ravi wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>I mean that the dominant ideology among the geek set (well, large
>>chunks of it anyway, it's probably not more monolithic than any other
>> subculture) is strong right libertarian, especially on the issue of
>>where technology comes from. It's *not* a David Noble-friendly part
>>of the world, at least as I have experienced it. (And, yes, I do tend
>> to assume that most geeks are right libertarians, given the dominant
>> ideology, but it's a loose assumption which I stand ready to modify.
>> Anyway, not sure how this is relevant...)
>
> i am not sure how this is relevant either, but hey, i didnt mention it
> ;-). you must have thought it relevant, otherwise why would you mention
don't know why that got cut off, but here's the rest of my message:
i am not sure how this is relevant either, but hey, i didnt mention it
. you must have thought it relevant, otherwise why would you mention
it? and as a geek, of course i take offense! seriously however, all
the geeks i know are somewhat of a mix of humanitarian or analytical
leftist. of course we might differ on what we consider a "geek". perhaps
this is a west vs east coast thing?
the IETF (or perhaps the IAB or IESG, i forget who authored the
document) for instance suggests that it is neither a dictatorship nor a
democracy, but that it works by technical consensus (if you believe
some) or as a meritocracy (in the words of others). in the words of dave
clark: we reject kings, presidents, and voting -- we believe in running
code! would you call that a libertarian viewpoint?
>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I wouldn't dream of asking an actual computer
>>>>>>>>>> technical question on PEL-L or LBO. :>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why not?
>>
>> Because it's completely off-topic? Isn't that obvious?
>>
its obvious that its off-topic, but its not obvious (at least to me)
that that's why you wrote the above. michael has been quite lenient
towards computer tech questions on this list and people have asked them,
and some have even got answers!
>> I've already explained it, so I won't do so again. I'm not gonna go
>> 'round and 'round about this, Ravi, since it's not really germane to
>> my question. I'm starting to regret including any surrounding
>> context.
you have to realize that i ask these questions because:
1. what you specified as the context was not clear to me. it still is
not (and probably because i am not reading you right).
2. i am surprised by your generalizations about the geek and computer
science community. perhaps what you mean by geek is the high-school geek
set while what i mean is the hacker crowd (for the general audience:
'hacker' does not mean what the media has wrongly used the term to
represent i.e., someone who breaks into computers). i have lived among
the hacker and computer science community for 15 years now (including a
long stint at one of the temples: bell labs) and your statements do not
match my experiences very well. if that is because i have misunderstood
my community, then i would appreciate any clarifications that disabuse me.
while these might be peripheral to your main question, once you put
these opinions out in a public venue, i think discussion on them is
valid. of course, if michael thinks we should go off-list, i will gladly
do so.
--ravi
