Just because some paradims do change in the way we think about Academia, does that mean that it's all wrong? Until recently (relatively speaking), slavery was right - does that mean that it's wrong to say that slavery is wrong?
This makes the assumption that one or the other--the old paradigm or the new one--must be right on virtue of being the old or the new one. We shouldn't accept either paradigm on account of its previous or current acceptance. What's important to ask is whether it's actually good or not.
Capatalism has long been accepted as the best model for the development of society - universally since the fall of communism.
Capitalism is an economic system which is supposed to encourage innovation and quality by weeding out products that aren't as good. The world of research already had its own system to weed the good research from the bad. The good research would be read, discussed, and referenced in later research. The ethics and implications of such research would also be considered. Bad or useless research would simply be read and then dismissed. By bringing money into the situation they're introducing a factor that would encourage high quality, useful research, but it would also create a new goal--profit. The basic purpose of academe is to research and consider the results in a way that is beneficial to society. And much the way that capitalism makes personal interests and personal profit the main focus, this new goal would make the research primarily beneficial to the individual over society.
This isn't about the Corporate Republic - instead, it's the early Free Market pioneer's dream. We have systems that prevent abuses of the market - Microsoft, for instance.
The simple fact is that the government just won't be able to keep up with technology. Look at some of the laws that they've passed attempting to govern it. They're inadequately equipped to deal with new research or new technology. This is something that must rest in the hands of academe before the hands of the government should be able to touch it.
I don't want genetic researchers to be thinking only about the money that they're going to get. I want them thinking about the ethical implications of their research. By allowing money to influence the people who are doing this kind of research and who best understand it, we are giving them leave to seek their own interests where they should be looking after ours.
Re:Katz writes about things without having 2 clues
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 2
"You want to be good with tech? You have to be smart and dedicated. If you're not, tough noogies. There aren't armies of geeks wanting to come to your door and baby your email when it doesn't work. The problem is that, of course, everyone is not smart and dedicated. This isn't my problem."
One of the problems with political institutions making laws governing all things technological is that they don't understand them. The only way that laws will be passed that can intelligently govern things on the internet is if politicians and the general population do come to understand that better. If we do care about technology and the internet, then we should help other people to use and understand them. It is our problem if they don't.
"This sentiment runs deep, I suspect, because most of us got the shaft from "popular culture" when we were young (myself included). Well, the tides are turning, and no, I won't hand things to you on a silver platter. Go bust your ass and then come and talk to me. I'm happy with my world."
Does the fact that popular culture didn't treat many of us with respect mean that we have no responsibility to society? We do make up our own little niche of society and we can either choose to do the same things or we can grow up and try to do something good for people. If we do that then we'll be more valued and younger geeks will reap some of the benefits of that.
We really do owe it to people to use our tech knowledge to help them to understand how to use technology and to understand the issues around it that concern us.
One possible way for the music industry to make money off mp3s would be to sell them online similar to the way that Stephen King is trying to sell his new novel. They could give the option of downloading the file for free, or paying some small amount for it.
There are some problems with this method of distribution, but it could work. The best way to do this would be to release songs from a particular artist or album online one at a time, and to release the next only if the song before it makes some set amount of money. If it were clearly being abused and almost no one was paying for it, they could stop releasing them. People wouldn't have to pay for it, but they wouldn't continue being able to download more of their songs if they didn't.
With this system they would be able to release rare songs online, making them easier to get ahold of. It would also allow you to buy only the specific songs that you like, rather than buying an entire album that has only one or two that you like. It also cuts down on the cost of the physical materials used to make the CD.
If they did use a system like this, Napster could pose a tangible threat to their profits. They wouldn't be able to monitor whether the music that they spent money to produce was being downloaded without compensation.
Personally, I would prefer to pay money for a song I like rather than pirating it, but right now there's no way to do that with mp3s. And distributing music this way would be so much nicer than having to use files that have been encrypted to ensure that they were paid for, or some of the other methods I've heard about ensuring that the songs were paid for.
The fact is that technology is intended to benefit the company rather than the employees. When they make the decision to invest in new technology, the question they ask is whether the investment will be profitable, not whether the employees will like it. If the people who work there are more stressed, that is of little concern to the employers as long as they are more productive.
This is just part of an overall trend in big business to have almost no concern for anything but profit. All aspects of this affect workers' stress. If a company thinks that lay-offs will cut down on costs more than their income, they'll lay people off. If they think that requiring employees to be reachable outside of work will make them more productive, they'll require that.
As long as the stress that workers feel isn't more of a hindrance to work than all these excessive requirements on productivity, they have no reason to change them.
Slashdot Mirror
This makes the assumption that one or the other--the old paradigm or the new one--must be right on virtue of being the old or the new one. We shouldn't accept either paradigm on account of its previous or current acceptance. What's important to ask is whether it's actually good or not.
Capitalism is an economic system which is supposed to encourage innovation and quality by weeding out products that aren't as good. The world of research already had its own system to weed the good research from the bad. The good research would be read, discussed, and referenced in later research. The ethics and implications of such research would also be considered. Bad or useless research would simply be read and then dismissed. By bringing money into the situation they're introducing a factor that would encourage high quality, useful research, but it would also create a new goal--profit. The basic purpose of academe is to research and consider the results in a way that is beneficial to society. And much the way that capitalism makes personal interests and personal profit the main focus, this new goal would make the research primarily beneficial to the individual over society.
The simple fact is that the government just won't be able to keep up with technology. Look at some of the laws that they've passed attempting to govern it. They're inadequately equipped to deal with new research or new technology. This is something that must rest in the hands of academe before the hands of the government should be able to touch it.
I don't want genetic researchers to be thinking only about the money that they're going to get. I want them thinking about the ethical implications of their research. By allowing money to influence the people who are doing this kind of research and who best understand it, we are giving them leave to seek their own interests where they should be looking after ours.
One of the problems with political institutions making laws governing all things technological is that they don't understand them. The only way that laws will be passed that can intelligently govern things on the internet is if politicians and the general population do come to understand that better. If we do care about technology and the internet, then we should help other people to use and understand them. It is our problem if they don't.
Does the fact that popular culture didn't treat many of us with respect mean that we have no responsibility to society? We do make up our own little niche of society and we can either choose to do the same things or we can grow up and try to do something good for people. If we do that then we'll be more valued and younger geeks will reap some of the benefits of that.
We really do owe it to people to use our tech knowledge to help them to understand how to use technology and to understand the issues around it that concern us.
One possible way for the music industry to make money off mp3s would be to sell them online similar to the way that Stephen King is trying to sell his new novel. They could give the option of downloading the file for free, or paying some small amount for it.
There are some problems with this method of distribution, but it could work. The best way to do this would be to release songs from a particular artist or album online one at a time, and to release the next only if the song before it makes some set amount of money. If it were clearly being abused and almost no one was paying for it, they could stop releasing them. People wouldn't have to pay for it, but they wouldn't continue being able to download more of their songs if they didn't.
With this system they would be able to release rare songs online, making them easier to get ahold of. It would also allow you to buy only the specific songs that you like, rather than buying an entire album that has only one or two that you like. It also cuts down on the cost of the physical materials used to make the CD.
If they did use a system like this, Napster could pose a tangible threat to their profits. They wouldn't be able to monitor whether the music that they spent money to produce was being downloaded without compensation.
Personally, I would prefer to pay money for a song I like rather than pirating it, but right now there's no way to do that with mp3s. And distributing music this way would be so much nicer than having to use files that have been encrypted to ensure that they were paid for, or some of the other methods I've heard about ensuring that the songs were paid for.
The fact is that technology is intended to benefit the company rather than the employees. When they make the decision to invest in new technology, the question they ask is whether the investment will be profitable, not whether the employees will like it. If the people who work there are more stressed, that is of little concern to the employers as long as they are more productive.
This is just part of an overall trend in big business to have almost no concern for anything but profit. All aspects of this affect workers' stress. If a company thinks that lay-offs will cut down on costs more than their income, they'll lay people off. If they think that requiring employees to be reachable outside of work will make them more productive, they'll require that.
As long as the stress that workers feel isn't more of a hindrance to work than all these excessive requirements on productivity, they have no reason to change them.