×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jamais Cascio on Gadgets and the Future

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the too-many-blogs dept.

43

Armchair Anarchist writes "Futurismic has just posted the first column from its new monthly contributor, the renowned Jamais Cascio. Cascio is best known as a co-founder of Worldchanging.com, but is also a prolific blogger (at his own site 'Open The Future'), writer, public speaker and pundit on many aspects of futurism and foresight. This new piece sees him discussing the way futurist thinkers tend to focus on gadgets and technology, and advocating the use of more critical approaches."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

43 comments

Eat me now! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15857878)

So, do you wanna eat me?

Say you do.

Is this guy int he right line of work? (5, Funny)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 7 years ago | (#15857889)

It must be really hard to be a futurist when your first name means "never" in French.

Re:Is this guy int he right line of work? (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858251)

And your last name is a poorly spelled calculator brand.

Maybe he should change his name to "Always HP" and get sponsored ?

Don't try this at home, kids (5, Funny)

Shubalubdub (930266) | more than 7 years ago | (#15857896)

So what we're reading...is some guy talking about other guys talking about their guesses for the future. It's...a whole new realm of mental masturbation. I'd try my hand at it myself, but I'm afraid I might break my mental wrist.

Re:Don't try this at home, kids (1)

ArwynH (883499) | more than 7 years ago | (#15857932)

Ah, so it's not just me who found the blurb a bit strange then.

I mean, does this guy have any actual experience in the industry he's talking about? The blurb just mentioned he talks alot...

Re:Don't try this at home, kids (2, Funny)

magetoo (875982) | more than 7 years ago | (#15857955)

I feel like I should be blogging about us discussing this.


Seriously, the column linked isn't all that bad; but it's hardly newsworthy.

Re:Don't try this at home, kids (1)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858779)

It's the launch of his column/blog at that 'Furutrismic' site. That's the news. +slownewsday +slashvert +productlaunch tags, then.

And his main argument is flawed, too: (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858037)

from TFA:
There's an evident problem, however, with technology being effectively the sole focus; many (arguably most) of the significant drivers of change in the world today have more to do with religion, or economics, or the environment than with technological toys. Looking only (or primarily) at new gadgets misses out on the big picture.
The problem with this argument is that all of religion, economics, and environment are, ultimately, about gadgets. Think about it.

Re:Don't try this at home, kids (2, Insightful)

smchris (464899) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858072)

Nerds have been indulging in it for decades in the privacy of their rooms. It's called science fiction -- with an emphasis on the science. "Futurism" seems like a PR attempt to get invited to better parties and better academic or think tank gigs. Perhaps by those who don't feel competent to handle the "fiction" half?

Flippant? I don't know. How many sci fi writers have, or have had, day jobs as scientists and mathematicians? (Quite a few.) "Serious" science fiction has always been that outlet where people can explore their "futuristic" speculations without being considered a crank in their day job.

As for dealing with gadgets, I think William Gibson would say he has always dealt with how his envisioned distopia affects the lives of his characters. Any good writer would. Perhaps that is where "futurism" has always been inferior to science fiction.

Re:Don't try this at home, kids (1)

KevinIsOwn (618900) | more than 7 years ago | (#15859082)

Nerds have been indulging in it for decades in the privacy of their rooms. It's called science fiction

Uhh... so that's what it's called now? Well see ya guys later... I'm going to indulge in some "science fiction," if you know what I mean.

yes and no (2, Insightful)

beaverfever (584714) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858284)

"Most of the controversy surrounding these technologies has to do with what they mean -- that is, the values they embed -- not how they work."

Take the mobile phone, for instance. When people were imagining mobile phones and how they would work, how much attention was paid to considering how people would really use them?

People driving their cars through traffic while holding a phone to their ear and talking about shopping or going to a party, people sitting in restaurants or other public places speaking loudly into their phones, or mobiles ringing in the middle of discussions, meals,movies or plays, meetings, etc... These circumstances were considered rude or even illegal, and some of these are expected and tolerated now. They have become a normal part of our lives - our values have changed because of the technology.

This guy is talking about looking at that aspect of new technology, changing how we think of its potential. When Buck Rogers movies showed a visual communicator thingy that worked like a tv, who would have thought that when television was invented people would sit in front of it for hours on end as if they were hypnotised?

Perhaps by expanding on how we think of the potential of technology, then we can develop better technologies that really lead to people living better lives.

Re:yes and no or cell phone usage (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#15860371)

Take the mobile phone, for instance. When people were imagining mobile phones and how they would work, how much attention was paid to considering how people would really use them?

People driving their cars through traffic while holding a phone to their ear and talking about shopping or going to a party, people sitting in restaurants or other public places speaking loudly into their phones, or mobiles ringing in the middle of discussions, meals,movies or plays, meetings, etc... These circumstances were considered rude or even illegal, and some of these are expected and tolerated now. They have become a normal part of our lives - our values have changed because of the technology.


Another thing is the fact that people, for the most part, are ditching their land line phones and replacing them with cell phones. This is especially true with younger people, who tend to move more, and are home less. Plus, you can turn them off.

Driving while talking or listening to a cell phone is as dangerous - or more dangerous - than driving while legally drunk, according to recent scientific studies. Technology isn't good or evil, it's how you use it - ok, well, a nuclear bomb isn't "good".

Jamais Cascio facts (-1, Redundant)

XNormal (8617) | more than 7 years ago | (#15857898)

  • When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Jamais Cascio.
  • Jamais Cascio doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
  • There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Jamais Cascio has allowed to live.
  • Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Jamais Cascio.
  • Jamais Cascio does not sleep. He waits.
  • Jamais Cascio is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
  • Jamais Cascio is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
  • Jamais Cascio counted to infinity - twice.
  • There is no chin behind Jamais Cascio' beard. There is only another fist.
  • When Jamais Cascio does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.
  • Jamais Cascio is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.
  • Jamais Cascio' hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
  • There is no such thing as global warming. Jamais Cascio was cold, so he turned the sun up.
  • Jamais Cascio can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.
  • Jamais Cascio doesn't wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
  • Jamais Cascio gave Mona Lisa that smile.
  • Jamais Cascio can slam a revolving door.
  • Jamais Cascio does not get frostbite. Jamais Cascio bites frost
  • Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on Satellite TV.
  • Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Jamaistatorship.

Society creates art, or art creates society (3, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 7 years ago | (#15857903)

This is just a variation of the old debate about whether art (including popular expressions of art such as movies, games etc) merely reflects the society that created it or whether it is art that creates and changes society.

The answer, obviously, is that neither choice is exclusive of the other, and that both are often true.

Re:Society creates art, or art creates society (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858125)

The answer, obviously, is that neither choice is exclusive of the other, and that both are often true.

Yes, some call it interaction, and some add "weak" and "strong".

CC.

I'm sure he is a splendid chap 'n all... (3, Insightful)

Angostura (703910) | more than 7 years ago | (#15857910)

... but maybe it would be better to wait until he posts a really interesting, insightful column before posting it to the front page of Slashdot. This was just a preliminary bit of throat clearing from what I can see.

And really - a futurologist who finishes his column with "I can't wait to see how it turns out." - that's right up there with "only time will tell" - much beloved of lazy trainy-journalists who have got tired of thinking and have completed their allotted word count.

Re:I'm sure he is a splendid chap 'n all... (1)

Pullman (984301) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858275)

It seems to me, that a futurologist is someone who's entire job it is to think of things that are either blitheringly obvious, or stupidly unlikely. I read an article by some futurologists working for BT, and they were trying to guess what we would be doing in 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years time. The idea of predicting what we will be using our computers, or even our cameras for in 50 years is up there with predicting the second coming of Elvis. Any fool can do it. Anyone want to employ me?

Last time I heard futurist in a sentence (1)

totallygeek (263191) | more than 7 years ago | (#15857995)

Was the Segway [wikipedia.org] guy, Dean Kamen. 'Nough said.

Re:Last time I heard futurist in a sentence (1)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858154)

Oddly enough, I saw a Segway in use on TV the other day. At the British Open (Golf) the steadicam operator was on a hands-free model. The players seemed quite impressed!

Re:Last time I heard futurist in a sentence (1)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 7 years ago | (#15859637)

The Segway has a niche in transportation. I see them being used. While I agree with your sentiment about futurists (generally), I think your choice of examples doesn't support your argument.

Re:Last time I heard futurist in a sentence (1)

totallygeek (263191) | more than 7 years ago | (#15859822)

The Segway was going to do away with walking. The sales projections purposed showed them being used by just about everyone living in a city. I think the example is fitting.

Technology embodies our values (4, Interesting)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858040)

From the article: There's an evident problem, however, with technology being effectively the sole focus; many (arguably most) of the significant drivers of change in the world today have more to do with religion, or economics, or the environment than with technological toys. Looking only (or primarily) at new gadgets misses out on the big picture. The deeper problem is more subtle and, in my view, more important. A preponderance of focus on emerging technologies leads one to start thinking of technology as a neutral driver of change, rather than as a material manifestation of social values. More often than not, the emergence of new forms of technology is less a catalyst for social change than a result of it. As a result, technology is not neutral. It embodies -- and is biased by -- the underlying values of the cultures in which it is developed.

Sounds like he's just discovered what Langdon Winner [langdonwinner.org] has been saying since the 1970s, and others since before then. Slashdot frequently sees posts like "a razor blade can be used for good or evil" implying technology is value neutral -- but it isn't. Technology embodies our values, especially when looked at as a system including favorite economic stories at the time -- including a decision to invest in, say, designing nuclear weapons design or marketing larger SUVs instead of say, curing river blindness or designing electric cars -- decisions driven by values.

Contrast, say, Disney's investments in controlling media with DRM versus the RepRap [reprap.org] project to make a free 3D printer. Winner goes further in his book _Autonomous Technology_ and suggests large bureaucracies "reverse adapt", changing their environment to perpetuate themselves, including the legal environment. So, if you can't make or share your own media or 3D models, then you are dependent on Disney or whoever. Consider the kind of technology to sustain the values described here: CLAWS: Creating Livable Alternatives to Wage Slavery [whywork.org] and how it might differ from the politics and policies and technologies and infrastructure of today. Or from this essay The Abolition of Work [whywork.org]: "Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working. ... Only a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages. Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five percent of the work then being done -- presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now -- would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control."

to predict the direction of the winds of change (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15858080)

which are blowing at gale force, we don't need no stinkin' gadgets.

from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the felonious nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

lookout bullow.

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

Cascio article (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858152)

"This is a more important issue than you might think. If you doubt the relevance of social values when thinking about the future, ask yourself: how would an intelligent machine built by computer scientists in China differ from one built by computer scientists in the United States... Or an electric car design coming from computer industry veterans rather than a Big Three carmaker? "

1 - The intelligent machine built in the US is not censored
2 - Electric car would be highly efficient and not consume oil, therefore it is blocked by the lobbying power of oil companies which have recently benefitted from record profits given to them by high oil costs ($74/barrel.)

Electric cars should be in use right now, there is no reason why we can't produce them efficiently - right now.

Re:Cascio article (1)

ArwynH (883499) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858290)

1 - The intelligent machine built in the US is not censored

Correction: The intelligent machine built in th US would not be officially censored.

2 - Electric car would be highly efficient and not consume oil, therefore it is blocked by the lobbying power of oil companies which have recently benefitted from record profits given to them by high oil costs ($74/barrel.)

Just because the car would run on electicity would not make it more efficient.

As for being blocked by oil companies, it's more consumer economics than lobbying. Electic cars are available at the moment, they are just expencive and due to the lack of supporting refueling infrostructure, they are next to useless. The lack of refueling infrostructure is due to the lack of demand for it, basicly not enough electic cars to make it profitable enough. A nasty loop that won't be broken until someone with a lot of money decides to take the long term risk of building the infrostructure.

Now I'm not saying the Oil companies are angels or that they are not greedy bastards, they are, but they are also not stupid. The largest sponsors of renewable fuel research are Oil companies. They are not against you using them, since they make money on them aswell. And when the time is right (most profitable) they will invest that money in the infrostructure for renewable fuels. That I suspect will happen in the next few (5-10) years or so. And if history is anything to go by, when it does there will be a 'format war' with each company trying to make it's form of renewable fuel the dominant one. It'll be hell. ;_;

Re:Cascio article (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 7 years ago | (#15863017)

Thanks for an intelligent, highly knowledgeable post.

You point out the humongous weak point and fallacy with all such "futurist" stuff. According to the 1974 Senate Select Committee Investigation on the Transportation Industry, a successful conspiracy took place over a period of thirty-some years. This was verified by the testimony (under oath, the way they used to do it in the olden days...) of former executives of GM, Sunoco and Firestone, who did willfully conspire to subvert and destroy urban transit systems throughout the United States, especially on the West Coast, by buying up electric trolley systems and companies and then dissolving them.

How many times, and how many successful conspiracies, have taken place to curtail the future and set us back so many decades, if not centuries??? Certainly something like that is transpiring today when the plutocratic elites in North America seek to enhance the prosperity of very few, while destroying the prosperity of the vast majority.....

Futurists get it all wrong lately. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858201)

Because they fail to look at the rampant stupidity and greed that is making innovation go down the toilet.

Examples? sure! I currently have great TV service at home, I do not have Cable or Dish I use the Internet. Some of the shows I want to watch are NOT on the net for me to collect so I have installed "collectors" at friends homes to record and then foreward my few recordings to me (low bandwidth plus I compress to mpeg4) My setup works great and all my friends and relatives think it's really cool and want one.

One problem. It's 100% illegal. I have over 300 movies on it for on demand viewing, I have lots of video content from TV shows (yes WITH the commercials) as well as tons of IPTV content. The companies that deliver TV content are scared shitless because they know that they can easily be replaced. Channels and networks are 100% useless today people only care about shows that catch their fancy.

So what happens? TV stations and networks fight tooth and nail to make sure that innovation is stifled. Therefore advances in the future are severely limited due to the short-sightedness of very rich and stupid people on the boards of large companies.

They are even fighting the ipod and the slingbox and even Tivo's now. They can stifle any advances and cause a stoppage of innovation through legistlation.

Futurists live in a dreamy world, they never take into accounts of events that severely limit or effect the future in drastic ways.

Oh snap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15858220)

I wonder if this is a jab at WorldChanging [worldchanging.com]? That future thinking, socially engaged blog tends to be extremely gadget and technology focused. He founded the site a few years ago, was extremely active on it, and then left in March without comment -- after an otherwise remarkable year wherein the org files to incorporate as a non-profit and publishes a massive coffee table book.

futurists (3, Informative)

vivIsel (450550) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858352)

This man has nothing to do with futurism [wikipedia.org]. Futurism is far more interesting than anything he's talking about.

Who? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858407)

"Futurismic has just posted the first column from its new monthly contributor, the renowned Jamais Cascio.

Who?

Cascio is best known as a co-founder of Worldchanging.com,

Wow. They changed the world so much I never heard of them.

but is also a prolific blogger (at his own site 'Open The Future'),

My friend's cat has a blog. Admittedly it tends to cover catnip, hunting birds and napping positions, but it's a blog nonetheless.

writer, public speaker and pundit on many aspects of futurism and foresight.

Ah. A self-promoter, then.

Who gets to comment? (3, Insightful)

neatfoote (951656) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858473)

Cascio has worked on a number of television and film projects, and has designed two science fiction game settings, exploring issues of posthumanity, intellectual property, sapient AI, nanotechnology, and bioengineering. Jamais has degrees in Anthropology, History and Political Science.
 
    This snippet from the blogger's bio encapsulates, basically, why calls (like this one) for a turn away from "content" to "a more critical approach" make me nervous. It's true that social values influence technology, and that the nexus of the two is an important area of study-- but why is it that offers to critically examine that nexus always seem to come from outsiders who aren't themselves involved or well-versed in the technology?
 
Everybody has an opinion, naturally, but a learned commentary on bioengineering, coming from a poli-sci type who may or may not have taken even the most introductory biology courses, would carry about as much weight for me as a lecture on Aristotle from my cocker spaniel. If "critical futurism" is poised to become a valid scholarly/intellectual discipline, I'd much rather see it populated by actual scientists and engineers-- people who're themselves helping to create the future, and who should therefore be in a good position to comment on how it's going-- than by film-school types who've read Foucault but can't do math.

Futurism is and always has been a scam (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#15860784)

This guy is no better than Nostradamus. He has no real insight, no technical background, no basis in the scientific method or objective reality. He is a paid fantasizer and daydreamer without the skill to even create an enjoyable storyline. I wonder how much this nobody paid slashdot to advertise his scam?

Re:Who gets to comment? (1)

cynical (3027) | more than 7 years ago | (#15862970)

Jamais Cascio here.

For what it's worth, my focus in my study of anthropology was human evolution, and I spent about six years post-grad school working in IT. If you check the archives of my articles at Worldchanging.com, you'll see that I have a reasonable grasp of a variety of sciences. Regardless, the larger issue of being skeptical of "experts" (self-described or otherwise) is a good one. I'd gently suggest, however, that it's not just scientists and engineers who are "helping to create the future," but also folks in a variety of non-technical fields. That's actually the point of the article -- there's more to futurism (professional or otherwise) than the latest technology.

I was quite startled to see my name in a Slashdot headline this morning. I knew the Futurismic editor was going to submit it, but didn't seriously expect that the /. editors would pick up the piece. It's not exactly on-topic for this forum, and the venom that erupted in the first few hours of comments (most of which appears to have been modded down) likely reflects that off-topic nature as much as anything else. Fortunately, I've been reading /. for a very long time, so I know how seriously to take the nasty comments.

Anyway, thanks for the (good) comments, and for not crashing my server.

-Jamais

Worst. Writing. Ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15858609)

We embed cultural values in our devices through our choices about how we make them and what we want them to do. No technology is developed without tradeoffs, and the decisions we make about which aspects to retain and which to discard reflect the values and norms we carry with us, People who do not share those norms can find the resulting technology confusing, upsetting or meaningless.

Not only bad writing, but just plain wrong. What tradeoffs were made when developing cardiac stints or cataract lens implants? What tradeoffs were made when inventing the transistor? The cell phone? There are no tradeoffs that are evident to me.

As to the bad writing, I once had to read a paper that had the word "enumerate" three times in th efirst paragraph. Obfuscatory college-level writing like this isn't communication (yes I'm doing this on purpose to make my point), it's there to impress your audience. "Gee, he sure uses lots of big words, he must be smart. I better believe him."

But futurism is just plain dumb. You can NOT predict the future. Where is my flying car? When the lens replacement implant was developed in 1949, it would have been pretty easy to predict that some day we would have ones that could focus, but you'd never have been able to predict when.

Even science fiction authors who are/were actual scientists (e.g., Asimov) got it consistantly wrong. Nobody saw the internet coming; Asimov came closest with his city-sized computer everyone had a terminal to. Rodenberry's writers forsaw self-opening doors; cell phones; talking, flat screen computers, but they thought it would be 200 years before that stuff came to pass.

I've been rereading I, Robot. When I was a teenager in the '60s it was one of my favorite books, now that we have robots it's almost painful to read.

Futurism is great - as fiction. But it's only fiction; at least, until someone invents a working crystal ball.

Speaking of fiction: "If you doubt the relevance of social values when thinking about the future, ask yourself: how would an intelligent machine built by computer scientists in China differ from one built by computer scientists in the United States?"

There will never be an intelligent machine until you redefine intelligence. Folks who think computers can or will be able to "think" either don't understand how computers work, or don't understand that thought and intelligence are merely complex chemical reactions.

How many more beads do I have to put on my abacus before it becomes self-aware?

This guy is a dumbass disguising his lack of intelligence with a thesaurus.

Jamais Explores Own Rectum (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#15858871)

Is it just me who is sick and tired of seeing nobodies like this fool elevated to some prophet-like status purely because they happen to have a way with words?

Let's elevate those people who actually achieve something making changes in our society like Linus Torvalds, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie or Tim Berners Lee - hell, we could even put Mr Gates on one of the lower pedestals!

In my day, someone who said something without actually doing anything was known as a hypocrite - and "Personne" Cascio ("jamais" is French for "never" whereas "personne" is French for "nobody" which is more appropriate) is a hypocrite with his oversized head lodged firmly up his rectum.

Re:Jamais Explores Own Rectum (0)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#15859153)

Linus Torvalds deserves greater recognition for his achievements than Bill Gates? Linux was the figurehead for a large group of (mostly) volunteers that created a low quality version of something we already had. Not the stuff legends are made of.

Linking Torvalds with Edison is disgusting as Linus only invented things in his own mind. Not saying he hasn't achieved---just nothing new. Bill Gates achieved at an unprecedented level even if you don't like it or don't respect his approaches. What did Linus give us that we wouldn't have had otherwise? Bill Gates changed the landscape of computing.

You might also benefit from looking up the definition of hypocrite. Knowing and Doing, while frequently related, are not the same and being a hypocrite has nothing to do with that.

re:jamais..Some people have no shame.. (1)

Halvy (748070) | more than 7 years ago | (#15860040)


Bill Gates achieved at an unprecedented level even if you don't like it or don't respect his approaches. What did Linus give us that we wouldn't have had otherwise?


You are telling others to do research, when you don't even know or recognize what Linus did?

You sound like 'Bill Gates', with your arrogance & ignorance!!

If it wasn't for Linus, we either would not have Unix on x86, or we'd be waiting for someone to come up with the OS so the masses could use it.

As far as Gates acheivements.. just because someone is the best at being a lier, fraud, thief and foool, doesn't make them great or good.

His money is from other peoples misery.

The only reason it is taking Unix and it's varients sooo long to catch on, is because it was orignally designed for the worlds fon network and universities, and therefore was for scientist and nerds.

Linux and other Unices are for those who 'want it', and we are really not thaht interested whether lazy people see the benefits in learning it.

-- Safely entrenched at the bottom of 'Terrible Karma' I have just used up the second of my 'two' posts that I am 'aloud' on /. each day, because of my Karma rating. This inspite of /. management telling us that we should not be concerned about it. Soooo now I am off to make even BIGGER fools of /. management, by using proxies, other 'accounts' and other sorded ways to post :]

Re:jamais..Some people have no shame.. (0, Flamebait)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#15860503)

"You are telling others to do research, when you don't even know or recognize what Linus did?

You sound like 'Bill Gates', with your arrogance & ignorance!!"

Where did I tell anyone to do anything? Yes, I know what Linus does and has done (for the most part).

Bill Gates, never known as an especially good programmer, was/is one of the world's great entrepreneurs, and through his hands-on style most likely pooped out more contributions to code than you'll ever imagine. While I'm no fan of MS I'm not stupid. Bill G wrote the original Basic interpreter than was included in DOS from the beginning. That in itself is as original as Linus's poor Unix kernel clone.

"If it wasn't for Linus, we either would not have Unix on x86, or we'd be waiting for someone to come up with the OS so the masses could use it."

You're kidding, right? Unix on x86 far predates Linux. I was personally a release manager and key developer for one such distribution in the late 80's (SVR3.2 and SVR4). Efforts such as XFree86 had their origins before Linux. Today we have many Unix-like systems on x96 besides Linux. Ever heard of SCO?

"As far as Gates acheivements.. just because someone is the best at being a lier, fraud, thief and foool, doesn't make them great or good.

His money is from other peoples misery."

This doesn't justify a response. You know nothing of the history of the PC (or much of your three R's).

"The only reason it is taking Unix and it's varients sooo long to catch on, is because it was orignally designed for the worlds fon network and universities, and therefore was for scientist and nerds.

Linux and other Unices are for those who 'want it', and we are really not thaht interested whether lazy people see the benefits in learning it."

I wager I was using Unix before you were born, yet you refer to yourself as part of the "we" elite of computer OS users. Get over it.

"-- Safely entrenched at the bottom of 'Terrible Karma' I have just used up the second of my 'two' posts that I am 'aloud' on /. each day, because of my Karma rating. This inspite of /. management telling us that we should not be concerned about it. Soooo now I am off to make even BIGGER fools of /. management, by using proxies, other 'accounts' and other sorded ways to post :]"

Judging by your marginal knowledge and questionable literacy, I'd say two posts for you is generous.

Re:Jamais Explores Own Rectum (1)

thereisnospork (677266) | more than 7 years ago | (#15859529)

you really ought to look in a dictionary before you start using long words you don't quite understand to insult people. That way, you stand a chance of making your target look like an ass, instead of just yourself. After you've looked up Hypocrite, may I recommend you also check out the following Shut Up You Vapid and also Tool

Re:Jamais Explores Own Rectum (1)

Halvy (748070) | more than 7 years ago | (#15859921)


Let's elevate those people who actually achieve something making changes in our society like Linus Torvalds, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie or Tim Berners Lee -


They have already been elevated, by the shear means of their dedication in completing their works.

However I think the real credit needs to goto all of the folks who have good ideas like these and better, but never get the recognition or funding to help with their projects.

I have personal experience of doing EVERYTHING right when it came to seeing a good idea through that I had, INCLUDING getting it off the ground to where I was getting customers etc., but STILL could not get anyone to help me with money or advice to take it to the next level.

Sooo, hats off to everyone out there like me, who see improvements and new ideas, in EVERYTHING we look at all day.. to 'hang-in-there', and see the project through, regardless of the 'system's' attempt to stymie us..

Only with constant perseverance, working alone or in small groups.. will we come to the truth, on just how much the handful of scum, who 'think' they are running things, are hiding, via their patents and copyrights, the technologies that are just waiting to be developed, in order to bring about a world that is more safe, fulfilling, and just.

--- The Jewish Mafia must be stopped, at all cost, no matter what, PERIOD.

Didn't we have enough Political Sci turned pundits (1)

nomad63 (686331) | more than 7 years ago | (#15861648)

Enough is enough. First Leo Laporte takes over the techtv like storm, with his degree in chinese linguistics or some other obscure discipline, along with his wine spectator turned pundit Dvorak. Now the likes of this Jamais Cascio guy, whom I never heard of before today. One look at the two klinked pages, he is nothing but a glorified blogger. Glorified only by likes of /.

Day is 24 hours and I only have few minutes to be spared for functions like eating and sleeping. I can do without reading Jamais and his cohorts. /. is getting more and more to my nerves. No wonder digg is gainig up ground (and don't get me started with Kevin Rose. Puhlease)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...