Well, x86 is what people know. Just like MS & AOL. The chip manufacturers are still calling them x86 chips because x86 is what's known and sells. "Futuristic" at this point means (x+n)86.
Hence as evil as it seems, AOL, and MS lookalike software is a good thing, to bring users into linux.
True. To do this, we need programs that look familiar to people who have used nothing but AOL & MS. That's not to say the lookalike programs should also be "performalike" programs. They should have a similar GUI, but perform the way an OpenSource program is supposed to. Maybe, just maybe, a working Linux version of AOL is the thing that would get a lot of people to switch to using Linux for their everyday AOL'ing tasks....
Though personally, I think that Linux isn't for the "normal" user. Linux seems to be more for people who want their computer to be personalized for their own wants & needs than for people who want to chat with their friends. Linux seems to be much more fit to be used by businesses interested in having a reliable internet presence, and semi- to very knowledgeable people interested in having their computer set up the way they want, tuned for the tasks they perform on it. Though that may change.
Maybe if the developers of the various forms of Linux could come together and figure out some new way of making the transfer from MS or AOL to Linux easier and less scary, then Linux would start to become a competitor in the PC (as in personal computing) sector. First, though, we'd need to decide if that's what we want; and if we decide it is, how to accomplish this becomes the next question.
Before I get flamed as pro-MS, let me rephrase that in a way that hopefully even the most rabid anti-MS types will let slide: At the *very* least, they pretended to care about what consumers want and set about marketing windows as if it met those wants.
And a good point made by aiken_d. As hated as Microsoft is among many Linux users, they did get a lot of people to buy what they created. This is the basic rule of marketing/producing: Find out what people want, make it, then give it to them.
You can't be successful in the commercial world without doing the above. Linux will never beat out Microsoft unless Linux does the above better than Microsoft. It's simple, really.
If we want everyone to use Linux, we've got to convince everyone that Linux has what they want - otherwise, Linux will forever be the underdog.
I could see this being the employees' fault due to their own stupidity if the computers were paid for/donated/given to them by the company, but even so. This is ridiculous. How do companies think that people will work for them if the company is constantly monitoring the employees, and slapping their hands when they do something that doesn't please their boss? Obviously there needs to be some kind of control - but this should be the employees' self-control and pure considerate behavior, not the companies' overbearing control. If the employees aren't wise enough to figure out that some things just shouldn't be done (like sharing trade secrets with competitors, bad-mouthing your company on company time/property, etc.), then they shouldn't be working for anyone.
Nowadays everyone is so quick to regulate other people, make new laws governing people, punish people for not doing what is expected. DeCSS, Northwest, gun laws, drug laws, patent & trademark suits - all this is just plain stupid. My opinion is that if we don't realize that regulation leads to nothing but discontent, rebellion and more regulation, we're going to be a dead country (even a dead world) within the next century.
Let people have at the least basic freedom to do what they want on their own time with their own lives. Things that aren't dangerous to others shouldn't have to be regulated. If we regulate everything, we're doomed to extinction.
Well, as far as I'm concerened, there are some relatively clear-cut differences between the two:
Cyber-Squatting:
Registering many domain names, and selling them to the highest bidder, regardless of what they want to do with the domain name
Usually is done purely to make money
Domain names registered are often names that most people wouldn't think of or register for any reason other than to sell them (i.e. drunkchicks.net)
Domain Brokering:
Buying a few domain names
Usually sold to people/businesses who would like to use the domain for purposes other than porn or to re-sell at a higher price
The names registered are more likely to be those which a reputable business would consider registering (i.e. not like drunkchicks.net)
I don't know how closely my ideas of the two fit with other peoples', but I imagine they're not too far off.
The way I figure it is, if you've got a domain name that isn't too racy, you didn't buy it just to sell it later to make a killing, and it could actually be used by a reputable business or individual, it's Domain Brokering, and not Cyber-Squatting.
For every 100 million people (I believe it's either 100 million or 10 million, I'm pretty sure it's 100 last I checked), Japan has 45,000 in jail, England has 50,000, and the US has 500,000. Now argue that gun control doesn't help....
Sure, numbers are great, but they don't prove anything. Find out how many people in jail in these countries are in jail for things other than crimes committed by guns (i.e. petty drug offences, which IIRC, represent a huge number of USA prisoners...), and then try to prove something with your numbers.
I don't know why people can't educate and then trust/support their own children.
Because parents think children aren't smart enough to figure things like morality out for themselves. That's the big failing with parents of the past few generations. They're so ready to keep their kids safe and untarnished by society that they keep their kids from becoming part of society, thus creating an adult who misunderstands and fears society and thinks only of him/herself.
My parents never taught me much about society or morals. I never had the talk about the birds & the bees with my father, there were no real family conversations about morality and world events, I was never told "drugs are bad". Regardless, I think I've pretty much decided the right things for myself, just by observing society as it functions around me. I've figured out my own morals, which happen to be pretty much the same morals that most people have.
Kids aren't stupid. The sooner parents realize this, and start taking actions that let their kids decide things for themselves (with a basic knowledge of society given to them by their own observations and their parents' observations and views), the better off the world will be, and the less stupid "protective-measures" will arise.
Do we need/want OSS to go on ordinary users' desktops?
Is there really that much information one needs to learn before being able to use OSS OSes?
As for the first question. I would say yes, though there are some out there who would say no. OSS should be as widespread as possible, with as many people knowing about it and using it as possible, IMO. In others' opinions, OSS is a status symbol, at least among computer users. They may not want newbies coming into their circles. I can see this point - an influx of new users creates an influx of basic questions, and can be annoying if asked several hundred times over and over.
For the second question. There really isn't much that one needs to learn before they can operate an OSS OS. One needs to know basic commands (startx, ls, rm, tar, rpm, etc) and kernel commands so that they can install programs and use the basic interfaces. Once one knows that much, one can learn as one goes. How much time does it take to learn these basic commands? I'd say only the amount of time it takes for the newbie to be acquainted with someone who has been running that OS for some time, and can tell them simply and directly what they need to know. It took me about 5 hours tops to learn and remember most of the basic Unix commands. After that point, I've learned as I've needed to, with man pages and mailing lists and friends' help.
Perhaps we of the OSS community need to start creating a universal site where people can go to learn the basic commands, solve basic problems, and get basic knowledge of our OSes, and talk with new and advanced users about questions they have. Maybe we need to get out and actually let ordinary people know that we exist, then give them someplace to learn about us before we try to get them to switch to our OS. Maybe we need to start educating people ourselves, or at least give them someplace where they can get the basic information they want, when they want it, so they can learn in their spare time and possibly switch over when they're more ready? Just a thought.
What exactly is a GUI in the first place? My understanding of it has always been that it's a graphical interface to make using a program require less thought/reading/learning. Point-and-click at its best. Perhaps Windoze users need GUI's, but I really don't think that Open Source users do.
Most Open Source OSes were built by people who knew what they were doing, for people who would know what they were doing. Thus, no real GUI's were created. The fact that there really are none doesn't mean that we can't create them - I think it more means that we don't need them.
Sure, getting new users into Open Source OSes is hard, has been hard, and always will be hard, as far as I can see. But if people take the time to learn about the OS before switching to a new one, and to read the manuals after switching, and to join usenets, newsgroups, and mailing lists where they can ask any questions they have, they'll be able to learn about their new OS, and become more educated in the process.
Of course, we need to stop feeling so high-and-mighty towards newbies and users of other OSes, or else they're never going to feel comfortable enough to switch or ask questions or learn about our OSes. We need to help them, not ridicule them. Either that, or we need to create these GUI's to dumb-down the users of Open Source, which is against its ideals. Using Open Source means you have to learn something about it before you can reap its benefits.
If we don't want to have problems with getting new users & keeping them, creating useful/"pretty" GUI's, losing users because of the amount of info they need to learn, etc., we need to help them learn how to work with the OS. GUI's are nice, but knowledgeable users are so much better.
Exactly. Once things get enacted into laws, they lose their meaning, goals, and many supporters. How many laws do we have in the USA? I don't have a clue, but how many Commandments were there? Ten. (Or 12, or 2, depending on how one looks at it.) We don't need all these laws governing everything from don't shoot people in the head with bullets to don't keep your kid home from school until (s)he's 18. We just need the few that rely on our moral ideals. Of course, what are these ideas is the problem - I'm not going into that.
But, back to the basic point, we can't go around trying to fix every problem in the world by assimilating them into laws or groups or cultures. We need to let people do their own things within reason, and not try to control them.
Think about it. It's a great idea, it'd be wonderful it it went down that way, but I don't think that it has even the remotest possibility of happening, and I really don't think we want it to happen. There will always be people who wish to keep code proprietary, those who wish to keep code open source, and those who really don't care. There, also, will always be people who want free programs, those who want to pay for programs & support, and those who don't care. The thing is, this variety of people is what makes the Internet (and the world) what it is. We can't all become the same - that would be boring, provide no point, and eventually end up in the same situation as the former USSR: dead or at least severly divided. Differences are what makes humans human. We need to accept the differences we have and need, and not try to change others' views. There will always be people who do/think things differently than yourself. If the world can accept that, I think that would be a better solution by far than to force everyone to be the same.
Perhaps it's human nature that we be idiots now and then. For the most part, this is OK. We need to do things without worrying about consequences, repercussions, costs, etc once in a while. However, people usually only do things like this when they're pretty sure that there won't be any bad repercussions. This is what happens online. Here on/. you can post anonymously - thus, no repercussions, no matter what you say. Just take a look at the comments on this page. How many of them are flames?
Some people, on the other hand, revel in making others feel like they're worthless. These are the people who have nothing better (or more fun, in their opinion, maybe) to do than annoy others. They're people who don't think and/or don't care how their actions affect others. Included in this group of people are some serial killers, dictators and just plain everyday-idiots.
Why must some people be this way? I don't know. I do know, however, that we need to attempt to cut down on the amount of flaming that occurs on most online sites/email where people can post their views. We CANNOT resort to censorship - that can (and probably would) be taken way too far. What we really need to do is be aware of those who flame (though I think we all are aware of these peoples' existance), and to do several things:
Take their post merely as an inflammatory comment geared to draw attention to themselves
Take care to make sure we don't respond to their flame with another - this just feeds their pride at being noticed
Ignore the post as being worthless junk - which the Internet is filled with anyway (sad, but true)
I like the idea of anonymous posting - it allows people to say things that they may not otherwise say. This is both good and bad. Good, because it allows people to voice their opinions (many times, valid, well-reasoned opinions) that could be unpopular. It also allows those people who have less self-esteem/confidence in themselves to make a useful addition to a thread that they would not normally post to (for fear of their opinions being attacked). However, anonymous posting is bad because it allows flamers to post annoying and often offensive comments without having to worry about consequences.
I belong to several mailing-lists, which recieve little or no flames, due to the fact that the people on those lists react to flamers by what I consider is the right way. The moderator of the list either bounces their posts, or the list-members respond to the flamer politely and privately, instead of posting an inflammatory response to the list. Of course, the 2nd won't work on/. for anonymous postings. As far as they go, I figure all we can do is ignore the flames, and keep posting useful comments.
So, what can we do about flames? Basically, ignore the ones that get posted, take care to not post flames ourselves, and keep posting useful comments/opinions that make the Internet what it was conceived to be - a place where people can go to get and give useful information and converse with others of similar interests/opinions.
Good call. Bruce's article isn't exactly the easiest thing to read, but it's not that hard to get the gist of what he's saying if you sit and think about it.
It's not saying that we're currently equipped to command the world, it's not promoting gizmos in the usual sense of the word, and it's not a bunch of "hippie cr*p".
So what is it saying? Basically, my take on it is that we've gone through a lot in the past century, and we don't have to go through it this century. We need to think about life, morality, government, commercialization, etc, etc, etc. We can't just go on making the same mistakes. We need a new outlook on life and the world. Sure, there are many problems - so he says, and it's true - but we need to get past them by using our minds, not our desire for greatness, power and money. We can't go on making cr*ppy products, having cr*ppy social services programs, thinking in the same rut as we have been - power is what matters.
No. Thinking is what matters. We need to come up with products that Bruce calls gizmos; in my opinion, they're products that are cutting-edge, cool and useful. I can't really give any examples of what a gizmo would be - I don't have the capability to think up new devices - but I imagine what Bruce means by gizmos is NOT things like gigapets, colored phones, see-through computer cases, or toothpaste rollers. These are cr*p, in my opinion. We don't really need them - they don't really serve any useful purpose. They don't solve any real problems.
We need to go into this century thinking of the world and how we can make it a better place - regardless of whether or not we gain power and money along the way. If we do, so be it. That's basically fair. If you create something that is useful, you should be rewarded for it. This doesn't necessarily mean money, it also means respect or awareness.
We need to think up a way past our problems, and in doing this we become free; at least free of that problem. If we can get enough people to think up ways to solve problems, eventually, the problems of the time will be solved. Sure, technology creates problems. It also solves problems. That's what technology is about: creating something new to solve an old problem. If new problems arise, and they will, that's where technology comes in again. We will need to create a new technology to solve the problems created by the previous technology.
Freedom has to be won, and, more importantly, the consequences of freedom have to be lived.... You have to create that freedom by a deliberate act of will, think it up, assemble it, sacrifice for it, make it free to others who have a similar will to live that freedom.
He is not saying that we can just forget our problems. He is saying that we need to find ways to create new technologies that cause fewer problems than they eradicate.
Our worst problems, which may seem so large, diffuse, and morbid, are mere teenage angst compared to the conundrums were busily preparing for some other generation.
Meaning don't ignore the problems of the world - try to create something to alleviate them.
I don't agree with some of the points in the article, but as a whole, I believe that we need to start living our lives by the general idea of the article - to think through things, create new technologies to make the world a better place for us and for the generations after us. The best contribution one can make to society is to create a new technology that alleviates problems, without creating slews of new ones. The only way to do this is to use our minds.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, x86 is what people know. Just like MS & AOL. The chip manufacturers are still calling them x86 chips because x86 is what's known and sells. "Futuristic" at this point means (x+n)86.
Maybe someday we'll get beyond that....
Hence as evil as it seems, AOL, and MS lookalike software is a good thing, to bring users into linux.
True. To do this, we need programs that look familiar to people who have used nothing but AOL & MS. That's not to say the lookalike programs should also be "performalike" programs. They should have a similar GUI, but perform the way an OpenSource program is supposed to. Maybe, just maybe, a working Linux version of AOL is the thing that would get a lot of people to switch to using Linux for their everyday AOL'ing tasks....
Though personally, I think that Linux isn't for the "normal" user. Linux seems to be more for people who want their computer to be personalized for their own wants & needs than for people who want to chat with their friends. Linux seems to be much more fit to be used by businesses interested in having a reliable internet presence, and semi- to very knowledgeable people interested in having their computer set up the way they want, tuned for the tasks they perform on it. Though that may change.
Maybe if the developers of the various forms of Linux could come together and figure out some new way of making the transfer from MS or AOL to Linux easier and less scary, then Linux would start to become a competitor in the PC (as in personal computing) sector. First, though, we'd need to decide if that's what we want; and if we decide it is, how to accomplish this becomes the next question.
Before I get flamed as pro-MS, let me rephrase that in a way that hopefully even the most rabid anti-MS types will let slide: At the *very* least, they pretended to care about what consumers want and set about marketing windows as if it met those wants.
And a good point made by aiken_d. As hated as Microsoft is among many Linux users, they did get a lot of people to buy what they created. This is the basic rule of marketing/producing: Find out what people want, make it, then give it to them.
You can't be successful in the commercial world without doing the above. Linux will never beat out Microsoft unless Linux does the above better than Microsoft. It's simple, really.
If we want everyone to use Linux, we've got to convince everyone that Linux has what they want - otherwise, Linux will forever be the underdog.
I could see this being the employees' fault due to their own stupidity if the computers were paid for/donated/given to them by the company, but even so. This is ridiculous. How do companies think that people will work for them if the company is constantly monitoring the employees, and slapping their hands when they do something that doesn't please their boss? Obviously there needs to be some kind of control - but this should be the employees' self-control and pure considerate behavior, not the companies' overbearing control. If the employees aren't wise enough to figure out that some things just shouldn't be done (like sharing trade secrets with competitors, bad-mouthing your company on company time/property, etc.), then they shouldn't be working for anyone.
Nowadays everyone is so quick to regulate other people, make new laws governing people, punish people for not doing what is expected. DeCSS, Northwest, gun laws, drug laws, patent & trademark suits - all this is just plain stupid. My opinion is that if we don't realize that regulation leads to nothing but discontent, rebellion and more regulation, we're going to be a dead country (even a dead world) within the next century.
Let people have at the least basic freedom to do what they want on their own time with their own lives. Things that aren't dangerous to others shouldn't have to be regulated. If we regulate everything, we're doomed to extinction.
Just my $0.02
Cyber-Squatting:
- Registering many domain names, and selling them to the highest bidder, regardless of what they want to do with the domain name
- Usually is done purely to make money
- Domain names registered are often names that most people wouldn't think of or register for any reason other than to sell them (i.e. drunkchicks.net)
Domain Brokering:- Buying a few domain names
- Usually sold to people/businesses who would like to use the domain for purposes other than porn or to re-sell at a higher price
- The names registered are more likely to be those which a reputable business would consider registering (i.e. not like drunkchicks.net)
I don't know how closely my ideas of the two fit with other peoples', but I imagine they're not too far off.The way I figure it is, if you've got a domain name that isn't too racy, you didn't buy it just to sell it later to make a killing, and it could actually be used by a reputable business or individual, it's Domain Brokering, and not Cyber-Squatting.
For every 100 million people (I believe it's either 100 million or 10 million, I'm pretty sure it's 100 last I checked), Japan has 45,000 in jail, England has 50,000, and the US has 500,000. Now argue that gun control doesn't help....
Sure, numbers are great, but they don't prove anything. Find out how many people in jail in these countries are in jail for things other than crimes committed by guns (i.e. petty drug offences, which IIRC, represent a huge number of USA prisoners...), and then try to prove something with your numbers.
I don't know why people can't educate and then trust/support their own children.
Because parents think children aren't smart enough to figure things like morality out for themselves. That's the big failing with parents of the past few generations. They're so ready to keep their kids safe and untarnished by society that they keep their kids from becoming part of society, thus creating an adult who misunderstands and fears society and thinks only of him/herself.
My parents never taught me much about society or morals. I never had the talk about the birds & the bees with my father, there were no real family conversations about morality and world events, I was never told "drugs are bad". Regardless, I think I've pretty much decided the right things for myself, just by observing society as it functions around me. I've figured out my own morals, which happen to be pretty much the same morals that most people have.
Kids aren't stupid. The sooner parents realize this, and start taking actions that let their kids decide things for themselves (with a basic knowledge of society given to them by their own observations and their parents' observations and views), the better off the world will be, and the less stupid "protective-measures" will arise.
- Do we need/want OSS to go on ordinary users' desktops?
- Is there really that much information one needs to learn before being able to use OSS OSes?
As for the first question. I would say yes, though there are some out there who would say no. OSS should be as widespread as possible, with as many people knowing about it and using it as possible, IMO. In others' opinions, OSS is a status symbol, at least among computer users. They may not want newbies coming into their circles. I can see this point - an influx of new users creates an influx of basic questions, and can be annoying if asked several hundred times over and over.For the second question. There really isn't much that one needs to learn before they can operate an OSS OS. One needs to know basic commands (startx, ls, rm, tar, rpm, etc) and kernel commands so that they can install programs and use the basic interfaces. Once one knows that much, one can learn as one goes. How much time does it take to learn these basic commands? I'd say only the amount of time it takes for the newbie to be acquainted with someone who has been running that OS for some time, and can tell them simply and directly what they need to know. It took me about 5 hours tops to learn and remember most of the basic Unix commands. After that point, I've learned as I've needed to, with man pages and mailing lists and friends' help.
Perhaps we of the OSS community need to start creating a universal site where people can go to learn the basic commands, solve basic problems, and get basic knowledge of our OSes, and talk with new and advanced users about questions they have. Maybe we need to get out and actually let ordinary people know that we exist, then give them someplace to learn about us before we try to get them to switch to our OS. Maybe we need to start educating people ourselves, or at least give them someplace where they can get the basic information they want, when they want it, so they can learn in their spare time and possibly switch over when they're more ready? Just a thought.
What exactly is a GUI in the first place? My understanding of it has always been that it's a graphical interface to make using a program require less thought/reading/learning. Point-and-click at its best. Perhaps Windoze users need GUI's, but I really don't think that Open Source users do.
Most Open Source OSes were built by people who knew what they were doing, for people who would know what they were doing. Thus, no real GUI's were created. The fact that there really are none doesn't mean that we can't create them - I think it more means that we don't need them.
Sure, getting new users into Open Source OSes is hard, has been hard, and always will be hard, as far as I can see. But if people take the time to learn about the OS before switching to a new one, and to read the manuals after switching, and to join usenets, newsgroups, and mailing lists where they can ask any questions they have, they'll be able to learn about their new OS, and become more educated in the process.
Of course, we need to stop feeling so high-and-mighty towards newbies and users of other OSes, or else they're never going to feel comfortable enough to switch or ask questions or learn about our OSes. We need to help them, not ridicule them. Either that, or we need to create these GUI's to dumb-down the users of Open Source, which is against its ideals. Using Open Source means you have to learn something about it before you can reap its benefits.
If we don't want to have problems with getting new users & keeping them, creating useful/"pretty" GUI's, losing users because of the amount of info they need to learn, etc., we need to help them learn how to work with the OS. GUI's are nice, but knowledgeable users are so much better.
Exactly. Once things get enacted into laws, they lose their meaning, goals, and many supporters. How many laws do we have in the USA? I don't have a clue, but how many Commandments were there? Ten. (Or 12, or 2, depending on how one looks at it.) We don't need all these laws governing everything from don't shoot people in the head with bullets to don't keep your kid home from school until (s)he's 18. We just need the few that rely on our moral ideals. Of course, what are these ideas is the problem - I'm not going into that.
But, back to the basic point, we can't go around trying to fix every problem in the world by assimilating them into laws or groups or cultures. We need to let people do their own things within reason, and not try to control them.
Think about it. It's a great idea, it'd be wonderful it it went down that way, but I don't think that it has even the remotest possibility of happening, and I really don't think we want it to happen. There will always be people who wish to keep code proprietary, those who wish to keep code open source, and those who really don't care. There, also, will always be people who want free programs, those who want to pay for programs & support, and those who don't care. The thing is, this variety of people is what makes the Internet (and the world) what it is. We can't all become the same - that would be boring, provide no point, and eventually end up in the same situation as the former USSR: dead or at least severly divided. Differences are what makes humans human. We need to accept the differences we have and need, and not try to change others' views. There will always be people who do/think things differently than yourself. If the world can accept that, I think that would be a better solution by far than to force everyone to be the same.
Some people, on the other hand, revel in making others feel like they're worthless. These are the people who have nothing better (or more fun, in their opinion, maybe) to do than annoy others. They're people who don't think and/or don't care how their actions affect others. Included in this group of people are some serial killers, dictators and just plain everyday-idiots.
Why must some people be this way? I don't know. I do know, however, that we need to attempt to cut down on the amount of flaming that occurs on most online sites/email where people can post their views. We CANNOT resort to censorship - that can (and probably would) be taken way too far. What we really need to do is be aware of those who flame (though I think we all are aware of these peoples' existance), and to do several things: I like the idea of anonymous posting - it allows people to say things that they may not otherwise say. This is both good and bad. Good, because it allows people to voice their opinions (many times, valid, well-reasoned opinions) that could be unpopular. It also allows those people who have less self-esteem/confidence in themselves to make a useful addition to a thread that they would not normally post to (for fear of their opinions being attacked). However, anonymous posting is bad because it allows flamers to post annoying and often offensive comments without having to worry about consequences.
I belong to several mailing-lists, which recieve little or no flames, due to the fact that the people on those lists react to flamers by what I consider is the right way. The moderator of the list either bounces their posts, or the list-members respond to the flamer politely and privately, instead of posting an inflammatory response to the list. Of course, the 2nd won't work on
So, what can we do about flames? Basically, ignore the ones that get posted, take care to not post flames ourselves, and keep posting useful comments/opinions that make the Internet what it was conceived to be - a place where people can go to get and give useful information and converse with others of similar interests/opinions.
It's not saying that we're currently equipped to command the world, it's not promoting gizmos in the usual sense of the word, and it's not a bunch of "hippie cr*p".
So what is it saying? Basically, my take on it is that we've gone through a lot in the past century, and we don't have to go through it this century. We need to think about life, morality, government, commercialization, etc, etc, etc. We can't just go on making the same mistakes. We need a new outlook on life and the world. Sure, there are many problems - so he says, and it's true - but we need to get past them by using our minds, not our desire for greatness, power and money. We can't go on making cr*ppy products, having cr*ppy social services programs, thinking in the same rut as we have been - power is what matters.
No. Thinking is what matters. We need to come up with products that Bruce calls gizmos; in my opinion, they're products that are cutting-edge, cool and useful. I can't really give any examples of what a gizmo would be - I don't have the capability to think up new devices - but I imagine what Bruce means by gizmos is NOT things like gigapets, colored phones, see-through computer cases, or toothpaste rollers. These are cr*p, in my opinion. We don't really need them - they don't really serve any useful purpose. They don't solve any real problems.
We need to go into this century thinking of the world and how we can make it a better place - regardless of whether or not we gain power and money along the way. If we do, so be it. That's basically fair. If you create something that is useful, you should be rewarded for it. This doesn't necessarily mean money, it also means respect or awareness.
We need to think up a way past our problems, and in doing this we become free; at least free of that problem. If we can get enough people to think up ways to solve problems, eventually, the problems of the time will be solved. Sure, technology creates problems. It also solves problems. That's what technology is about: creating something new to solve an old problem. If new problems arise, and they will, that's where technology comes in again. We will need to create a new technology to solve the problems created by the previous technology.
He is not saying that we can just forget our problems. He is saying that we need to find ways to create new technologies that cause fewer problems than they eradicate. Meaning don't ignore the problems of the world - try to create something to alleviate them.
I don't agree with some of the points in the article, but as a whole, I believe that we need to start living our lives by the general idea of the article - to think through things, create new technologies to make the world a better place for us and for the generations after us. The best contribution one can make to society is to create a new technology that alleviates problems, without creating slews of new ones. The only way to do this is to use our minds.