Be careful about lumping our "community" into one way of thinking. It just ain't so; I know lots of geeks (actually, I think of myself more as a nerd) who don't like anime... be that as it may, we do watch anime, usually on tape. Thank (insert your god here) there's an anime store just a mile away from our new domicile...
We lived for ten years without regular network/cable TV, even though we have young kids in the house. My wife and I did, however, have a VCR, and my wife has always been big on anime.
Me? I just like cute girls in short skirts with purple or green hair...;)
We watch the Naussica(sp?)-like films, which have solid plots and reasonable values. Get the original Japanese, not the ruined American translations.
Violence is fine so long as it provides something other than an excuse for splattering blood. I've no interest in the crude vulgarity so popular with many in the hacker community. I'd rather watch a Pokemon movie than South Park, thank you. And I'm no fan of Pokemon...
As for cable TV: We have it now, because I wanted a cable modem. I can watch my NASCAR races, tape the occassional flick like King Kong or Key Largo. The kids watch way too much Scooby Doo when we don't monitor them... you know, I never knew there were that many episodes of Shaggy and the gang?;)
As for quality network TV: Farscape and Lexx come to mind. Well, Lexx really isn't quality so much as it is fascinating. I still haven't figured out why I watch it.
if (Action != Resistance) Action = Collaboration;
on
The Myth Of The Borg
·
· Score: 2
If you work for a company that does something "bad", and you do nothing to encourage change, you are responsible for the "bad".
Alas, one of the currents in society is "avoiding responsibility." We blame the dominance of Windows on the evils of Bill Gates or explain the corruption of politicians in terms of faceless corporate donors, failing to realize that we have a responsibility to make change happen.
Inaction is a choice. Laziness is a choice. If you don't like the way things are, make better choices, and quit blaming the shadowy monsters in your closet.
Hmmmm... so does this mean that I break some mythical Microsoft law by reselling one of my older computers -- including the copies of Microsoft software that came with it? Do I have to sell the machine with a wiped hard drive and no CDs, just to keep Microsoft's anal lawyers happy?
Of course, the Microsoft license agreement (like most, to be fair) says that you only buy the "right to use" the software... you don't actually own the software you pay for, at least in the minds of some sick intellectual property lawyers.
Well, this eBay-MS mess just provides more proof that extreme capitalism has rendered the world nonsensical.
Ask any educators (and I've asked several) what, precisely, having a computer will accomplish for primary school students.
They don't know.
They just know that technology is hot, and so they want to look proactive by getting "computers" into the hands of kids.
Certain basic skills need to be learned before a student can even use a computer; a child who can't read won't gain from having a computer.
And what about people like my wife, who can't coexist with machines? She's a brilliant lady with a Master's degree in Geography, but computers and technology simply go bad in her presence. Don't write such off to inexperience or ineptitude; some people simply aren't "machine compatible."
Schools have been buying computers for years -- a time when educational quality has declined substantially. See, it's easy to slap some computers into the classroom; it is, however, *very* hard to deal with real problems, like hostile school environments, broken homes, and a society filled with commercials and irresponsible images.
That's just what these kids need: More advertising, to aid in their development as little consumer cogs. It started with the Coke machines in the hall and billboards on school buses. I'm waiting for for school stores to start "giving away" Coke & Nike t-shirts and bumper stickers...
Most (but not all) school administrators don't want to think, they just "want to do what's best for the kids." Of course, they haven't defined "best", and you can't really blame school officials for being part of a society that prefers greed and banal entertainment over constructive consideration.
In a way, this goes back to Jon Katz's concerns about surveillance and security in schools. Rather than address the serious social problems in our society, the schools (and people in general) would rather take the easy road of spying and blaming.
I don't object to computers in the classroom, per se -- I simply want schools to address more important issues first.
The Post Office is not even *remotely* obsolete; Seinfeld is just an insipid TV show, and people who think the Post Office is "obsolete" have a very myopic view of the world.
The vast, vast majority of humanity does not have e-mail, or fax machines, or cell phones, or any of the other techy devices we nerds take for granted. Even in the so-called "developed" countries, most people do not live and die by electronic communication.
Frankly, I'm very pleased to see the Post Office get into electronic mail, and I wish them the best.
For some people, a computer can be a soul-mate, one that is always obedient, one that never questions you, and one that can be turned on and off at will.
Programming is process-oriented; the computer *will* (barring hardware malfunction) do the right thing if you give it a set of valid, consistent instructions.
A human partner, however, is not consistent and does not have an on-off switch. Saying the same sentence on two different days can generate vastly different responses from a biological spouse.
Bottom line: Relationships with people require flexibility, empathy, and even some mind-reading. Contrast this with the simple, direct, and usually logical relationship we can have with a computer, and it's clear why technogeeks prefer hardware over wetware.
I'm a classical nerd, and I've been doing computers since the mid-1970's: but I also have a wife of 18 years and three lovely daughters, in addition to my four computers. Whenever I find myself wrapped up in technology, I remember that a computer can't give me a hug, or fix me breakfast, or show me wet school paper with an "A", or leave a hamster in my bed...
...I think I understand what you're going through. I've spent a twenty years in the programming-publishing side of computers, and I've seen how creative visions can get "mixed" when dealing with big companies.
Corel is a BIG COMPANY, and they have lots of lawyers, managers, and assorted anal-retentive busibots who haven't a clue as to what "Open Source" or "Linux" mean. What they see is a buzzword that they can *use* to differentiate themselves from the hated Microsoft. Corel is using Linux for its own purposes; they have no stake in what we believe is a moral quest to open information.
If anything will kill the web, it will be big companies turning it into another faceless, mass-market commodity.
...is that the kid got a "100" on an essay filled with grammatical and spelling errors.;) What has our education system come too...
Throwing the boy in jail is, as others have pointed out, an example of massive over-reaction. Even if we make the dubious assumption that the kid is "troubled", jail is not the place to help him; if anything, it's likely to make him rebel even more against the system, probably increasing any of his latent tendencies toward violence.
Columbine looms large, with victims of the violence suing school districts and law enforcement for huge sums. Admittedly, there is some evidence that the police fouled up at Columbine -- but today's reality is that everyone is almost as frighten of lawsuits as they are of guns.
We need a society where we see our neighbors as neighbors, and not as targets for bullets and lawyers.
"Internet Brain Drain" is simply one small part of an even larger problem: "Profit Brain Drain."
The best and the brightest are going into business, because Western "Civilization" values a person based on the size of their paycheck. Currently, the Internet is the way to go, and it attracts many of the best minds.
Money isn't, in and of itself, the problem; where we stray is in the glorification of oppulence, in our fascination with useless celebrity, with the implied goal of becoming the next Bill Gates. The media feeds the frenzy, and the frenzy feeds the media, in a feedback loop that pushes us higher and higher into the stratosphere of greed, farther away from our fellow man and the evolution of a wise society.
Consider AIDS research. Various companies are all working on proprietary vaccines and cures; scientists at these companies do not exchange ideas, because doing so might dilute their employer's exclusive claims to a profitable product. If Company A has one part of the cure, and Company B has the second part, the twain are unlikely to meet, and the complete solution is delayed or never realized.
I've been in third world countries; subjects like "Linux vs Windows" and "Is Java a Useful Tool?" don't have much meaning there. Hell, "Ford vs Chevy" and "Is Gore boring?" don't have much meaning there either! What matters is clean water, good food, and a safe place to live. But for the most part, humanity's ills can't be solved with a quick rewrite of the code or a run through the debugger. I wonder sometimes if I enjoy programming because it gives me a sense of power and accomplishment; my journeys into the "real" world have often left me feeling helpless and incompetent.
We have this very odd sense of predestination in Western "civilization" -- if someone is poor, they must somehow deserve it. We expect people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", failing to realize that they don't have any boots.
I'll bet there's some Navajo kid, living in a trailer that lacks plumbing, who'd put me to shame as a programmer -- but he'll never get the chance, because he'll never have a computer to learn the skills. It isn't his capability that matters, it's his lack opportunity.
Certainly this isn't a modern problem, and you can't lay blame at the foot of the Internet -- but if we are ever to attain civilization, we must begin to solve these problems, finding a way to focus our best minds on what really matters.
I wrote a bunch of books for the old M&T Press. When IDG purshed M&T a few years back, I immediately pulled all of my books (to which I had retained copyright), regaining the publication rights.
I know other authors who've worked with IDG; the company is domineering, ignorant, and downright cheap and greedy...
This, BTW, is a good example of why intellectual property is important: By owning the copyrights to my works, I was able to prevent them from being reprinted by an objectionable publisher.
I can build an aircraft from aluminum or wood or composite plastics -- the underlying principles of flight don't change, only the context in which those rules are expressed. The art is not in knowing how to make a wing, it's in knowing that for this type of flight and this propulsion system, I need to use this structure and material.
Programming is (or should be) an act of engineering. A programming language is a material from which we shape a piece of software; knowing the form our programs will take gives us the insight to select the right programming language.
In the last year, I've been paid to write code in C, C++, Java, FORTRAN(!) and Visual BASIC. My current projects include a C-language network simulation and a Java-based server-side application. My personal preference is largely based on what I'm developing; there is no perfect programming language.
IMNSHO, Visual BASIC and Java suffer from the same problem: They are trying to be everything to every one. VB works well for quick business apps, although it's lack of serious structure can breed poor programming practices. Java is a fine tool for web applications and server-side processing, and could be better if Sun gets its head screwed on straight.
My language of preference for most things: C++, because of its inherent power and flexibility -- but Bjarne's creation has its limitations, too, and suffers from annoying complexity. As creations of the human mind, no programming language will be perfect.
Advice from a grizzled 25-year veteran: Learn the fundamentals of program design, object-oriented decomposition, and computer architecture. Try every programming language you can get your hands on. The best engineers are those that understand both design and materials; if you can analyze the problem, you have a far better shot at picking the right tool for the job.
And how many people were using Perl, Java, and Cold Fusion four years ago? Not many, I wager...
By the time you finish college, specific technologies will have changed dramatically. Universities best serve students by providing a foundation for *THINKING*. That means mathematics, logic, creative writing, structured design -- *not* specific technologies.
And the last thing we need is colleges that turn out more script weanies who wouldn't know an decent algorithm from a circuit card.
Another point: Colleges are already rife with corporate influence. Do you want intellectual freedom, or training in Microsoft, Sun, and IBM technologies? You don't think Mr. Gates makes all those donations out of the goodness of his heart, do you? He wants you to learn *Visual C++*, not C++; he wants you in *Windows*, not Linux.
Preserve your freedom, expand your mind, and learn fundamentals.
Java is not as portable as Sun and its acolytes would have us think.
1) VMs vary greatly in quality and level of Java implementation. I'm forced to write much of my code to Java 1.0 or Java 1.1, if I have any hope of it pretending to be "write once, run anywhere."
2) Visual presentation, even with Swing, is very dependent on the VM platform. Java's much better for write a portable GUI app than is C/C++, but it isn't the wonder-language promoted by many.
3) Performance. In spite of HotSpot and other technologies, most of my applications run 2-3 times faster in C++ than in Java.
Both Java and Linux suffer from being idealized. Each is touted as the magic bullet to kill the Microsoft monster... and neither is hitting the mark.
Slashdot Mirror
Be careful about lumping our "community" into one way of thinking. It just ain't so; I know lots of geeks (actually, I think of myself more as a nerd) who don't like anime... be that as it may, we do watch anime, usually on tape. Thank (insert your god here) there's an anime store just a mile away from our new domicile...
We lived for ten years without regular network/cable TV, even though we have young kids in the house. My wife and I did, however, have a VCR, and my wife has always been big on anime.
Me? I just like cute girls in short skirts with purple or green hair... ;)
We watch the Naussica(sp?)-like films, which have solid plots and reasonable values. Get the original Japanese, not the ruined American translations.
Violence is fine so long as it provides something other than an excuse for splattering blood. I've no interest in the crude vulgarity so popular with many in the hacker community. I'd rather watch a Pokemon movie than South Park, thank you. And I'm no fan of Pokemon...
As for cable TV: We have it now, because I wanted a cable modem. I can watch my NASCAR races, tape the occassional flick like King Kong or Key Largo. The kids watch way too much Scooby Doo when we don't monitor them... you know, I never knew there were that many episodes of Shaggy and the gang? ;)
As for quality network TV: Farscape and Lexx come to mind. Well, Lexx really isn't quality so much as it is fascinating. I still haven't figured out why I watch it.
Alas, one of the currents in society is "avoiding responsibility." We blame the dominance of Windows on the evils of Bill Gates or explain the corruption of politicians in terms of faceless corporate donors, failing to realize that we have a responsibility to make change happen.
Inaction is a choice. Laziness is a choice. If you don't like the way things are, make better choices, and quit blaming the shadowy monsters in your closet.
Hmmmm... so does this mean that I break some mythical Microsoft law by reselling one of my older computers -- including the copies of Microsoft software that came with it? Do I have to sell the machine with a wiped hard drive and no CDs, just to keep Microsoft's anal lawyers happy?
Of course, the Microsoft license agreement (like most, to be fair) says that you only buy the "right to use" the software... you don't actually own the software you pay for, at least in the minds of some sick intellectual property lawyers.
Well, this eBay-MS mess just provides more proof that extreme capitalism has rendered the world nonsensical.
Ask any educators (and I've asked several) what, precisely, having a computer will accomplish for primary school students.
They don't know.
They just know that technology is hot, and so they want to look proactive by getting "computers" into the hands of kids.
Certain basic skills need to be learned before a student can even use a computer; a child who can't read won't gain from having a computer.
And what about people like my wife, who can't coexist with machines? She's a brilliant lady with a Master's degree in Geography, but computers and technology simply go bad in her presence. Don't write such off to inexperience or ineptitude; some people simply aren't "machine compatible."
Schools have been buying computers for years -- a time when educational quality has declined substantially. See, it's easy to slap some computers into the classroom; it is, however, *very* hard to deal with real problems, like hostile school environments, broken homes, and a society filled with commercials and irresponsible images.
That's just what these kids need: More advertising, to aid in their development as little consumer cogs. It started with the Coke machines in the hall and billboards on school buses. I'm waiting for for school stores to start "giving away" Coke & Nike t-shirts and bumper stickers...
Most (but not all) school administrators don't want to think, they just "want to do what's best for the kids." Of course, they haven't defined "best", and you can't really blame school officials for being part of a society that prefers greed and banal entertainment over constructive consideration.
In a way, this goes back to Jon Katz's concerns about surveillance and security in schools. Rather than address the serious social problems in our society, the schools (and people in general) would rather take the easy road of spying and blaming.
I don't object to computers in the classroom, per se -- I simply want schools to address more important issues first.
The Post Office is not even *remotely* obsolete; Seinfeld is just an insipid TV show, and people who think the Post Office is "obsolete" have a very myopic view of the world.
The vast, vast majority of humanity does not have e-mail, or fax machines, or cell phones, or any of the other techy devices we nerds take for granted. Even in the so-called "developed" countries, most people do not live and die by electronic communication.
Frankly, I'm very pleased to see the Post Office get into electronic mail, and I wish them the best.
For some people, a computer can be a soul-mate, one that is always obedient, one that never questions you, and one that can be turned on and off at will.
Programming is process-oriented; the computer *will* (barring hardware malfunction) do the right thing if you give it a set of valid, consistent instructions.
A human partner, however, is not consistent and does not have an on-off switch. Saying the same sentence on two different days can generate vastly different responses from a biological spouse.
Bottom line: Relationships with people require flexibility, empathy, and even some mind-reading. Contrast this with the simple, direct, and usually logical relationship we can have with a computer, and it's clear why technogeeks prefer hardware over wetware.
I'm a classical nerd, and I've been doing computers since the mid-1970's: but I also have a wife of 18 years and three lovely daughters, in addition to my four computers. Whenever I find myself wrapped up in technology, I remember that a computer can't give me a hug, or fix me breakfast, or show me wet school paper with an "A", or leave a hamster in my bed...
...well, maybe I could do without the latter....
- Scott
...I think I understand what you're going through. I've spent a twenty years in the programming-publishing side of computers, and I've seen how creative visions can get "mixed" when dealing with big companies.
Corel is a BIG COMPANY, and they have lots of lawyers, managers, and assorted anal-retentive busibots who haven't a clue as to what "Open Source" or "Linux" mean. What they see is a buzzword that they can *use* to differentiate themselves from the hated Microsoft. Corel is using Linux for its own purposes; they have no stake in what we believe is a moral quest to open information.
If anything will kill the web, it will be big companies turning it into another faceless, mass-market commodity.
Hang in there...
...is that the kid got a "100" on an essay filled with grammatical and spelling errors. ;) What has our education system come too...
Throwing the boy in jail is, as others have pointed out, an example of massive over-reaction. Even if we make the dubious assumption that the kid is "troubled", jail is not the place to help him; if anything, it's likely to make him rebel even more against the system, probably increasing any of his latent tendencies toward violence.
Columbine looms large, with victims of the violence suing school districts and law enforcement for huge sums. Admittedly, there is some evidence that the police fouled up at Columbine -- but today's reality is that everyone is almost as frighten of lawsuits as they are of guns.
We need a society where we see our neighbors as neighbors, and not as targets for bullets and lawyers.
"Internet Brain Drain" is simply one small part of an even larger problem: "Profit Brain Drain."
The best and the brightest are going into business, because Western "Civilization" values a person based on the size of their paycheck. Currently, the Internet is the way to go, and it attracts many of the best minds.
Money isn't, in and of itself, the problem; where we stray is in the glorification of oppulence, in our fascination with useless celebrity, with the implied goal of becoming the next Bill Gates. The media feeds the frenzy, and the frenzy feeds the media, in a feedback loop that pushes us higher and higher into the stratosphere of greed, farther away from our fellow man and the evolution of a wise society.
Consider AIDS research. Various companies are all working on proprietary vaccines and cures; scientists at these companies do not exchange ideas, because doing so might dilute their employer's exclusive claims to a profitable product. If Company A has one part of the cure, and Company B has the second part, the twain are unlikely to meet, and the complete solution is delayed or never realized.
I've been in third world countries; subjects like "Linux vs Windows" and "Is Java a Useful Tool?" don't have much meaning there. Hell, "Ford vs Chevy" and "Is Gore boring?" don't have much meaning there either! What matters is clean water, good food, and a safe place to live. But for the most part, humanity's ills can't be solved with a quick rewrite of the code or a run through the debugger. I wonder sometimes if I enjoy programming because it gives me a sense of power and accomplishment; my journeys into the "real" world have often left me feeling helpless and incompetent.
We have this very odd sense of predestination in Western "civilization" -- if someone is poor, they must somehow deserve it. We expect people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", failing to realize that they don't have any boots.
I'll bet there's some Navajo kid, living in a trailer that lacks plumbing, who'd put me to shame as a programmer -- but he'll never get the chance, because he'll never have a computer to learn the skills. It isn't his capability that matters, it's his lack opportunity.
Certainly this isn't a modern problem, and you can't lay blame at the foot of the Internet -- but if we are ever to attain civilization, we must begin to solve these problems, finding a way to focus our best minds on what really matters.
I wrote a bunch of books for the old M&T Press. When IDG purshed M&T a few years back, I immediately pulled all of my books (to which I had retained copyright), regaining the publication rights.
I know other authors who've worked with IDG; the company is domineering, ignorant, and downright cheap and greedy...
This, BTW, is a good example of why intellectual property is important: By owning the copyrights to my works, I was able to prevent them from being reprinted by an objectionable publisher.
I can build an aircraft from aluminum or wood or composite plastics -- the underlying principles of flight don't change, only the context in which those rules are expressed. The art is not in knowing how to make a wing, it's in knowing that for this type of flight and this propulsion system, I need to use this structure and material.
Programming is (or should be) an act of engineering. A programming language is a material from which we shape a piece of software; knowing the form our programs will take gives us the insight to select the right programming language.
In the last year, I've been paid to write code in C, C++, Java, FORTRAN(!) and Visual BASIC. My current projects include a C-language network simulation and a Java-based server-side application. My personal preference is largely based on what I'm developing; there is no perfect programming language.
IMNSHO, Visual BASIC and Java suffer from the same problem: They are trying to be everything to every one. VB works well for quick business apps, although it's lack of serious structure can breed poor programming practices. Java is a fine tool for web applications and server-side processing, and could be better if Sun gets its head screwed on straight.
My language of preference for most things: C++, because of its inherent power and flexibility -- but Bjarne's creation has its limitations, too, and suffers from annoying complexity. As creations of the human mind, no programming language will be perfect.
Advice from a grizzled 25-year veteran: Learn the fundamentals of program design, object-oriented decomposition, and computer architecture. Try every programming language you can get your hands on. The best engineers are those that understand both design and materials; if you can analyze the problem, you have a far better shot at picking the right tool for the job.
And how many people were using Perl, Java, and Cold Fusion four years ago? Not many, I wager...
By the time you finish college, specific technologies will have changed dramatically. Universities best serve students by providing a foundation for *THINKING*. That means mathematics, logic, creative writing, structured design -- *not* specific technologies.
And the last thing we need is colleges that turn out more script weanies who wouldn't know an decent algorithm from a circuit card.
Another point: Colleges are already rife with corporate influence. Do you want intellectual freedom, or training in Microsoft, Sun, and IBM technologies? You don't think Mr. Gates makes all those donations out of the goodness of his heart, do you? He wants you to learn *Visual C++*, not C++; he wants you in *Windows*, not Linux.
Preserve your freedom, expand your mind, and learn fundamentals.
Well, you've had better luck than I.
Java is not as portable as Sun and its acolytes would have us think.
1) VMs vary greatly in quality and level of Java implementation. I'm forced to write much of my code to Java 1.0 or Java 1.1, if I have any hope of it pretending to be "write once, run anywhere."
2) Visual presentation, even with Swing, is very dependent on the VM platform. Java's much better for write a portable GUI app than is C/C++, but it isn't the wonder-language promoted by many.
3) Performance. In spite of HotSpot and other technologies, most of my applications run 2-3 times faster in C++ than in Java.
Both Java and Linux suffer from being idealized. Each is touted as the magic bullet to kill the Microsoft monster... and neither is hitting the mark.