But the question is, how does one have civil conversations online? All you have to do is see what the tiny minority of/. window breakers can do to any discussion to wonder if there can ever be coherent public discussions without some form of control, even censorship. Personally I doubt it, but I'd welcome some ideas about it. How can there be civil discussion here?
...is not only a great idea, but really stands out as to the political promise of the Web, especially contrast to the jerks mouthing off on most public topics and forums...This seems to me a potentially brilliant response to the question of whether technology can advance democracy. Thanks for it.
This goes back to the question of autonomous technology..does technology control us or do we control it..I personally feel technology has the power to reconnect people to democracy, depending on how it's use. But I agree with the poster that people perceive technology and its many offshots and disconnecting them..I blame this on the takeover of politics by greedy and mostly corporate interest groups..Why should people pay attention to a system that doesn't pay attention to them? But I don't believe it's technology's fault..we can, as some posters have suggested, use technology any way we want.
Yes..this is completely accurate and wise, IMHO. Lobbyists and corporations are the number one political contributors to candidates and have completely corrupted the political system, as John McCain has been arguing for years. I think much more than technology this has disconnected people from politics. Corporations have lobbyists, but citizens no longer do.
If you read the column (or the intro) you'd see that I was disagreeing with the statement that technology causes disconnection with politics, not agreeing with it. I have no problem with disagreement, but you might at least skim the subject matter and I do feel entitled to be quoted more or less accurately..at least within the ballpark..this is another lazy post..
My monicker on/. is "Gasbag" so nobody could disagree about the hot air, including me, but my sense is that this is a poster who read the intro but not the column..Lots of people much smarter than me believe technology could be used to make democracy work..it already does, from TV info to the mechanized ballot box..So I'd say I have lots of hot air, but this is a lazy post that didn't real the column
I didn't set it up, but when I was at Hotwired, we set up a local political chat room..Sadly (and familiarly), it was disrupted by the tostosterone poisoned, for whom there is no cure or antidote. There are two chat rooms in my town..one for a neighborhood seeking to revitalize itself, another for a school/parents group trying to resolve some racial problems..Both are working very well..I'm online enuf, but there are a number of groups who set up chats like this..Few chats work yet, in my experience, just as few coherent discussions online are possible because of the hostility..
Thanks for this post..but do these chats, which are tightly controlled (I've been on a few, and the questions are tightly edited and screened to keep the yahoos off who run amok on threads here). Politicians really aren't pressed, and only an infinitesmal amount of people get through..Has anybody seen a bit chat interview that really works? To me, this can only work on a smaller level, as in a block, neighborhood or school environment? Yes?
But the issue is really technology and democracy. I'm neither a Luddite nor a technocrat happily, as even a cursory reading would show..My own notion here is that the 2002 campaign will change things..that this will be the first election in which people who grew up on the Net and the Web will run for office, a la Jesse Ventura..when that happens, people will have a leader to follow and an agenda that make sense. Any thoughts?
Strange correction..In one of the posts below, the one which states that the NSA could read any encrypted e-mail program in a day, I identified an e-mailer as a programmer..He isn't. I got more than a score of e-mailers from people identifing themselves as cryptographers and government employers, but he wasn't one of them. Those that did e-mail me were very strong in saying no "snoop-proof" e-mail system most people could use was really snoop proof.
A UK prof and regular e-mailer sends this: Jon, one of my students has just completed a thesis that describes a > system that allows you to send messages across the system that are > guaranteed anonymous. The system assumes the use of PDA like machines > but can definitely be made to work. Proivacy of content can of course be > obtained by encrypting the messages. (Up to a point etc....) > > L.
Sadly, it is shorter. Next week I intend to do a five line column..Since I know many of you won't read the column, here's a question I'd love some help with. in the book, Rosen argues that new software..encryption, pseudonymous e-mails, etc. will return a sense of privacy to the Net. Is this so? Do any of you think software can really protect privacy from government surveillance and corporate tracking programs.
The tradeoff with the gender discrimination stuff is pretty interesting...It's a strong example of one kind of freedom colliding with another..But the loss of privacy online is particularly painful, as the thing most people I know love the most about going online is the freedom to explore. Seems gender discrimination could be protected other ways?
I have an idea (apologies to those who actually want to talk about this good book). How bout you all get blocking software for your filtering software..sort of like a double condom? That might protect you..
The irony is just too wonderful..people on a site like this bouncing off the ceiling cause they couldn't filter out a writer they don't like. Has to go into one of the books..Mmmm...
...that watching these people shriek and howl and jump up and down cause their censor/filters got circumvented..I've got to figure out a way to do this daily.
Getting lots of interesting e-mail, one of which is reprinted at the end of this message: To me, it comes down to choice. If you feel you are free to disconnect at any time without penalty, thereis no issue. If you feel you can't without suffering in some way, then there's a problem.As is the case with this e-mailer:
I'm 19, I've been working in IT since I was 16, and been working with > Linux in specific since I was 13 years old, I've got a mile long list of > abilities, and I've recently moved from Seattle to Milwaukee to be with my > girlfriend, and also to evade the work market in Seattle, as it envolves > lots of 80-90 hour weeks most of the time. Needless to say, in my last > job in Seattle, I was accually asked to resign because I made absoutley > sure I was working exactally 40 hours each week, after the first few > weeks of not getting any compensation for my long hours. (No "number of > hours considered a work week" was present in my contract, Washington state > defines a work week as 40 hours.) > > When I moved to Milwaukee, I made the explicit declaration in my resume > that I was seeking a standard 9-5 job, but that I would gladly be on call > 24/7 for emergencies. I've been told by numerious employers that a 50-60 > hour work week would be required from them for "server maintaince and > upkeep", which basically envolves setting up a paging system like > NetSaint, and waiting for trouble to strike. When I inquired further as to > what kind of compensation would be provided for extra hours, I was > informed that it would be agreed that 60 hours was a standard work week in > any potitental contract I may sign with xxx company. In one case, I asked > what the hours of my possible supervisor were, I was told 40, and that was > because "he was 35, and had a lots of Linux experience". I've been working > with Linux for 6 years, I can code C in my sleep, I've even given > interested employers ideas on things I can do to increase profit with less > resource and even pointed them to some of the GPL C programs I've written, > still, this outlandish requirement of too many hours exists. > > I've tryed rationally informing employers that a 50-60 hour work week is > not acceptiable, because I also have a life at home with my girlfriend, > they seem to feel that's some kind of personality flaw, and quite frankly, > I'm getting fairly sick of it. > > I've just now polished up my resume, removed that request, and am sending > it back arround, because unfortunatley in this world you can't live too > long without money, but this is a growing trend I feel ought to be > scrapped ASAP. As of right now, I've got 3 resumes, one that makes me look > like a script kiddie (essientally), one that makes me look like I'm still > learning, and one that's my accuall list of abilities. I'm trying to sort > through job offers to figure out what one to send xxx company as we speak. > > One last thing, if I do find a job that's 40 hours that sounds reasonable, > I'm informed that they aren't looking for anyone "with as much experience > as you have", because either "they don't feel they could pay adiquatley", > or because "we want someone who's still learning to some degree, so we can > learn as well". I've learned to hate both comments, because no matter how > many times I say, "the pay scale you have presented to me seems more > than adiquate", they've still made their decision, and the conversation > is over. > > Just my 2 cents, >
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of
I think this is just a description of thoughtful conservatism, not a response to the question about technology..Technology doesn't create a political environment, but the issue is whether it can affect the political environment..Size of government is important but seems a different issue to me.
.Personally, I think all parties are now too restricted to contain the explosion of ideas and opionion in evidence on the Net and elsewhere.>Why limit oneself to one way of looking at all issues, when there are countless opinions and points of view available. I really have come to dislike the ideaof parties and specific and confining ideologies, two or three or five.
..I hope the moderators get the intelligence of this post...I think Tim is correct..Technology is a mirror, not a cause, IMHO. But the question is, how does one have civil conversations online? All you have to do is see what the tiny minority of
...is not only a great idea, but really stands out as to the political promise of the Web, especially contrast to the jerks mouthing off on most public topics and forums...This seems to me a potentially brilliant response to the question of whether technology can advance democracy. Thanks for it.
This goes back to the question of autonomous technology..does technology control us or do we control it..I personally feel technology has the power to reconnect people to democracy, depending on how it's use. But I agree with the poster that people perceive technology and its many offshots and disconnecting them..I blame this on the takeover of politics by greedy and mostly corporate interest groups..Why should people pay attention to a system that doesn't pay attention to them? But I don't believe it's technology's fault..we can, as some posters have suggested, use technology any way we want.
Yes..this is completely accurate and wise, IMHO. Lobbyists and corporations are the number one political contributors to candidates and have completely corrupted the political system, as John McCain has been arguing for years. I think much more than technology this has disconnected people from politics. Corporations have lobbyists, but citizens no longer do.
If you read the column (or the intro) you'd see that I was disagreeing with the statement that technology causes disconnection with politics, not agreeing with it. I have no problem with disagreement, but you might at least skim the subject matter and I do feel entitled to be quoted more or less accurately..at least within the ballpark..this is another lazy post..
My monicker on
If pols are overwhelmed by e-mail petitions, does the e-mail have any meaning..Isn't it highly manipulable?
I didn't set it up, but when I was at Hotwired, we set up a local political chat room..Sadly (and familiarly), it was disrupted by the tostosterone poisoned, for whom there is no cure or antidote. There are two chat rooms in my town..one for a neighborhood seeking to revitalize itself, another for a school/parents group trying to resolve some racial problems..Both are working very well..I'm online enuf, but there are a number of groups who set up chats like this..Few chats work yet, in my experience, just as few coherent discussions online are possible because of the hostility..
..and a truly astonishing use of your time..But under the dunce cap, I have little hair.. P.S. Can I get a copy of this?
Thanks for this post..but do these chats, which are tightly controlled (I've been on a few, and the questions are tightly edited and screened to keep the yahoos off who run amok on threads here). Politicians really aren't pressed, and only an infinitesmal amount of people get through..Has anybody seen a bit chat interview that really works? To me, this can only work on a smaller level, as in a block, neighborhood or school environment? Yes?
..but what about technology and democracy? can one be used to promote the other?
But the issue is really technology and democracy. I'm neither a Luddite nor a technocrat happily, as even a cursory reading would show..My own notion here is that the 2002 campaign will change things..that this will be the first election in which people who grew up on the Net and the Web will run for office, a la Jesse Ventura..when that happens, people will have a leader to follow and an agenda that make sense. Any thoughts?
We should provide whatever help they need and ask. This is an important site..
Strange correction..In one of the posts below, the one which states that the NSA could read any encrypted e-mail program in a day, I identified an e-mailer as a programmer..He isn't. I got more than a score of e-mailers from people identifing themselves as cryptographers and government employers, but he wasn't one of them. Those that did e-mail me were very strong in saying no "snoop-proof" e-mail system most people could use was really snoop proof.
A UK prof and regular e-mailer sends this:
Jon, one of my students has just completed a thesis that describes a
> system that allows you to send messages across the system that are
> guaranteed anonymous. The system assumes the use of PDA like machines
> but can definitely be made to work. Proivacy of content can of course be
> obtained by encrypting the messages. (Up to a point etc....)
>
> L.
Sadly, it is shorter.
Next week I intend to do a five line column..Since I know many of you won't read the column, here's a question I'd love some help with. in the book, Rosen argues that new software..encryption, pseudonymous e-mails, etc. will return a sense of privacy to the Net. Is this so? Do any of you think software can really protect privacy from government surveillance and corporate tracking programs.
The tradeoff with the gender discrimination stuff is pretty interesting...It's a strong example of one kind of freedom colliding with another..But the loss of privacy online is particularly painful, as the thing most people I know love the most about going online is the freedom to explore.
Seems gender discrimination could be protected other ways?
I will. I promise..
I have an idea (apologies to those who actually want to talk about this good book). How bout you all get blocking software for your filtering software..sort of like a double condom? That might protect you..
The irony is just too wonderful..people on a site like this bouncing off the ceiling cause they couldn't filter out a writer they don't like. Has to go into one of the books..Mmmm...
...that watching these people shriek and howl and jump up and down cause their censor/filters got circumvented..I've got to figure out a way to do this daily.
Getting lots of interesting e-mail, one of which is reprinted at the end of this message: To me, it comes down to choice. If you feel you are free to disconnect at any time without penalty, thereis no issue. If you feel you can't without suffering in some way, then there's a problem.As is the case with this e-mailer:
I'm 19, I've been working in IT since I was 16, and been working with
> Linux in specific since I was 13 years old, I've got a mile long list of
> abilities, and I've recently moved from Seattle to Milwaukee to be with my
> girlfriend, and also to evade the work market in Seattle, as it envolves
> lots of 80-90 hour weeks most of the time. Needless to say, in my last
> job in Seattle, I was accually asked to resign because I made absoutley
> sure I was working exactally 40 hours each week, after the first few
> weeks of not getting any compensation for my long hours. (No "number of
> hours considered a work week" was present in my contract, Washington state
> defines a work week as 40 hours.)
>
> When I moved to Milwaukee, I made the explicit declaration in my resume
> that I was seeking a standard 9-5 job, but that I would gladly be on call
> 24/7 for emergencies. I've been told by numerious employers that a 50-60
> hour work week would be required from them for "server maintaince and
> upkeep", which basically envolves setting up a paging system like
> NetSaint, and waiting for trouble to strike. When I inquired further as to
> what kind of compensation would be provided for extra hours, I was
> informed that it would be agreed that 60 hours was a standard work week in
> any potitental contract I may sign with xxx company. In one case, I asked
> what the hours of my possible supervisor were, I was told 40, and that was
> because "he was 35, and had a lots of Linux experience". I've been working
> with Linux for 6 years, I can code C in my sleep, I've even given
> interested employers ideas on things I can do to increase profit with less
> resource and even pointed them to some of the GPL C programs I've written,
> still, this outlandish requirement of too many hours exists.
>
> I've tryed rationally informing employers that a 50-60 hour work week is
> not acceptiable, because I also have a life at home with my girlfriend,
> they seem to feel that's some kind of personality flaw, and quite frankly,
> I'm getting fairly sick of it.
>
> I've just now polished up my resume, removed that request, and am sending
> it back arround, because unfortunatley in this world you can't live too
> long without money, but this is a growing trend I feel ought to be
> scrapped ASAP. As of right now, I've got 3 resumes, one that makes me look
> like a script kiddie (essientally), one that makes me look like I'm still
> learning, and one that's my accuall list of abilities. I'm trying to sort
> through job offers to figure out what one to send xxx company as we speak.
>
> One last thing, if I do find a job that's 40 hours that sounds reasonable,
> I'm informed that they aren't looking for anyone "with as much experience
> as you have", because either "they don't feel they could pay adiquatley",
> or because "we want someone who's still learning to some degree, so we can
> learn as well". I've learned to hate both comments, because no matter how
> many times I say, "the pay scale you have presented to me seems more
> than adiquate", they've still made their decision, and the conversation
> is over.
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>