"The question cannot just be "Can we?" It has to be followed by "Should we?"

This is the unrecognized question about all technology.
That is why in the Greek myth Prometheus, the bringer of fire to humankind, was chained to a rock by the gods.
That is why Mary Eollenscraft Shelley wrote "Frankenstein" at a time when new technology was changing the conditions of work from cottage industries to factories--and the English weavers group called Luddites was smashing that new machinery.

Posted by: Coralie

January 24, 2011 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Hey, fellow, I just spent five years writing three books and I learned a lot in the process.
Also I'm 80 years old, have lived in 11 states and Mexico, worked at everything from janitor to college instructor, yada yada.
Nothing preventing you from learning more from reading and it doesn't cost anything when you have the free public library, computers, PBS programs, etc. But you'd rather quibble with me and Alpha_Cat.
How do you know I'm not an authority on real life? Do you think you are?

Posted by: Coralie

January 24, 2011 at 6:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

skeptic--

It's not that we know everything. It's that we appear to be more motivated than are most people who post here to know more. The fact that we know we don't know everything motivates us to learn more. You should try it.

I learned about Greek mythology in elementary school. I learned about the background of Frankenstein (subtitled "The Modern Prometheus", by the way-- there's a theme here) in junior high school. It's not like Coralie has come up with irrelevant arcana; she's added to the conversation by incorporating information about the age-old nature of the concerns in Mr. Harton's commentary. "Self-proclaimed authority"? Name-caller. Just about anybody should have been able to come up with the information in her comment; she happened to get here first.

Why do you act as if knowing something is bad? Are you trying to hide the fact that you know anything? Are you a closet knowledgeable person? Are you just mad because Coralie mentioned Prometheus and Frankenstein before you had a chance to?

Why do you sidetrack every thread with personal attacks, instead of addressing the matters at hand? At least we contribute to the discussion, even if we seem to clutter it with things like facts, allusions, connections, sources,...

No wonder you're annoyed: it must be so taxing. It's a shame that you equate disagreement and refutation with belittlement. That will continue to impede your acquisition of knowledge.

Maybe more people who know things would post here (and take the burden off of Coralie and me, if you are to be believed) if these forums didn't contain so much antagonism toward people who know things.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 25, 2011 at 12:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SPA--

Thank you.

I think that the problems in social interaction between technical and non-technical people can be attributed in part to intellectual snobbery, particularly since "nerd chic" has elevated the status of technical people, but much of the rift is due to anti-intellectual snobbery. Until nerds started making lots of money, nobody else cared to be seen with them. That said, hackers do tend to have a "Won't go to the prom with me? I'll show them" mentality.

Of course, there are social rifts between other groups of people as well: artists and non-artists, celebrities and non-celebrities, politicians and non-politicians...

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 25, 2011 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Auernheimer participated in a public service by showing just how vulnerable the electronic transmission of data really is. Take notice and conduct yourselves accordingly instead of bickering back and forth and leave the man alone.

Posted by: Oldearkie

January 25, 2011 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )