Great message by a man with great insight. Understand the biases of the medium for society, and you will be one of the elite. When we invented text, the power was with those who could read. When we invented the printing press, the power was with those who could write. Now that we have the internet, the power is with those who can program. Learn to program, or be programmed.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Program or be programmed
Great message by a man with great insight. Understand the biases of the medium for society, and you will be one of the elite. When we invented text, the power was with those who could read. When we invented the printing press, the power was with those who could write. Now that we have the internet, the power is with those who can program. Learn to program, or be programmed.
Monday, March 29, 2010
I'll keep it simple: if you're into tech, read this
`The operating system of the internet
Draws a great parallel between computing in the 1980s and now. Back then, people were struggling to make different programs play nicely together. MS Windows stepped in to fill the gap. Now we have the same sort of challenge with websites. Who is stepping in? Google mainly, but also open applications like XML and the like. The whole idea is allowing developers to move to a higher level of abstraction. If I don't have to worry about driver compatibility, I can spend more time making my program really great. The same applies with the web. If I don't have to worry about making my code compatible with a dozen different formats, I can focus on making a powerful web-app.
It also includes a nuanced discussion of content control online (as opposed to the normal knee jerk reactions). He also implies other coming technologies, like the new wave of advertising (focused on social networks) which my generation may not be immune to, the way we are the advertising of our parents.
He's also upfront about some unsolved problems, like keeping your coworkers separate from your social friends online. How can I bitch about my boss if he's my friend on Facebook? We need to figure that out.
Overall, great article. Some insightful perspectives, but also leaving some questions open.
Draws a great parallel between computing in the 1980s and now. Back then, people were struggling to make different programs play nicely together. MS Windows stepped in to fill the gap. Now we have the same sort of challenge with websites. Who is stepping in? Google mainly, but also open applications like XML and the like. The whole idea is allowing developers to move to a higher level of abstraction. If I don't have to worry about driver compatibility, I can spend more time making my program really great. The same applies with the web. If I don't have to worry about making my code compatible with a dozen different formats, I can focus on making a powerful web-app.
It also includes a nuanced discussion of content control online (as opposed to the normal knee jerk reactions). He also implies other coming technologies, like the new wave of advertising (focused on social networks) which my generation may not be immune to, the way we are the advertising of our parents.
He's also upfront about some unsolved problems, like keeping your coworkers separate from your social friends online. How can I bitch about my boss if he's my friend on Facebook? We need to figure that out.
Overall, great article. Some insightful perspectives, but also leaving some questions open.
ACTA - Draconian laws to cripple my generation
I've just been reading about ACTA, which is an international copyright agreement that nobody but the negotiators and some trade groups (like movie companies) has been able to see. Someone recently leaked a copy, and it's even worse than expected. If you're accused of copyright infringement (and let's be honest: who in my generation is entirely guiltless?) your property can be seized and you can be forced to pay damages far in excess of any potential damage without the accuser even having the need to prove damages. Yeah, I can't see that being abused.
It also mandates imprisonment for infringement for commercial purposes, which includes "significant willful infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain." So now we've defined 'commercial' to include non-financial gain. Do these people even live in the same world as us?
I've emailed my MP (also leader of the Liberal party) to ask his opinion, but I haven't heard back yet. Personally I'm doubtful I will.
There's plenty more wrong with this agreement, like the insane liabilities ISPs would carry if they allowed copyrighted traffic on their networks, but I need to get back to work.Link
It also mandates imprisonment for infringement for commercial purposes, which includes "significant willful infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain." So now we've defined 'commercial' to include non-financial gain. Do these people even live in the same world as us?
I've emailed my MP (also leader of the Liberal party) to ask his opinion, but I haven't heard back yet. Personally I'm doubtful I will.
There's plenty more wrong with this agreement, like the insane liabilities ISPs would carry if they allowed copyrighted traffic on their networks, but I need to get back to work.Link
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Regulating geoengineering
Link
Apparently there's going to be a conference where scientists try to come up with some good guidelines. This is probably a good thing. Full scale geoengineering, much like bioengineering could be considered an act of war in the right situations. If I use the technology to make Canada a better place to live, but turn Florida into a wasteland in the process, you can bet some people will have a serious problem with that. (ok, maybe Florida was a bad example, but still...) I think Caldeira is being a bit wrong by saying he won't be involved because it's not being held by “established professional societies and non-profits without a stake in the outcomes.” Have any stepped forward to organize one? Is so, why wasn't it attended? It not, why not? Many non-profits would have a large stake in the outcome as well. Greenpeace wouldn't host an entirely neutral conference, neither would the Cato Institute. Non-profit <> objective.
Apparently there's going to be a conference where scientists try to come up with some good guidelines. This is probably a good thing. Full scale geoengineering, much like bioengineering could be considered an act of war in the right situations. If I use the technology to make Canada a better place to live, but turn Florida into a wasteland in the process, you can bet some people will have a serious problem with that. (ok, maybe Florida was a bad example, but still...) I think Caldeira is being a bit wrong by saying he won't be involved because it's not being held by “established professional societies and non-profits without a stake in the outcomes.” Have any stepped forward to organize one? Is so, why wasn't it attended? It not, why not? Many non-profits would have a large stake in the outcome as well. Greenpeace wouldn't host an entirely neutral conference, neither would the Cato Institute. Non-profit <> objective.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Milgram experiment repeated as reality TV
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8573755.stm
Only 16 of 80 participants stopped before the lethal shock. The original study had a 65% compliance rate, compared with 80% on this show. Not a huge jump, but it does make you wonder how much a game show environment and reality TV will change behavior.
On the plus side, most participants in the original experiment reported they were glad to have done so, since it made them more aware when they were submitting to authority, versus acting of their own. Hopefully the very public broadcast of this will make even more people aware of the potential for abuse.
Only 16 of 80 participants stopped before the lethal shock. The original study had a 65% compliance rate, compared with 80% on this show. Not a huge jump, but it does make you wonder how much a game show environment and reality TV will change behavior.
On the plus side, most participants in the original experiment reported they were glad to have done so, since it made them more aware when they were submitting to authority, versus acting of their own. Hopefully the very public broadcast of this will make even more people aware of the potential for abuse.
Tech, people and learned helplessness
I've had the most frustrating morning of dealing with basic computer issues, and re-explaining things to the same people who pretended to understand them weeks ago. It got me thinking about designing systems that people interact with. It seems that if you ask a normal person their response is either to train the person, or add some instructions to the tool. The idea that the tool might be flawed seldom comes up, and only after it's clear that the person isn't at fault. Explanations are a flawed method because people only go to them after they have problems, which means they'll already have decided that a) they don't understand the tool or b) the tool sucks. Once someone has decided that, it's very difficult to change their minds. That's why so many older people are terrified of computers, despite how much easier they've become. Back when they first tried, missing a comma on a command meant you had to start over. I'd be paranoid in their situation too. What I'm still puzzled about is whether or not there's a good way to reverse that learned helplessness. The only way I've found is to throw out the existing tool and replace it with a new one. Reformatting the existing tool often doesn't work, since the underlying structure or premise is where the real problem is. The model the developer used to describe what the program does is out of sync with the model of the user. This is usually exacerbated by the fact most users can't accurately describe their models. If they could, they'd be programmers. So now my task is to try and figure out people's models without actually asking them to describe them, since they'd probably get it wrong. I don't mean this to suggest most people are stupid, just that they don't have the skill set or experience to accurately break down something to the point a machine can understand it.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Really? Guns can kill people?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/03/16/toronto-brass-rail-testimony.html?ref=rss
This kind of irresponsible thinking absolutely infuriates me. "Edward Paredes, 24, admitted in court Tuesday that carrying a loaded gun was wrong, but he said he had no intention of killing anyone" Then why the fuck were you carrying a loaded gun?! What do you think it's for? I'm in favour of looser gun laws, but the fact morons like you don't slit their throats shaving kinda hurts my credibility.
He says he was carrying it for protection. If you want protection, but have no intention of killing anyone, carry pepper spray, or one of those loud alarms. Guns are good at killing people. That's why cops carry guns instead of swords. They're better at killing people than what we used to use.
"The former Bay salesman told the court he was simply forgetful or too lazy to have left the gun in his car."
You're too lazy to keep track of a lethal weapon? Your laziness killed an innocent person. This piece of garbage deserves to be sentenced as first degree murder. The death wasn't an accident, it was the result of criminal negligence. If you're drunk, or seriously pissed off you shouldn't be holding a gun, just the same way you shouldn't be driving or doing anything else that might endanger another person. If you do, you're culpable. A reasonable adult sees these kinds of situations and distances themselves.
Rant over. Excuse making assholes piss me off.
This kind of irresponsible thinking absolutely infuriates me. "Edward Paredes, 24, admitted in court Tuesday that carrying a loaded gun was wrong, but he said he had no intention of killing anyone" Then why the fuck were you carrying a loaded gun?! What do you think it's for? I'm in favour of looser gun laws, but the fact morons like you don't slit their throats shaving kinda hurts my credibility.
He says he was carrying it for protection. If you want protection, but have no intention of killing anyone, carry pepper spray, or one of those loud alarms. Guns are good at killing people. That's why cops carry guns instead of swords. They're better at killing people than what we used to use.
"The former Bay salesman told the court he was simply forgetful or too lazy to have left the gun in his car."
You're too lazy to keep track of a lethal weapon? Your laziness killed an innocent person. This piece of garbage deserves to be sentenced as first degree murder. The death wasn't an accident, it was the result of criminal negligence. If you're drunk, or seriously pissed off you shouldn't be holding a gun, just the same way you shouldn't be driving or doing anything else that might endanger another person. If you do, you're culpable. A reasonable adult sees these kinds of situations and distances themselves.
Rant over. Excuse making assholes piss me off.
"Thank you for smoking" - hilarious
Oh man. The movie came out in 2005, and it's hilarious. The protagonist is a lobbyist for tobacco companies. It's got the kind of dark gallows humour that horrifies my relatives and makes me feel like I'm at a dwarf toss. The kind of justifications the characters come up with are great in how twisted they are. "That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong." "If you want an easy job, go work for the Red Cross.It's so great. If you enjoy dark humour, and siding with the minority (the extreme minority in this case) watch this movie.
I'm not usually one for music
But this lady is really good. Amazing story too. Grew up in Ethiopia, where her gender prevented her from performing. Found via Boing boing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)