You're missing the point I was trying to make, which is that social structures shape the opportunities and perceptions of any given group. I'm not saying that individuals can't rise above circumstances, but that these social structures precede the individual presence in the world. Hence the difference in average income in black families and of women in the workforce.
But this is beside my main point, which is that we need to look at the position of technical workers in the established structures of the economy. As their position is (almost) never directly in line with "profit," which is the god of business in our capitalist society (at least as far as the perceptions of managers and laypersons are concerned) they are in a sense seen as secondary citizens. In other words, if there is a problem with "respect" in the industry, don't just whine, look at how it is produced (and re-produced) by societal structures which we reinforce in our daily lives.
I think that ravenspear ends up using the same "flawed logic" that he criticizes. Of course, it is true that scientific advances lead to an improved quality of life, sometimes. They also make possible things like mass genocide in the holocaust. Not to reiterate a point that seems blindingly obvious, but technology is a tool, and it is employed by humans, for "good" and "bad."
What we need to realize is that this "good" and "bad" is also a product of relations of power in society. Therefore we have to study societal structures; how they result in a certain way of thinking that produces technological "innovations," and how these innovations in turn are deployed by us and according to our understanding of what is good or bad.
To sum up, the "bigger picture" is not that sometimes technology can be good, but that good and bad itself is a thing of this world. If there is a mistake in logic that is made all too-often, it is trying to evaluate technology in itself rather than focusing on these social structures and how it shapes our understanding of technology and ourselves.
Skyshadow wrote: "Competence and confidence are the keys to garnering and maintaining the respect of your coworkers. Really, they're the keys to success at life in general. "
Really? And I suppose that we should tell women, blacks and people in other marginalized groups as well that the key to transcending problems such as unequal employment opportunities is "competence and confidence." Of course, I don't mean to say that the situation of computer technicians is overly similar to the conditions caused by other forms of social stratification in society. But I would like to suggest that with capitalism as it exists today, i.e., as a system which has the "ethic" of profit as a guide to behavior of those in business, we're not going to see a significant change in the treatment of people who offer services which are essential, but not mandatory in order to increase the profit margin for the "elites" in the industry. Face it, in business logic in the contemporary world, "technies" are a necessary evil. They always have been, and always will be, bar structural changes in society itself. I have a feeling that this hasn't worsened significantly since the economy took a downturn, but you might have come to a personal "epiphany" which led you to see something which has been going on as long as our current system has functioned as it does now.
No IMPORTANT improvements as far as I'm concerned. Added an annoying as heck icon "Shop" where the "Stop" button used to be, but hey, anything to make a buck. Tried a page with the smallest java applet I could write, and it crashed just as quick as before. Guess I have to keep loading Vmware with IE just to browse the web without crashes (when turning off Java isn't an option).
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point I was trying to make, which is that social structures shape the opportunities and perceptions of any given group. I'm not saying that individuals can't rise above circumstances, but that these social structures precede the individual presence in the world. Hence the difference in average income in black families and of women in the workforce.
But this is beside my main point, which is that we need to look at the position of technical workers in the established structures of the economy. As their position is (almost) never directly in line with "profit," which is the god of business in our capitalist society (at least as far as the perceptions of managers and laypersons are concerned) they are in a sense seen as secondary citizens. In other words, if there is a problem with "respect" in the industry, don't just whine, look at how it is produced (and re-produced) by societal structures which we reinforce in our daily lives.
What we need to realize is that this "good" and "bad" is also a product of relations of power in society. Therefore we have to study societal structures; how they result in a certain way of thinking that produces technological "innovations," and how these innovations in turn are deployed by us and according to our understanding of what is good or bad.
To sum up, the "bigger picture" is not that sometimes technology can be good, but that good and bad itself is a thing of this world. If there is a mistake in logic that is made all too-often, it is trying to evaluate technology in itself rather than focusing on these social structures and how it shapes our understanding of technology and ourselves.
Really? And I suppose that we should tell women, blacks and people in other marginalized groups as well that the key to transcending problems such as unequal employment opportunities is "competence and confidence." Of course, I don't mean to say that the situation of computer technicians is overly similar to the conditions caused by other forms of social stratification in society. But I would like to suggest that with capitalism as it exists today, i.e., as a system which has the "ethic" of profit as a guide to behavior of those in business, we're not going to see a significant change in the treatment of people who offer services which are essential, but not mandatory in order to increase the profit margin for the "elites" in the industry. Face it, in business logic in the contemporary world, "technies" are a necessary evil. They always have been, and always will be, bar structural changes in society itself. I have a feeling that this hasn't worsened significantly since the economy took a downturn, but you might have come to a personal "epiphany" which led you to see something which has been going on as long as our current system has functioned as it does now.
Who's developing this thing, Microsoft?
No IMPORTANT improvements as far as I'm concerned. Added an annoying as heck icon "Shop" where the "Stop" button used to be, but hey, anything to make a buck. Tried a page with the smallest java applet I could write, and it crashed just as quick as before. Guess I have to keep loading Vmware with IE just to browse the web without crashes (when turning off Java isn't an option).