On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:17:18 -0400, kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> wrote:
>
> okay, if any one has any doubts about the mythos of change
> the world revolutionizing broadcast by geeks, you can stop
> now.
"geeks" don't have a damn thing to do with the world changing. the world changed before geeks came along. the world *changed* (or at least its genesis came) when einstein's predictions began to be proved (in 1919, it made all the papers!) that newton was WRONG. if you perceive that geeks have something to do with the world changing, it is only because that is your first encounter with the brave new world...
> ac has just provided exhibit number one of what i've been
> saying.
always glad to be of service...
> did y'all know that capitalism doesn't exist anymore and that
> the workers won?
i take it you and dave are the only one's allowed to get people's attention???
>> what two sectors of the economy have grown tremendously in
>> the 1990s? high tech and services, the coder and the
>> hamburger flipper. 33% and 66% (i am being simplistic).
>> the coder makes lots of money, prolly isn't college educated
>> (college cs courses *don't* prepare you for the new economy,
>> but the old one, so what's the point?), and his one skill:
>> (s)he knows how to learn and think for him- or herself. it
>> is the burger-flipper who has that ole college pigskin
>> hanging on the wall...
>
> d00d, the professions didn't have formal credential processes
> at first either.
and you are continuing to try to plug the brave new world into your old paradigm. you just don't get it. the world is not your father's playground anymore. *you* didn't get your job because of the credentials you offered, *you* got your job because you knew how to think. credential that!
your weary ole credentialing process worked in the industrial age, because all that labor required was basically rote (sp?). the knowledge base could be measured. it *could* be credentialed. and while there are rote tools available for coding and hacking, they are basically meaningless. information is free. it is knowledge that we value. (love to hear how you could credential that!)
i really thought that kuhn's concept of paradigm shift was pretty elementary, but i am suddenly beginning to see the point. i *don't* get out much, doncha know, so (like matt) i had no clue that outsiders were taking some of this stuff so seriously!
> READ AMERICA BY DESIGN. ferchrisakes
no time, dear. you already know that. and if you can't argue the point, then there is no point. i would prolly take it apart, as well...
but i will make you an offer: i will read your book if you will get involved in the ietf and attend the next couple of meetings with me. perhaps then you might start to understand...
>> the problem that you have, kelley, is that you imagine that
>> capitalism still exists. the workers won, they are the
>> fucking capitalists nowadays. pension funds, not some
>> solitary capitalist, is what drives the market and funds the
>> ideas.
since you heaped so much contempt on this, do you view workers as capitalists? or are you willing to admit that the capitalism examined and explained by marx is archaic? (capital and the tools of production are mere resources in today's world; it is the *thinker* who adds value, creates profit, who makes the enterprise...)
>> by himself (and apparently by people like kelley), quite
>> seriously. raymond has really become a fsm pimp, trying to
>> lord himself over it and control how it is seen. but are you
>> asking how the people who code apache or linux or samba, et al,
>> view him? they don't. they don't consider him at all. you
>> can't pimp what you can't sell...
>
> nearly every word matt uttered sounded like esr.
well, i know eric, and we have had some rather lively discussions about all this. but i think you misinterpret tone for content. yes, i *am* passionate about this new world in which we find ourselves (too passionate for dc-stuff, iirc), because the damn physicist in me keeps wanting to understand what *is.* i can't seem to escape that pov, even as my skillset there languishes...
eric is wrong. *i* am right!
> and you didn't sound that much different from him yourself
> what with all that hysterical stuff about how the workers
> have won! my god.
yes, dear. now that we *have* your attention...
you thoroughly glossed over one of the most important points in yesterday's posts -- geekdom is still so new, still so unchartered, that it is still a verbal, not a literate, tradition. your mo, to conquer all the literature and then parse it thoroughly, won't work here. the docs that exist aren't that authoritative.
your second option, one would think, would be to document the scene/workplace/whatever yourself -- but then you would have to seek out and find a rather substantial population of open source participants (and get them to tell you the truth!!!). who has time for that???
look, i am glad -- for eric -- that someone is taking him seriously. his ego needs that. but let's *not* act like he is authoritative on the open source environment. by focusing on "self-interest," you are missing so much of what motivates the nature of the movement and the character of the people in it. you ascribe far too much rationality to it. instead of thinking about geeks and open source as something rational, think about it as a one-night stand: lots of passion, not a lot of forethought. this is a far more accurate description of the open source movement than they one you tendered...
> exhibit number two: under the discursive impulses of a
> profession in developmental larval stage. what's that you
> ask: the attempt to cast off some as fakers, poseurs, quacks,
> unprofessional, etc.
but, see, here is your problem. who cares if there are "fakers, poseurs, quacks, unprofessional[s]?" no one is getting paid. no one is getting conned. the project moves forward, no matter what. if there are "fakers, poseurs, quacks, unprofessional[s]" involved, you simply move on without them. who cares? i mean, the people with the monumental egos may need to tear people down, but they bring their own baggage to the process. the process is about finding solutions, not massaging egos...
> eventually, it won't be enough to have flame wars on lists and
> rely on gossip. no. you will eventually have to rely on
> formalizing credential processes
why? open source is about solving problems, producing things that work. why do we need your credentials?
and, again, how to your credential the ability to think? by the time you create your test (for "credentials"), the very thing you seek to credential will undoubtedly have changed. why do you think that universities are now such a poor source for coders? they want to teach you ada and pascal. they are none to happy when people start to think outside their box (didn't we just have that discussion about "leftie economics in the university here?). that won't help you anywhere...
> especially if everyone and their aunt mary start learning all
> about code and wanting to be hackers. barbarians at the
> gate, oh my!
(your own buggaboo, not mine. i care not a wit if every person on the planet becomes a "hacker." indeed, i would encourage it. i think that would be a good thing.)
this brave new world simply does not stand up to your attempts to centralize and unify. the bifurcation that you overlook just persists. no one is just a hacker. haven't you learned anything from your time on dc-stuff? you are a hacker *and* an engineer/historian/debator of all things good and evil/yada yada yada...
the personal interests of *everyone* nowadays seems to defy your old conventions. people easily accept what others might consider to be contradictory interests with no pang of conscience. the owners of capital that you so easily dismissed (the pensioned workers)? they have no problem taking on mgmt for their own short-term interests at the cost (perhaps) of their long term interests. so what? diversity is a good thing.
> read what i wrote: whether hackers take him seriously or not
> is NOT the point.
nor did *i* suggest it is. i have no problem with you stroking eric's ego. that's a good thing, it makes him feel important. if you want to argue over eric, though, i won't participate. i don't give a damn about eric's ego or eric's attempt to pimp the movement. i *will* discuss what is, though. but eric's view doesn't even qualify as shadows on the cave wall...
> manifestos like raymond's will operate like those of adam
> smith, locke, say, marx
smith had a point. he correctly identified the benefits of specialization (hmmm, that newtonian principle) for an industrial age.
locke had a point. he pointed out the contradictions in the monarchies and proffered newtonian principles as a means for a people to organize themselves differently.
marx had a point. he correctly described the processes of capitalism as well as the losers in that form of economic organization.
eric *doesn't* have a point. he doesn't see the future; he is no better than clinton, watching the crowd move forward and running out in front of it to act as leader. if you want to follow the "leader," feel free...
look, i honor what eric has done. but eric is no prophet. and it is the movement of the crowd in which i am interested...
> and so forth because they are duking it out at another level
> and they ARE being taken seriously in terms of p oliciy
> debates.
yes, dear, *but* they were fighting within a specific context. locke et al all agreed that the political realm was the source of all power; they all bought into the same social context. we don't. eric may buy into your social context, but "geeks" don't. the free source movement is neither a leader of or even indicator of the change, in this case the diffusion of power throughout the system. they are taking advantage of those changes, not creating them.
> that's why the renown lessig and our very own nathan newman
> debate esr at the American Propsect and other places. while
> still others like michael perelman and doug henwood and
> others will take these claims seriously as cultural artefacts
> --like anthropological artefacts--that can tell us something
> about social life
i also have no problem in *them* stroking eric's ego. eric has a big enough ego for everyone to play with. but let's not act as if he somehow defines the "paradigm shift" (yuck) in which we find ourselves.
eric is the magician. watch the hand (or, in this case, eric) while the real magic occurs. the process is not what is important. the tools, whether built for fun or for profit, are not what is important. what is important is what you do with them. information is free, disposible. knowledge adds value...
> media whore? sure. but, by those standards, so were academics
> like marx, locke, smith, say etc who took the inchoate claims of
> the bourgeoisie and turned them into social and political theories
> which they used in their debates with other academics and people
> who make policies and engage in political struggles. those
> political and social theories then be/c clarion cries around
> which social and political movements were waged.
>
> please pay attention.
look, perhaps we just see things way too differently. it is too hard for me to try to see the archaic, linear, newtonian perspective through which you have raised eric's ego to the level of macbeth's head. if you want to document the future, then we have something to discuss. but if you -- like so many others (algore comes to mind) -- are trying to force the digital epoch into the tired old perspectives of the past, then i have made my points and it is time to move on.
i don't care about the past. eric and the other righteous souls can wax eloquent about how utopia is at hand all they want. i don't see much utopia in our future. i see lots of casualties. just because we are changing doesn't make it better...
ac
'''
(0 0)
----oOO----(_)----------
| the geek shall |
| inherit the earth |
-----------------oOO----
|__|__|
|| ||
ooO Ooo
______________________________________________________ Get Your FREE FlashMail Address now at http://www.flashmail.com It's Free, Easy, & Fun !!!