This seems to hold true for most broad-interest sites like newspapers and magazines where comments can be downright awful, as opposed to sites like Slashdot with a self-selected and somewhat homogeneous audience. It seems unlikely that using only blogs for responsive dialog with authors and peers could come close to matching the feedback and community feel of comments such as we see here. Is there a technical solution, or is this a biological problem imposed on the internet?
Ummmm, I would not classify Slashdot among the non-broken sites with broadly thoughtful, intelligent comments. And the hokey voting system here works just as much to hide thoughtful, but unpopular, opinion as it does to make trolls invisible. I believe Jackson is holding up sites where depth of though reigns and which don't depend on technological thumbscrews to maintain a veneer of quality.
The research could be used for health-tracking apps, baby monitors, and for the military and law enforcement.'
Of course, always for the military and law enforcement. The ethos of technology development in this country, spreading to the world, increasingly sickens me.
This is not for the question submitter, but in general, do not fuck your coworkers. About once or twice a year I end up attracting the attention of a younger engineer of the opposite sex who mistakes mentoring and being a nice guy for mate material. This is a workplace complication you do not need. If you're confident in the middle of the biggest engineering shitstorm ever and manage to right the ship, you're going to attract attention, and not just from management.
Yeah, women are practically automatons, naturally drawn to confident alpha male types. In these situations their genes and hapless little neurological and hormonal structures dictate to them to fuck, and the unsuspecting prime specimen that is the object of their attention is put into the awkward position of having to ward them off (repeatedly, as you report), or kind-heartedly acceding to their animal wishes, which sure puts that fella in a heckuva spot (as you can attest!)
They can also be controlled easily with shiny rocks, such little restraint and higher cognitive function they have.
What other essential knowledge or skills should we add to this imaginary 'toolbox'?"
Whatever they are (and Heinlein's list is very good), the skills that we need to live as well-rounded humans cannot be perceived, checked off, or checked in like items on a requirements list or lines of code. A great problem with technology, and with most practitioners of it, is the instrumental view of the world it inculcates. As the Dean says, the humanities represent a very different way of thinking and understanding the world.
Probably the best thing that could happen to most technology majors is a several-years-long break from it.
At some point between 9/11/2001 and 6/5/2014, I worked for a defense contractor for several years....I had no idea! Do you honestly think they'd tell someone like me?
You worked for a defense contractor, and then claim plausible deniability that the shit you're contributing to is used for evil?
That's convenient, isn't it? Because in your worldview individuals are exempt from making moral choices - they need just point out some other person or entity which has a lot of influence.
What rationalizing bullshit, as if programmers don't have brains and can't be expected to develop and follow moral consciences. As if they are somehow exempt from the moral duties we all have.
You can feed your family doing other things, which may not give you as much comfort as you want, but which don't have you hurting other people to the same degree.
"Are you going to be an asshole who chooses to accept money for working, directly or indirectly, for the military?" (This is what the "defense industry" is, kiddies. Very lucrative and widespread.)
"Are you going to be an asshole who chooses to accept money for working, directly or indirectly, for spy agencies?"
Addressing these ethical problems requires personal political and social awareness, something often missing from young people's time allotments.
Slashdot would like to be taken seriously, I assume. But "Condi" isn't our friend; we don't know Rice on a first-name basis, much less on a nickname basis. Serious journalism/reporting/blogging doesn't refer to public figures by their first names.
The same goes for all the Google billionaires and other tech luminaries, whom tech outlets like Slashdot routinely refer to as, e.g., "Sergey" or "Larry".
They are not our friends. We're not all part of some big club together - the concerns of tech CEOs are vastly different from those of most working tech people. Tech blogging doesn't serve the tech community well by employing these kinds of linguistic devices, which help to disarm the critical thinking of readers.
Slashdot Mirror
But technology in the classroom is not going away, as one commenter notes.
Yeah, well, that commenter is a VP at an edtech company, so *of course* she would promote that line.
The US still has plenty of pieces of military death crap for you to get your war hard-ons.
"It casts a wider eye towards how a changing climate will affect defense missions in the future."
Tech people have a special obligation to quit using this Orwellian euphemism when talking about the US military.
Ain't technology great!
Pursued by the strivers and the authoritarians.
"The book-buying landscape for students and their families" has already been changed, by torrents and usenet.
This seems to hold true for most broad-interest sites like newspapers and magazines where comments can be downright awful, as opposed to sites like Slashdot with a self-selected and somewhat homogeneous audience. It seems unlikely that using only blogs for responsive dialog with authors and peers could come close to matching the feedback and community feel of comments such as we see here. Is there a technical solution, or is this a biological problem imposed on the internet?
Ummmm, I would not classify Slashdot among the non-broken sites with broadly thoughtful, intelligent comments. And the hokey voting system here works just as much to hide thoughtful, but unpopular, opinion as it does to make trolls invisible. I believe Jackson is holding up sites where depth of though reigns and which don't depend on technological thumbscrews to maintain a veneer of quality.
This is my favorite comment from slashdot ever.
from the video it looks like the perpetrator is some 20- or 30-something foolish dumbass.
ask yourself about morality.
"But after all of the lies and subterfuge is it even constructive to give voice to the talking points of intelligence officials?"
That's not dehumanizing, that's standard practice.
So we call him by the first name when we want to humanize him, make him sound like next-door regular folk, downplay his abusiveness. Right?
Concerns about ability to kill animals after relocation are a really big deal to most of us, Hemingway.
Not too easily purposed to warfare and domination of other peoples. Just what we need more of.
The research could be used for health-tracking apps, baby monitors, and for the military and law enforcement.'
Of course, always for the military and law enforcement. The ethos of technology development in this country, spreading to the world, increasingly sickens me.
This is not for the question submitter, but in general, do not fuck your coworkers. About once or twice a year I end up attracting the attention of a younger engineer of the opposite sex who mistakes mentoring and being a nice guy for mate material. This is a workplace complication you do not need. If you're confident in the middle of the biggest engineering shitstorm ever and manage to right the ship, you're going to attract attention, and not just from management.
Yeah, women are practically automatons, naturally drawn to confident alpha male types. In these situations their genes and hapless little neurological and hormonal structures dictate to them to fuck, and the unsuspecting prime specimen that is the object of their attention is put into the awkward position of having to ward them off (repeatedly, as you report), or kind-heartedly acceding to their animal wishes, which sure puts that fella in a heckuva spot (as you can attest!)
They can also be controlled easily with shiny rocks, such little restraint and higher cognitive function they have.
I instead, genuinely, showed interest in hearing about their antics, which they enjoyed sharing with me.
You did this convincingly, and without having disgust overtake your work life, how?
What other essential knowledge or skills should we add to this imaginary 'toolbox'?"
Whatever they are (and Heinlein's list is very good), the skills that we need to live as well-rounded humans cannot be perceived, checked off, or checked in like items on a requirements list or lines of code. A great problem with technology, and with most practitioners of it, is the instrumental view of the world it inculcates. As the Dean says, the humanities represent a very different way of thinking and understanding the world.
Probably the best thing that could happen to most technology majors is a several-years-long break from it.
Working for a "defense" contractor, you can be extremely sure you are contributing to evil.
At some point between 9/11/2001 and 6/5/2014, I worked for a defense contractor for several years....I had no idea! Do you honestly think they'd tell someone like me?
You worked for a defense contractor, and then claim plausible deniability that the shit you're contributing to is used for evil?
Seriously?
That's convenient, isn't it? Because in your worldview individuals are exempt from making moral choices - they need just point out some other person or entity which has a lot of influence.
What rationalizing bullshit, as if programmers don't have brains and can't be expected to develop and follow moral consciences. As if they are somehow exempt from the moral duties we all have.
You can feed your family doing other things, which may not give you as much comfort as you want, but which don't have you hurting other people to the same degree.
...but sometimes you just have to shut up and play the game if you want the rewards of the game.
Basically, you chose to shut up and do unethical things, to keep getting your hands on those $$$$ greasy paychecks. So quit rationalizing.
You had and have options.
"Are you going to be an asshole who chooses to accept money for working, directly or indirectly, for the military?"
(This is what the "defense industry" is, kiddies. Very lucrative and widespread.)
"Are you going to be an asshole who chooses to accept money for working, directly or indirectly, for spy agencies?"
Addressing these ethical problems requires personal political and social awareness, something often missing from young people's time allotments.
Slashdot would like to be taken seriously, I assume. But "Condi" isn't our friend; we don't know Rice on a first-name basis, much less on a nickname basis. Serious journalism/reporting/blogging doesn't refer to public figures by their first names.
The same goes for all the Google billionaires and other tech luminaries, whom tech outlets like Slashdot routinely refer to as, e.g., "Sergey" or "Larry".
They are not our friends. We're not all part of some big club together - the concerns of tech CEOs are vastly different from those of most working tech people. Tech blogging doesn't serve the tech community well by employing these kinds of linguistic devices, which help to disarm the critical thinking of readers.