(Update: u međuvremenu me je kontaktirala Tatjana Lisjak i, kako se čini, njen potpis je ispod teksta završio greškom; ako dobijem dozvolu, objavit ću na kraju teksta njeno pismo)
(Update 2: u međuvremenu sam dobio i dozvolu za objavljivanje pisma, pa ga prilažem na kraju teksta. Drago mi je što nisam ispao u pravu glede Tatjani Lisjak, a što se tiče potpisa koji je još uvijek nepromjenjen na Klik stranicama, recimo da to potvrđuje moje mišljenje o tom časopisu.)
Uh, grdog li naslova! Dapače, naslov je tako grozan i odvratan da jednostavno garantira da ovaj tekst niti jedne ozbiljne novine koje drže do sebe neće citirati. Taman posla, našao se neki anonimac na Internetu vrijeđati našu časnu (sa dugim “a”) profesiju, misleći kako će pljuvanjem ispasti važan.
Ah, da. Zbilja, nakon desetak godina aktivnog bavljenja novinarstvom, preko tri stotine napisanih članaka po računalnim časopisima, dobrog broja kolumni i cijelog malog spektra uloga vezanih uz novinarstvo, ne pljujem li i po samome sebi?
Svakako, pljujem. Iako nisam aktivni novinar, iako nikad nisam bio ni članom HND-a, zagrizao sam koricu i tog kruha, pa kad kažem da je u Hrvatskoj novinarstvo na niskoj razini, zbilja pljucam i po svom minulom radu.
I odmah se moram ograditi – ne vjerujem, naime, da je baš svo novinarstvo u Hrvatskoj palo na niske grane, barem kad se pojedinaca tiče. Globalno, međutim, slika je upravo otužna.
Klik je dobar primjer modernog, neoliberalnog novinarstva. Časopis koji otvoreno dovodi u sumnju inteligenciju svojih čitatelja, ponajviše kroz odgovore na pisma istih upućena časopisu, ovih dana objavio je tekstić o šest najodvratnijih jela koja možete pojesti. Članak sa slikama, opisima jela i zašto su odvratna, te prikladnim potencijalnim reklamama za ista jela potpisuje novinarka Tatjana Lisjak.
Međutim, istu tu priču, sa istim tim slikama, i sa istim rečenim reklamama objavljuje i Cracked.com!
A Tatjana Lisjak tamo nije potpisana, već neki nepoznati Tim Cameron.
O čemu se tu radi? Naravno, odmah ćete prepoznati klasičnu novinarsku krađu, i to drsko neskrivenu. Istina je, novinari ponekad namjerno, ponekad nenamjerno napišu tekst ili dio teksta koji jako sliči nečijem tuđem tekstu. O nekim se stvarima možda i ne može drugačije pisati, a ponekad novinar zbilja “mazne” kolegi tekst, napiše ga svojim riječima i potpiše sebe, ne bi li si prisvojio zasluge.
Dapače, ponekad cijele redakcije sudjeluju u sličnim stvarima. Kad se to radi pod redakcijskom palicom, često se potpisuje nepostojeća osoba, što je u dnevnim novinama vrlo jednostavno i neprimjetno jer je (barem bio) običaj novinare potpisivati inicijalima. N.N. - ukrali smo, pa Nikom Ništa. Je li Tatjana Lisjak postojeća osoba ili je riječ samo o redakcijskom fantomu? Zapravo, nije ni bitno – sama činjenica da si je Klik dozvolio krajnje drsko doslovno prepisivanje tuđeg uratka samo potvrđuje pasus kojim sam započeo priču o njima. No, dobro – Klik nikad nije niti pretendirao biti stručni, politički, ili na kraju krajeva ozbiljan magazin. Riječ je o jeftinoj zabavi za mase, a masi, brate – daj kruha i igara.
Dok je Klikov primjer vrlo nedvosmislen, otvoren i smiješan (a ipak pokazuje koliko nisko se novinar može spustiti), drugi primjer kojeg vam nudim je ozbiljan, duboko subverzivan i “da se smrzneš” znakovit. Jer, riječ je o “ozbiljnim novinarima” i “ozbiljnim novinama”. U navodnicima, jer je riječ o novinarima i novinama koji bi trebali biti meritum pravog, objektivnog i istinitog novinarstva. Pričam o Tanji Pavičić, bivšoj novinarki Lidera – ozbiljnih biznis novina. Pa se tako ispostavilo da novine koje se žele prikazati ozbiljnim izvorom informacija kojemu možete vjerovati – od svojih djelatnika traže da se pretplate na iste te novine (!!), ali možda najtipičnije u njenom pismu jest činjenica, a koja se više ili manje proteže kroz sva uredništva i sve komercijalne novine – da oglašivači utječu na sadržaj novina.
Oh, novosti! Zbilja, otkrivam toplu vodu, zar ne?
Nažalost, tužna je činjenica da smo em premala, em previše nepismena državica da bismo mogli uzgojiti kulturu novina koje žive zato što ih čitatelji vole i žele čitati (sa, možda, Feralom kao jedinim primjerkom te vrste u izumiranju), a ne zato što između dvije strane reklama ubacuju stranicu teksta.
Tekst, taj osnovni, dominantni i uz dokumentarnu fotografiju jedini pristali sadržaj novina, u sudaru sa moćnim kapitalizmom sve više ustupa mjesto reklami, dosadnoj, nametljivoj, zaglupljujućoj hraniteljici velike većine buntova papira koje možete kupiti na kioscima. Pa kad bi i bilo samo to, preživjeli bismo. Nažalost, i tekst sam (a kroz tekst i novinar sam) doživljava profanaciju, pa je sve više žutila, sve više tračeva i loših novinarskih tekstova koje pišu sve lošiji novinari, tvrdom životnom realnošću naučeni da jebeš ideale i Pulitzere dok pisanje tračeva o poznatima donosi lak i brz novac.
Zato je sve teže naći dobre novinare – one koji imaju stila, imaju smisla, ne srame se pokazati da znaju svoj posao, pa čak i ponekad ići uz dlaku svom uredniku, samo zato što vjeruju u objektivno i neovisno novinarstvo. Oni su zbilja utopljeni u gomili mlađarije sa tek završenim studijem novinarstva ili petokolonaša sa studija marketinga, spremnih kušati slasti druženja sa poznatima, uvijek spremnih honorirati to druženje kakvim sladunjavim tekstićem za razočarane kućanice i teenagerice koje znaju da “i one mogu biti nova Lana”, samo da se malo potrude i imaju “ono nešto”. Žutilo, plitkost, tračevi i ponajvažnije: “da se kome ne bi zameril”. To nezamjeranje širom otvara vrata agresivnim PR tvrtkama, koje će za novac svojih klijenata učiniti sve, pa ako treba i izmasirati novinara da o nečemu ne piše onako kako on želi, već kako to želi njihov klijent.
Gospodo (a prije svega, dame) – zaboravite objektivnost! Objektivnost danas u novinama možete tražiti svijećom, i to – molim – podebljom, jer će vam se tanka prebrzo utrnuti, a vi nećete naći objetktivan tekst objektivnog novinara.
No, zato je tu sva gomila PR materijala, pa plaćeni oglasi, pa plaćeni oglasi koji ne izgledaju kao plaćeni oglasi, već kao autorski tekst (a što je i protuzakonito, ali hej! kog briga?!?! - i, je li itko ikad zbog toga kažnjen?), pa reklame, pa autorski tekstovi napisani tako da vas blago gurnu u naručje kakve tvrtke, ili tekstovi napisani tako da oblate konkurenciju, poneki suptilni, a poneki baš onako balkanski neotesani... ima toga.
Zato, imajte na umu: čitate li politički magazin, znajte da je politika u njega umješana. Čitate li gospodarske novine, nemojte biti u zabludi da velike tvrtke tamo nemaju svoje sheme. Čitate li dnevne novine, jeste li kad provjerili broj tekstova u kojima se kritizira neki od njihovih većih oglašivača? Čitate li informatičke novine, nemojte misliti da uredništva istih zauzimaju rovovske položaje svaki put kad neki oglašivač navrati na čašicu razgovora o opisima njihovih proizvoda.
Pravo pitanje ovog teksta je: kako prepoznati onaj istinski autorski tekst, pisan bez autocenzure, bez pritiska urednika, bez rezanja najzanimljivijih dijelova? Tekst, kojeg je napisao novinar zato što misli da je to baš tako, pa makar i sjekire sa neba padale? Kako pronaći časnog novinara koji piše iz etičkih, a ne materijalnih pobuda?
Nažalost, čarobni štapić nemam. A i da ga imam, zadržao bih ga za sebe – biti u mogućnosti uvijek razlučiti objektivan tekst od patvorine, znati što je zaista istina, a što laž ili manipulacija – nije li to krasna utopija? I dodatni bonus – uštedio bih za onu debelu svijeću.
A vi, vama mogu dati samo jednostavan savjet: čitajte sa razumjevanjem i ne vjerujte slijepo pročitanome - pokušajte nazrijeti tko vas to gleda sa druge strane otisnutog papira.
PISMO TATJANE LISJAK SLIJEDI:
Poštovani,
Upravo sam surfajući u ove sitne sate 'slučajno' zalutala na Vaš blog i članak Novinarstvo - profesija bez časti. Iako se načelno slažem sa svime što je u njemu rečeno, postoji jedan detalj radi kojeg moram reagirati i stati u svoju obranu. Naime, Tatjana Lisjak nije redakcijski fantom već stvarna osoba, odnosno ja!
Kao što ste dobro primijetili, članak objavljen u rubrici Gastro nije autorsko djelo već preuzeti članak kojeg je napisao gosp. Tim Cameron. Cilj mi nije bio ni na koji način ukrasti nečiju ideju, misli ili nedajbože cijeli tekst, već prema dogovoru sa urednicom prevesti i adaptirati temu sa postojećim fotografijama za rubriku Gastro unutar Klika. Pretpostavljam da ste dobro upoznati kako stvari u našim novinama i na portalima zabavnog sadržaja funkcioniraju.
Većina tekstova koje pišem je autorski rad iza kojeg stojim, koliko god on dobar ili loš bio, dok je manji postotak tekstova i galerija preuzet i preveden iz drugih izvora. Naravno, preuzete tekstove mi ne pada na pamet potpisivati vlastitim imenom i prezimenom, nisam lopov i kradljivac tuđeg rada i muke. Tekstove koje pišem šaljem u redakciju nakon čega ih objavljuju oni koji su za to zaduženi. Zbog mnogih obaveza nemam naviku ulaziti u svaki objavljeni tekst pojedinačno pa tako ni provjeravati da li je svaki potpisan mojim imenom ili ne. Stoga sam tek maloprije shvatila kako je dotični članak objavljen kao moje autorsko djelo. On to nije i zato ću ujutro nazvati urednicu i zamoliti je da ispravi pogrešku ako je to ikako moguće, a nadam se da je, te istakne kako je članak preuzet sa Cracked.com.
Novinarski posao često nije lak i lagodan, ali ja ga volim i nastojim pošteno odraditi bilo da se radi o 'ozbiljnijim' ili manje ozbiljnim, laganijim temama za 'masovnu konzumaciju'. Moj rad u okvirima Klika većinom se svodi na pisanje autorskih tekstova za koje potrebne informacije prikupljam putem mnogih izvora na internetu ( npr. http://klik.vecernji.hr/art/44750/?sec=3676 ) dok jedan manji dio čine i oni koje pišem kao komentare, osvrte ili izvješća sa raznih društvenih događaja ( http://klik.vecernji.hr/art/44779/?sec=3636).
Propusti, pa čak i oni 'najsitniji', ponekad se skupo plaćaju, a u ovom su slučaju rezultirali uvredama na moj račun što mi nije lako prihvatiti. Najžalosnije je, osim što sam proglašena kradljivicom, to što sam poslužila kao primjer beskrupulozne i nemoralne osobe, što, vjerujte mi, nisam i ne nastojim nikako postati. Pogotovo zbog činjenice što sam se u dosadašnjoj praksi nekoliko puta zatekla u poziciji u kojoj se nizom nesretnih okolnosti trenutno nalazi gosp. Cameron.
Kaže se kako iz svakog zla proizlazi neko dobro i da bitne životne lekcije učimo na najbolniji način. Vi ste me (a djelomično i moja vlastita nepažnja) naučili da postanem pažljivija te se ubuduće oslanjam samo na vlastite postupke. Zato od danas namjeravam svaki tekst nakon objave dodatno provjeriti, a pogotovo podatak je li potpisan mojim imenom ili imenom nekoga drugoga koji to zaslužuje. To je jedini način da eventualne propuste ili pogreške poput navedene na vrijeme uočim te spriječim nepravdu koja je, na moju nesreću, Vama poslužila kao idealan primjer 'padanja na niske' grane.
Ljudi koji su mi bliži znaju da sam religiozna osoba. Nekima je potpuno svejedno, no ne mali broj njih upitao me je nešto u stilu: "Kako netko tako inteligentan može vjerovati u te gluposti?"
Odgovor na to pitanje nije lako dati. Svakako, religioznost jest nešto duboko intimnno i potpuno individualno. Religioznost je osjećaj kojeg imaš sa samim sobom, i služi kao prizma za promatranje svijeta, kao uređaj kojim možemo mjeriti realnost. No, na jedan potpuno drugačiji način od znanosti. Nažalost, percepcija religije u modernim vremenima nije posebno napredovala, pa ju i vjernici i ateisti vide kao kongregaciju ljudi kojima netko objašnjava što i kako trebaju vjerovati. To je tako pogrešno.
Religija je individualna i drugačija ne može biti. Religija je osobni odnos sa nekim višim bićem, ma kakvo ono bilo. No, oni najpovršniji i najvidljiviji aspekti neke religije često se smatraju najboljima ili najdubljima. Pa tako u svijesti mnogih mojih sunarodnjaka nije moguće biti dobar Katolik ako ne ideš u crkvu svake nedjelje ili ako ne slušaš što ti svećenik poručuje - za koju stranku trebaš glasovati.
Između dvije nedjelje je zrakoprazni prostor u kojem je, čini se, dozvoljeno krasti, varati, lagati i na razne načine griješiti, a sve će to oprati sveta vodica na slijedećoj misi i - pripremiti vjernika na novi tjedan pun aktivnosti nepridruživih onom što ga uči vjera.
Teško je biti vjernik dok ljudi oko tebe očekuju upravo to - da je dovoljno jednom tjedno otići na misu i biti savršeni kandidat za ulazak u raj. Ne, gospodo, religioznost je uporni, strpljivi i nimalo lak rad na - sebi.
Ateisti, gledajući te skupove, naizgled ispravno, ali u biti pogrešno zaključuju kako je religioznost stanje u kojem pojedinac otklanja osobne slobode i moć rasuđivanja, zamjenjujući ih uputama i sugestijama sa oltara. Istinska religioznost je upravo suprotnost tome. Ona od svakog od nas traži da se prihvatimo osobne odgovornosti za sve što radimo tijekom života, i da prosuđujemo i odlučujemo - vlastitom glavom.
A kako je sa onima što bi htjeli biti istovremeno i religiozni i baviti se znanošću? Je li to uopće moguće? Ne isključuje li jedno drugo?
Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.
Je li zbilja problem biti i jedno i drugo? Zapravo, nije - jednom kad obje stvari postavite na njima pripadajuća mjesta.
I have just bought a new microscope, Bresser Advance ICD, as a substitute to my Bresser Researcher ICD - which I managed to sell pretty quickly! So, let's compare my old with my new microscope.
Why would you want to have a microscope?
Microscopes are fun. Especially those models with overlight that give you freedom to microscope just anything you can place in focus. Preparing slides is not quite fun, and buying prepared ones is just as much fun as you can have with the limited supply of things to look on. However, if you happen to have a microscope such as above mentioned duo, you're up for a lot of fun. One day you get the microscope, the other day you end up placing just about everything under the lenses. Things are simply different at the microscopic scale. What looked as flat, shiny surface might turn out to be quite rough and uneven. But organic matter is the most interesting thing. Want to look at your skin? You'd better not, if you're worried about wrinkles. And tiny hairs. And some other stuff you pick up around but never notice.
How about plants? They are magnificent under the microscope. Insects? A whole new world of SF creatures. Even the sample of the soil in your garden can show you so much things (and life) going on.
And of course, having your own microscope adds extra geek points, or if you have kids, they could tell their peers that their father/mother is, in fact, a mad scientist working for some superhero, so geek points would be transferred to them. ;-)
Bresser Researcher ICD
That's my first microscope. I bought it for two reasons: it is a binocular, meaning you look at things with both eyes, and it was available in Croatia. Which is a country where people don't just buy microscopes, so you really must be a mad scientist or some criminal looking for new and sinister methods for producing new type of synthetic drug to sell to school kids. Ok, not really. But people did ask me why did I spend money (about 350€) for a microscope, when I could get me some fried tubers and spend weeks eating French fries in front of television set, running award-winning show named “Big Brother”. Well, enough about them.
Researcher is, as I already mentioned, a binocular microscope. It has both overlight (used to examine 3D objects) and underlight (for slides). You can use either, or both lights at the same time, and there's dimmer as well. The microscope isn't a great performer, but it looks cute and sturdy. It's got two sets of standard eyepieces (10x and 20x), with the revolver rather unusual – instead of the usual set of four objectives, there's a ring with two positions: 2x and 4x – so, there are two objectives, but hidden from the user. Magnification is calculated by multiplying eyepiece number with the number on ring, effectively giving the magnification of 20x, 40x and 80x. There's diopter adjustment ring, and the upper body can be turned around 360 degrees.
This microscope is just great for looking at plants, because plant cells are quite larger and better “outlined” than animal cells. With this microscope, you can easily see into the plant cell. Magnification of 80x isn't sufficient for looking at animal cells, so all you can see is that the tissue on the slide does consist of cells (looking as tiny, tiny strings or circles), but not more than that. Looking at 3D object is marvelous, with the only disadvantage of having to reposition and refocus the object after changing the objective. Stereo images look best with small magnifications this microscope provides, the objects really have depth. The price of the scope is great (about 250€ in EU) and the price/performance ratio is superb. If you're thinking about looking at tiny things, you can give this one a shot.
Bresser Advance ICD
This one I had to order and wait for six weeks to get my hands on. It wasn't that difficult, because I already had Researcher.
Advance is a different microscope. It has double the price of Researcher, which might turn people away from it. However, it really does offer more. First of all, its magnification power is doubled – it can go from 10x to 160x – and since there's no revolver but zoom lens, you can easily manipulate your objects and gradually zoom in over interesting places. The feeling is great – you don't have to avert your eyes from the object, don't have to interrupt your observation, and have the full scale from 10x to 160x. Just as Researcher does, Advance has two set of eyepieces, 10x and 20x, with a zoom objective 1x – 4x. What, it's still up to 80x and doesn't get any more? Yes, you're right, but there's Barlow 2x lens that you can place on the objective, doubling magnification.
Despite more complex optic with more optical elements, Advance does offer better picture than Researcher. While Researcher picture is nice and sharp, Advance gives even sharper picture. The optic elemetns are of quality, so if you have an inclination to take photos, you can make really good ones with this microscope. It's trinocular – meaning you have three viewports, two for stereo viewing, and third one to attach a CCD element, or – if you happen to have an adapter (T2 ring) – a real camera.
Being double the price and with superb optics doesn't mean this microscope doesn't have issues.
First issue is that the light sources are not as good as on Researcher! The overlight is mounted in such a way that user can adjust the angle to set desired lighting conditions. This is necessary, since Advance has greater range of places you can put on the microscope. In fact, you can take the microscope off the base and hold it in your hands(!) – if you can keep it from shaking, you can use it to look at your wall or any other place. The bad design is that the overlight bumps into plastic ring of Barlow lens if you pull it all the way up. And you would to that, if you wish to look at small things on the base of the microscope, or if you wish to use both lights at the same time – the overlight can't give best lighting since the spotlight is slightly off-center. There's a small ring that you will have to completely remove if you wish to use the microscope that way, as well.
While the overlight has positioning problem, underlight is just bad. I mean, it doesn't give uniform lighting. Both overlight and underlight have blue filters (a feature missing on Researcher), yet the uniformity of light is worse than Researcher. This can be improved somewhat by placing a piece of semitransparent paper under the glass cover of the underlight, but still achieves no perfect illumination.
What can be seen with this microscope? A lot! Doubling the magnification gives you ability to look at animal cells, and even to recognize some of the cell organs. Given the quality of the picture and magnification, I'd say that Advance might even be used in a lab – so it's not (just) a toy. Going from 80x to 160x is like the difference you get from looking trough the looking glass and Bresser Researcher.
But, you'll have to see for yourselves. The zoom feature is enormously helpful – you can easily change the magnification so you can easily navigate over the object you're looking at, and just as easy zoom in on to interesting spots. Both microscopes lack a fine-tuning knob, but at magnifications such as these, I find their construction and mechanics good enough and precise enough to easily get focus.
What would you buy?
If you just want to play around a little bit, get Researcher. It's cheap and if you don't find yourself a microbiologist, you can quite easily sell it. If the three dimensional image is important to you, stick with this microscope. It's got low magnification, but that just means you can have whole object in focus.
If you know you have to have a microscope, and it has to be good, you should take Advance. Crisp, clear picture, great magnification, zoom lens – just great. The only thing you might find not satisfactory is the lighting, which is much better on Researcher. If you're feeling adventurous, you can replace bulbs with something else, maybe even LE diodes array that can change the light color. Or, just leave as it is. It isn't great, but it's getting the job done.
There's another stunt written by John Dvorak; this time, it's OLPC.
I'm not going to give you the link, because Dvorak admitted that baiting a web page is one of his revenue streams, but if you wish, google for this sentence:
"Does anyone but me see the OLPC XO-1 as an insulting "let them eat cake" sort of message to the world's poor?"
The problem here, Dvorak is reasoning, is the fact that those poor people in developing countries are all starving, so the people who get into "Give One, Get One" scheme are essentially not helping children, because they could send them staple food worth 200$.
What would they use the laptop for? Spam, pornography and other bestialities of the first world, of course:
" But, wait. Think of how cool it would be! Think of how many families will get to experience the friendly spam-ridden Information Super Ad-way laced with Nigerian scams, hoaxes, porn, blogs, wikis, spam, urban folklore, misinformation, sites selling junk from China, bomb-making instructions, jihad initiatives, communist propaganda, Nazi propaganda, exhortations, movie clips of cats playing the piano, advertising, advertising, and more advertising. Do you now feel better about the world's problems, knowing that some poor tribesman's child has a laptop? What African kid doesn't want access to Slashdot?"
Having a laptop that use a programming language that is so easy to learn, any interested seven-years old could use it? No, of course, this is not the idea! Being able to mesh spontaneously? Just so that kids could share some pirated music and porn, of course!
Having a button that can interrupt the application and give you the source code of that same application, so you can see how it's made, and work on that (and yourself)? Oh, come on - nobody would want that!
John Dvorak missed the idea, but I think he never did bother to think about it. For him, it's just another laptop, a particularly bad one - green in colour, with rubber keyboard, measly performances, can't run Vista.
This isn't about Dvorak throwing bile over the technology or philosophy he doesn't understand. Deep down in the heart of that article, there's something about the man.
John C Dvorak believes that giving poor people food is better than giving them educational tool. Ok, if there's a starving population, surely nothing is more important than providing food and water to those people. However, OLPC was never designed to go exclusively to starving children. There are many more children in developing countries that have enough food, but lack other things, like better educational tools. This is where OLPC would shine - in the hand of a child that isn't starving of hunger, but lack of educational tools to help him bridge the technological gap between him and more developed world.
Dvorak didn't notice. What he did take care of, however, is to portray OLPC people and supporters as Marie Antoinette-sque bunch of quasi communistic propagandists fighting for the cause of communist OS, who would rather let starving kids die if they can't be converted using green (from the inside: red) computers loaded with their propaganda.
Another interesting point is the picture of a people in poor countries: they're all starving. So, we have to give them food. Everyone in Africa is starving. They are poor and have no food, no money, nothing. We shouldn't educate them, you know... they might end up taking care of themselves. We should just feed them and let them reproduce, as they seem incapable of anything more intellectually challenging than that. I mean, come on - if they weren't that stupid, they would be rich just like us, the white guys!
So, no laptop for a poor kid with a huge belly. He'll get the food, and if he survive to the adult age, we could use him to dig trenches, clean the streets, lift heavy objects and all that stuff we're sure they could be good at. Heavens forbid that this here kiddo with a ballooned belly might one day develop revolutionary things in science or something like that!! No, that is just impossible. If one of them really want to play with the technology, we could give him a gun and send him somewhere to kill other poor people in the name of whatever the noble cause of the day is. We just have to feed him until he can legally fight.
So, why bother giving them away laptops - they're going to sell them for food anyway, or break them (they aren't used to fragile things there, you know), or burn them, maybe feed their starving cattle with it. Or, they could fix leaking roof with it... I mean, just look at that child on the Give One, Get One web page - carrying a laptop on the head! Instead of typing, they are going to put some tubers on them, or maybe a jar with water, maybe even use it to carry home all that fine food staple that real benefactors have sent them! That very web page is telling us that they just can't get a grip with the technology! We, the greater white race, should rule over... oh, wait...
Everybody knows about the story of giving a fish to a man, and teaching him how to fish. Not going to repeat on this one.
This article is rather rude to John Dvorak. It is intended to be, and Dvorak most probably isn't white supremacist. He isn't polite, either.
I support OLPC, and do think that this is great idea that could in the long term really help a lot of people. If a IT celebrity of unknown achievements can imply guilt on me for backing up such an idea, I think I could point out that the moral of that story - stink to the hell.
I've stumbled across an article in Discover magazine, a column named “Jaron's world”, written of course by the one Jaron Lanier, a nice read in otherwise somehow IT illiterate (ok, by my standards) popular science magazines (I have a word about the same problem in New Scientist, too).
In this column, Jaron wrote about Sci Foo, an invitation-only conference held in Google HQ. There he got some flak from Martha Stewart, but the more important thing is his, sort of, disillusionment in Open Source movement. He's the guy who talked to young RMS way back at the time Richard dreamed about LISP machine; he's the guy who've seen LISP machine in the lime light, and just some seconds later, falling into obscurity. And, he's the guy who knew about RMS ideals before Linux was born.
So to say, he's the guy with knowledge, skills and wisdom. However, Jaron seem to be disappointed in how things turned over the years. He's not satisfied with the unraveling of events, and believes that the Open Source (or, to be exact – Free Software, or to be politically correct – FLOSS) movement headed towards a dead-end. Instead of being creative, Jaron says FLOSS people are rather conservative, relying on old code design of prehistoric age.
I'll try to disprove some of his thoughts:
“Open wisdom-of-crowds software movements have become influential, but they haven't promoted the kind of radical creativity I love most in computer science. If anything, they've been hindrances. Some of the youngest, brightest minds have been trapped in a 1970s intellectual framework because they are hypnotized into accepting old software designs as if they were facts of nature. Linux is superbly polished copy of an antique, shinier than the original, perhaps, but still defined by it.”
I surely do agree that Linux, and in fact most of FLOSS software, is nothing radically new and different. I do agree that Linux is just a shiny *nix, with all of it's good and bad sides.
However... Linux is mainstream. The problem with that is that Linus, AFAIK, never thought of making radical new OS for the sake of awe and grandness. Linux has been conceived as a simple plaything based on Minix. Nothing radical here.
There are some other radical designs. LISP machine is today still a radical design, that's true. LoseThos looks like a radical OS design (at least in web site crashing my Firefox). QNX? Radical? Microkernel, sorry, been there, done that.
There's the problem. Linux is built to be something to play with, and as soon as people realized that they have an embryo of something that could be both fun to play with and usable, they began to gather around Linux kernel. LoseThos looks like real fun, but it's got no usability in real-life. The fact that Linux grew up being mainstream is because people do make some use of it, they use it outside of Academia, they do some real work with it. They run services, integrate networks, fill in databases... and do stuff that most people do for living. And this is the only reason Linux is so popular. It's good, it's stable, it's streamlined, but – if you couldn't use it to have a task done, I probably wouldn't be writing this on FLOSS OS using FLOSS text processor.
Calling FLOSS people hindrances isn't nice. Not all of them are researchers in quest for perfect OS. In fact, many of them use and enhance FLOSS applications to solve real world problems.
Imagine a kid. Trying to build a car. He's got enough skills and money to get parts for an internal combustion engine, and he's got the books about building such engines, and friends who already built their own engines and are ready to help him achieve his little goal – an internal combustion engine of his own.
Then there came some guy, looked upon the kid surrounded by various parts, and said: “Kid, this is so mainstream. What use of that old internal combustion engine technology? It's even bad for the environment. I think you should dump that and concentrate on building anti gravity engine that's being pioneered by Petar Bosnić Petrus. He's almost there. Imagine that – you could have a flying car!”
Having a VTOLcar would be just great. I'd like to have one!! You would just roll few meters away from buildings, turn on blades/antigravity/radical_new_engine_design and fly to the coast! There, you'd park on a sand beach and have a great time.
However, there are no easily obtainable VTOL cars at the moment. There are few experiments, but they are far away from being consumer friendly. So, no VTOL cars. And most of the people still think about internal combustion engines, or some hybrid drive.
It's the same with radical new OS design. Just as anything radical, there would be no use for it for quite some time. This doesn't make it bad, just radical and new, and exciting – and useless in real life.
So yes, Linux is a polished version of internal combustion engine, but it's DIY, it's not expensive, it runs and is reliable. And, to tell the truth, not everyone of such a FLOSS crowd would have interest in designing a radical new OS. Should they be forced? I think not. If they're in FLOSS because they feel at home there, let them be. Chance is, if you push them towards what you think is the best thing they could have done with their lives, everybody would lose.
“Why are so many of the more sophisticated examples of code in the online world – like the page-rank algorithms in the top search engines or like Adobe's Flash – the results of proprietary development?Why did the iPhone come out of what many regard as the most closed, tyrannically managed software-development shop on Earth?”
First thing first – I strongly resonate with the last sentence. Apple is indeed a company I wouldn't like to have a monopoly. I'd rather keep Microsoft there any given day. I'd write about this later. The simple answer for the question above is – twisted IP law. Just to remember, intellectual property is a term used to protect great (or not so great) works from plagiarism, and to ensure monetary reward for the author.
(update: it seems I wasn't quite clear here: what I intended to say is that whole copyright schema was designed to protect author, and that it was good idea back then; today it is still quite Ok, but we're witnessing the perversion of the original idea trough wacky IP claims and software patents.)
At those days, you would make something, and have your IP rights. Today, you can simply dream up something and patent it. There's significant difference between the past and today: in the past, if you'd go to some patent office and apply for a patent such as “Using heavy tool to shape hot metal by inflicting strong downward force on to the metal, followed by short, much weaker hit at the same place using the same tool, whose purpose is to stop the tool to allow worker's muscles to recover and prepare worker for another precise action” hoping that any blacksmith would have to pay you royalties or stop resting the hammer on the material after the hit – everybody would laugh at you.
But today – such nonsense is considered your IP. Because of that, everybody and his brother are hoping to claim some IP rights. This doesn't explain why so many of the more sophisticated examples are being proprietary, at least not in the sense of code greatness. I think there's a lot going on in FLOSS world, but they just keep quiet about their IP rights. There's a lot to patent there, just ask IBM. Not to forget – if you could have a chance to look into some proprietary source code that look like a perfect example – couldn't it be that one would say “gosh, what a crappy software this is”? Yup, possible. And if you have some algorithms that generate output that can't be precisely measured, how could you be sure that the results are – reliable and best possible output?
There are sophysticated designs in FLOSS projects, but not as visible. And certainly not so marketed.
“An honest empiricist must conclude that that while the open approach has been able to create lovely, polished copies, it hasn't been so good at creating notable originals. Even though the open-source movement has a stinging countercultural rhetoric, it has in practice been a conservative force.”
Notable originals of – what? Text processor? Already seen. Graphics suite? Already seen. Music software? Already seen.
There's so much software out there, that it just isn't possible to be so original to stand out of the crowd.
What about SMP? Or clusters? Grids? AI? All of this – has been seen.
Frankly, I can't remember any Linux software that is so radically new (except for, maybe, some game designs) to shift the paradigm in computing. What I do see are products that are somewhat different from the mainstream, such as Blender or GIMP, but still performing the same set of functions. Not even the shiny new OS from software tyranny has any radical new idea. It's just glossy.
Here we come again to the first point – usability. A radical idea that is not usable is not a good idea. It's just radical. I'd like to see some radical new software that would boost my creativity by interfacing with my mind in a radically new and better way, and I'd like to see it on any OS. But, there seem to be none.
People had some hopes with BeOS some time ago, but it didn't turn out well. A close shot would be NeXTStep, that was a decade ahead of it's time, and really a radical change in way software is being developed at that time, but it was expensive and didn't sell well. Judging FLOSS people as conservative force just because they produce software for everyday use – isn't it a little bit stretched? Or, does being countercultural mean that we should make software so unintuitive to be practically useless, just to prove that we do not conform to standards of majority of the people?
Oh, btw, I do think OLPC is a radical thing. Not as a base (it uses dreaded, monolithic, old-fashioned and conservative Linux), but as an idea. It's got so many positive points, but it's the whole idea, not just an OS; and even the GUI, as unusual as it is, is not really radical – if a child can be taught everything about it in a fifteen minutes, that would mean it is based around a common set of symbols and therefore can't be radical.
“A quintessential example of the open ideal showed up in Freeman Dyson's otherwise wonderful piece about the future of synthetic biology in a recent issue of The New York Review of Books.”
Freeman Dyson is a great guy whose above mentioned idea was ridiculed some time ago in a best-selling Croatian computer magazine – because this idea looks radical. The columnist concluded along the line that “... Dyson was a great scientist, but now he looks just like a nut-case.” (the columnist is known for his anti-FLOSS feelings). Jaron probably tried to point out how FLOSS should be. They're both wrong. This idea isn't radical – it's the way science was performed for many, many years. Science is about being open, about collaboration, and about peer-review. FLOSS model is, in fact, close to the scientific ideal of sharing knowledge and thoughts.
“Freeman equates the beginnings of life on Earth with the Eden of Linux. Back when life first took hold, genes flowed around freely; genetic sequences skipped around from organism to organism in much the way they may soon on the Internet.”
Yes, the old man is up to something. But I'd just like to point out an interesting fact – genes are being swapped and tossed around even today. Bacteria has known ability to expunge part of its genome in a lipid sack to be picked up by another bacteria. Archaea can do this too. This is one of the paths for spreading resistance to antibiotics, quite troublesome thing.
“There is only one iPhone, but there are hundreds of Linux releases.”
Ooops – completely missed the point. While the Linux community really IS turbulent (just as any good process is :-), there's nothing wrong with the diversity. In fact, I do like the ability to switch from OpenSUSE to Ubuntu to save myself from mediocre package and update management on otherwise nice distribution. If there's just one distro, where could I go?
And, there's not only one iPhone. I do use Sony-Erickson phone. It's got everything the iPhone has, but it doesn't have two things: great design and unbelievable followers. Those two things are iPhone: great design and people who would buy anything with an Apple logo. As a technology, it's mediocre – really nothing new under the Sun. But it's got a seeeeexy, sleek outlook! Imusthaveitimusthaveitimusthaveit...
I'd exchange one great iPhone for hundred Linux distros any day. I know what's good for me.
“... so the one thing I hope synthetic biology won't import from the open-software world is the cultlike mania that seems to grip so many open-source enthusiasts.”
Um.. sorry. We used to be quite zealous back at the time, it's true. Perhaps that was a frustration from keeping telling people “look, it's good, and it's free”, just to have fingers pointed at us. That time is over, we're recognized as people who did put their code where their mouth is, and FLOSS is a serious player. There will be, as there always are, zealots that would try to enforce their view on other people, but majority of FLOSS users and developers these days – just don't care. We have our tools, we have proven them good, and there's no point for a zealotry. FLOSS is so visible these days, it doesn't need much evangelism. There's no cultlike mania, Jaron. Maybe you're hanging around with RMS too much? Given, RMS really is radical and does drag around something close to “cultlike mania”, but he's just doing his (quite important) part of the whole story. Even Linus himself is not considered a godlike creature, nor is he cherished by crowds like Steve Jobs is.
We're just having our FLOSS software, wrapped in some nice ideals, and it's good. We can do creative work with it, despite of not having radically different tools. And this is all that matters. We're all ready to embrace anything new and radical that the future is going to throw at us. But it's got to be of use, and shouldn't be made just for the sake of it's own existence.
