Interview: Ask Jon Katz Almost Anything 663
I have gotten a stack of e-mails lately requesting an interview with Jon Katz. And last Friday, after we got Jon up on the little stage in our LinuxWorld booth, where he engaged in a live two-hour dialog with over 100 Slashdot readers and other show attendees, I got the same request in person - over and over. Jon is, without doubt, the most hated Slashdot Author, but he is also the most-read, the most-discussed, and the most puzzling, at least according to the e-mail I get about him. It's time to stop guessing about Jon and why he writes what he does the way he does, and to simply ask him! One question per post, please. The question and moderation cutoff time is Wednesday noon, U.S. EST, at which time I'll forward 10-15 questions to Jon via e-mail. Answers will appear Friday.
A More Civil Net (Score:5)
a) Who do you suppose the main culprits are? Why do you suppose that certain forums (like /.) can be somewhat civil one day and full of trolls and flamers the next? Is it simply a matter of certain people skipping 4th grade classes for the day, the flood of newbies, a popularity thing or just the nature of the beast? This leads into the second part of my question...
b) Do you foresee a circumstance where the net will ever be a civil place without comprimising anonymity and free speach? Or is every net medium which tries to provide these things doomed to go the way of Usenet?
----
Regarding #2 there.. (Score:2)
I'm afraid Jon _is_ in fact a Bad Writer, by almost any standard. He spells OK, though that might be Microsoft Word...
This isn't a valid question for Katz. (Score:2)
So, your question is misguided. Instead, one might ask how often Katz has to name-drop or remind people of the privilege and connections he has. What I would be very interested to know is, at what point did the Slashdot crew know Katz was 'in a previous life' (gah! Can we say pretentious?) the Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News? I know that until today I thought he was just a Wired hack writer who also had written for Rolling Stone, but I'll tell you, the Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News _does_ _not_ have trouble arranging interviews. Think about it a second. It's all about networking, who you know. Would _you_ be rude to a 'web journalist' whom you know actually has a history of being Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News? Who might he be rubbing elbows with, in his comfortable 'faux drop-out' stance? I flat guarantee that anybody who _does_ know would fall all over themselves to curry favor with him: and perhaps this is what happened to the Slashdot folks.
From AOL Nation (Score:2)
So, in a way, though Jon's self-promotion has little to do with the story, it has everything to do with his presentation of the story and spoke volumes to anyone who was clued enough to think about it- unfortunately, nobody was. It's not that Jon _self-promotes_ and curries favor with these big media companies- if you or I tried to do that we'd fail laughably, if Rob Malda with all his new wealth tried to do it they'd laugh in his face. Jon attempted to con us into thinking he was some wandering outsider journalist, and it must have been fun and gratifying. The power centers of big media remember, and they lost no time in asking the former Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News what he thought about the merger.
I, too, thought Jon was mad for self-promotion, but in fact he's only acting out of habit and being unwilling to give up the power and privilege he apparently walked away from. He doesn't need Slashdot's help to get on the talk show circuit, to sell his book to Amazon. He didn't even need to fight to get on the Rolling Stone masthead, or on Wired. His past was his ticket, the key to open all those doors normally open only to talent and hard work.
That gives me the idea for the one question I'll formally ask...
History, please. (Score:2)
Oh sheesh... (Score:2)
Re:Corporatism and Writing (Score:2)
Wrong definition of atheism. (Score:2)
Atheism is the *LACK* of the belief that Gods do exist, rather than requiring the active belief that they don't. The difference is subtle, but highly relevant.
To say that both atheists and theists have a burden of proof is to assume that the neutral "maybe" position of agnosticism is the default starting point. But this is unfair for two reasons:
1 - There are certain types of statements that are not possible to disprove even if they are in fact false. The assertion that there is a god is such a statement. The logical term for it is a "non falsifiable assertion". If a claim is not falsifiable, then the burden of proof must lay with the claimant, because it would be impossible for the skeptic to prove himself even if he were correct. (It is often impossible to prove that you *didn't* do something, or that something *didn't* happen, or that something *doesn't* exist. Sure it's impossible to disprove god, but it's also impossible to disprove a number of other things, even things we don't believe in, like leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and so on.)
2 - We never give the benefit of the doubt to "maybe" cases in any other question, why should this be any diferent? We don't go around believing in the tooth fairy and in leprechauns, even though they are just as undisprovable as is god.
Thus, most athiests argue that atheism is a reasonable default starting hypothesis rather than something needing proof. All that is needed is to counter alleged proofs of god rather than come up with a disproof of our own. (because such a disproof isn't possible even if we are correct).
Now, keep in mind that I'm not asking that you agree with the above stance, only that you recognize that it is what most atheists think, and your argument is aimed at a strawman position very few atheists actually hold. You can't honestly counter the atheist position if you don't even know what it actually is.
HUMOR? The JonKatz Generator. (Score:2)
If so, when did you kill the real JonKatz and replace him with a JonKatz generator?
Can we expect a source release of the real JonKatz generator, or are you keeping it under wraps so people don't bug you about it, like they do with the SlashCode?
Really, we're curious. Do you really expect us to believe you'd use a title like "Dying Babies and The Myth of American Freedom" if you just wanted to talk about Censorship?
For those who don't know, the JonKatz generator takes buzz-words and input on a popular topic, and mangles it with the (patented?) unique verbose Katzian style. I can imitate it, but never perfect it, as the real JonKatz generator looks coherent, but at a second glance never is.
Simple example--this isn't as good as the real JonKatz Generator, since I'm using its output as input, and JWZ's dadadodo as the generator. But it isn't too far off. The incoherency is similar, but the grammar and structure need some work.
Free music sites, order vitamins and Slashdot. Free browsing, habits. But they can keep our information from copying a world where this information on citizens, the right to track their habits.
In the FDIC, all the distance between corporate and increasingly dependent on and portals and intellectual property can't really be more than AOL and intellectual property can't really be privacy. According to attempt this, the Web sites, order vitamins and writing cool software buy, books check out, of our privacy is a law enforcement agency or preventing Court in and civil libertarians would explode in and other businesses. If you enter, what data marketing and the Net and unintended, however, as we get our political systems already seems remote. All of privacy they can even trace our government has have acquired or invoke the Net and unintended, however, as the minute they fail to Site to Site to the data is increasingly dependent on the largest Financial Institution Web.
Really, I think the JonKatz generator is an excellent program. But the Slashdot community deserves to know the truth about it.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Re:A -real- question (Score:3)
Either way, it's -not- the Real Bruce, and it -is- one of the few people in the world I'd love to see getting a job cleaning Three Mile Island. From the inside of the reactor core. With a toothbrush. With only the hot grits they seem to love for company and protection.
I'm sure they're glowing with anticipation. Or does that come afterwards? :)
A -real- question (Score:5)
Libertarianism means a lot of different things to different people. Usually, it is meant purely in the context of a hypothetical "Big Government". However, recently, events have shown that duly elected Governments around the world can be dictated to and ordered around by "Big Corporations", who are accountable to no-one, including the market place.
Can you pin down, exactly, what your interpretation of Libertarianism is, and how it handles the whole power question, where you have Corporate Law, rather than Government Law?
Preaching to the choir (Score:5)
I have two questions. First, do you agree with me in seeing your posts as popular digests of our culture, intended for a lay audience? Second, if you do agree, why do you persist in using Slashdot as a forum?
I will be very interested to read your answers. Perhaps the basis of your friction with Slashdot is, after all, just a confusion about audiences. Thanks for having the courage to offer an interview. I hope it leads to some kind of dialog that clears up the Katz-Slashdot controversy.
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Journalism and the 'Net (Score:2)
Demagoguery (Score:2)
--
Re:Anti-Katz (Score:2)
--
Re:Anti-Katz (Score:2)
Christ, when he came, spent most of his time hanging around the people that no one else wanted to hang around with. And you know what else? Jesus Loves Geeks.
Some of the church's leaders are going to have some serious answering to do when Jesus returns.
--
Religion (Score:5)
--
Re:Am I Alone? (Score:2)
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Am I Alone? (Score:3)
My question: What motivates and interests you so much that you have such a great passion to write about geeks, nerds, techies, hackers, etc.?
I actually like Jon Katz' writing's. Am I the only one? Sure he may not be a "techie," but this is not a prerequisite for writing for a site like Slashdot. Jon is a journalist and writer. He's never made any claim to the contrary. As a matter of fact, he espouses the fact that he's not. He gives a certain insight into technical issues that many more techno-savy readers may not consider. Certainly, his writings are provocative and he often plays the "Devil's Advocate." This is what good writers do. The provoke the rest of us to thought. Perhaps in ways we had not previously considered. I think Jon catches an enormous amount of flack for being a good writer. Just because his views differ from yours or he may be taking a different approach toward a subject does not necessarily make them wrong.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Re:(How) do you edit? (Score:2)
Why do I never have moderator points when I need them most?
(Look here [slashdot.org] if this message is not yet moderated to visibility.)
Regards, Ralph.
Re:slashdot profiles (Score:2)
(Why does the Parent link still not work for below-threshold postings?)
Regards, Ralph.
Re:hard facts about Jon's popularity -- Good Idea! (Score:2)
What could be as nice as seeing the Katz-filterer numbers (and percentages) would be to see the average karma value of the Katz-filterers compared to the slashdot "community" as a whole.
If there wasn't a positive relationship between good slashdot-citizenship and Katz-filtering I'd be moderately surprised.
Regards, Ralph.
Re:(How) do you edit? (Score:2)
Please moderators, do check out this message [slashdot.org] - it's polite, intelligent and very relevant. I'd like to see Katz answer it. Don't let it stagnate at Score:1.
Note: I am not the author and have no connections with the author. I am just feeling very guilty for having apparently blighted the chances of a very fine question. (Probably made it even worse now, but what can I do?)
Regards, Ralph.
Re:What do you think of Linux now? (Score:2)
Wait, I know the answer. (Score:2)
Your KatzFilter didn't catch this article because it is properly catagorized as an interview, it just happens that the interviewee is Katz.
Asking slashdot to give you the means to filter any news which mentions Katz is asking for too much. That's your job. Be your own filter. If you don't like that answer, you could always filter roblimo because he subjected you to this story.
Being heard amonst the rancous horde (Score:2)
You have experienced the full fury of slashdot readership rage, and yet continue to post thoughtful and expressive articles. We are moving into a world of more online forums, so how do you feel these dialogs ought to be handled in this environment? How do you think they *will* be handled?
What do you think of Linux now? (Score:2)
When you first arrived here, you wrote a series of articles about how Linux was the most fantastic thing ever and would completely transform the world -- all this before ever using it, or even seeing it. Eventually you managed to get started. Now, a year or so later, what do you think? Do you still consider it as important an innovation as fire or democracy? Have you tried installing other distros or doing your own troubleshooting? GTK or Qt? Are you still using it at all? Would you admit to going back to MacOS and Office if you had?
Speaking of Which... (Score:2)
Re:hard facts about Jon's popularity -- Good Idea! (Score:2)
But, on a serious note. I know i've got Katz filtered, an know large amounts of other people who have him filtered. Which raises the question, Jon, if so many "geeks" don't like you and the things you say, how can you go on writing as a representative of geeks? Doesn't your concious bother you? Making so much money off random writings about people who don't even like you is simply wrong, don't you think so?
** Martin
Re: Get a grip (Score:2)
Re:Why doesn't Katz participate in the /. Communit (Score:2)
Re:Am I Alone? (Score:2)
Who do you claim to speak for/about? (Score:2)
I live in the UK and none of the geeks I've met seem to fit into your world view, despite them being, in my opinion, very much archetypal examples of whatever it means to be one.
Maybe this is just my experience but I'm quite well connected and it seems to me that peopel in teh US can't be that different to use over here. Do you ever stop and wonder whether you are believing your own hype?
Education? (Score:4)
This is not BP (Score:2)
Besides, if this *IS* Bruce Perens, then he's smoking crack.
Hmmm (Score:2)
Jesus, this is a whole new frontier in trolling. Not only do trolls have to talk about grits, natalie portman, and other BS like that, but they have to try to assume somebody else's name (and I'm just waiting now for somebody to come on as "Uruk." and start posting this shit)
The problem with the web is that there isn't a kick/ban function.
Re:slashdot profiles (Score:2)
Re:I get the impression... (Score:2)
Re:slashdot profiles (Score:2)
Re:Qualifications? (Score:2)
Re:Jon (Score:2)
And he got a 4 for this drivel! Ye gods and little fishes!
Re:Jon (Score:2)
> interacting with others in these threads?
JK couldn't have put it better himself. "Interacting" in "threads" indeed! What piffle!
> If there's a mark of a good writer/journalist, it's the ability to
> stir up the hornet's nest. Is that so now? I always thought the ability to communicate something worthwhile would be a more reliable guide.
All that said,
_ > rant and rave about how they want Katz to be roasted over an open pit > with hot Natalie Portman grits basted over him while being prodded by > sharpened edged of AOL CD's? This superb outburst reveals you for what you are -- a closet Katz-basher! Join us! Don't be afraid! It's society's crime, not ours!
The Bottom Line (Score:4)
What motivates you? (Score:2)
----
Re:Why doesn't Katz participate in the /. Communit (Score:2)
--locust
Re:Why doesn't Katz participate in the /. Communit (Score:2)
jonKatz
Damn. You're right. But hardly anything of his ever gets moderated back up above 1. So surfing @ 2 as I do by default, I don't see it. I with draw the question.
--locust
The great slashdot conspiracy (Score:2)
This is my theory and my question.
Mr. Katz is an entity that keeps on writing relativly low tech stories to a bunch of people who arnt mainly interested in these stories, over time they got real frustrated and kept bringing their vengence upon him.
But, he didnt change his style, he just kept on writing in the same tone in the same form. He didnt even try to adjust to the form needed neither did he just give up... Which leads to the assertion that.. Katz might be an AI entity (maybe piped off from Everything [everything2.com] ) with a little bit of hacked Mega Hal [uwa.edu.au] code.
Thus my question is. Katz, are you human [dictionary.com]?
Thank you.
Note: wrote that with a straight face [tripod.com]
--
Babies aren't born religious (Score:2)
Therefore I suggest the onus is on religious people to explain the anomaly of having acquired religion, whether christian, buddhist, or atheist.
And there are alternatives to being EITHER religious OR an atheist. I am areligious. I simply have no religion. It is not a part of my life. I don't care what you believe for or against.
If there are no gods, then I have lost nothing.
If there are gods, then they are either good gods or bad gods.
Good gods won't punish me for being as they made me, so it does no harm to not bow down to them.
Bad gods -- well, fsck them anyway
--
Community interest (Score:5)
It's a rare person indeed that draws such an intense response from the geeks and slashdotters amongst us - I'd like to know why you keep posting and commenting even though so many people are outwardly hostile towards you...
What draws you towards this community?
Deconstructing Yourself (Score:2)
Hi, Jon.
Have you read Lloyd Wood's critique [xach.com] of your writings? He compares you to Richard Stallman (at least in terms of the reactions you both seem to cause in people) and analyzes your research and conclusions through various essays and pieces.
I'm curious. What is your reaction to this piece?
--
Wrong. Bad science is a faith, not good science. (Score:2)
*Good* science is a continually self-correcting way of looking at the world. Good science doesn't tell us "what happened", instead, it gives us a model that fits
observable data. It doesn't claim "truth".
Scientists who claim to tell you "how the watch works on the inside" (if you think of the universe as a watch that we can't open) are not practicing good science.
Good scientists would give you a model that fits the data (how the hands seem to move) as a plausible model, while understanding that the model itself could be
totally wrong. There could be little Elves in the watch that make it work--we will probably never know. But as long as the model accounts for any observable, and
the model is self consistent, the model works.
According to Webster's, faith is "unquestioning belief", exactly the opposite of good science. Good scientists constantly question their model. New ways of
thinking appear on the scene when some observable that either doesn't fit or isn't accounted for in the current model is found. And when the new model is
proposed, good scientists try their damnedest to shoot holes in it. *If* it survives the scrutiny of scientists, it may either be adopted or included in another
model.
Trying to understand "Truth" is outside the realm of science. Giving a *plausible* explanation that can be used to predict future events is the work of science.
The existence of a god or gods is outside that realm. Look at the hypothesis: There exists an entity, all knowing and all powerful, that is undetectable, and is
responsible for the events in everyday life by exerting invisible "force". It isn't testable. But that doesn't mean it isn't true, it means it is beyond
experiment, and thus beyond science.
Not only this, but the God hypothesis doesn't explain any observables that aren't explained in a more simple manner by other hypotheses. So most scientists don't
spend much time on it, unless they have a personal reason to believe it (in which case they are looking for facts to fit a hypothesis, rather than a hypothesis to
fit the data, and are practicing bad science).
To practice good science, keep an open mind to possibilities, understand that the explanations we use are plausible models only (so don't get attached to them),
and most importantly, demand hard *proof* for explanations. If it is untestable, it is outside of the power of science to support or refute.
Sorry, nothing personal, but such claims need to be answered. Please don't confuse good science with bad science and faith.
Show me something repeatable. (Score:2)
There are numerous counterexamples from history (in accounts that are usually rejected as historical simply because they contain such counterexamples) and several in my personal experience. Rejecting data just because it doesn't fit the model is hardly scientific, but it happens all the time. This is another way in which science is treated as a religion.
Show me something repeatable that can't be explained without the god hypothesis.
Again, to stress, this doesn't make it untrue. I said that means most scientists won't spend much time with it.
Re:Show me something repeatable. (Score:2)
Could you give more info on these two supposed miracles? (I am not familiar with them.)
Have they been captured on film, in the daytime, by pro photographers? Or are they mostly witness testimony? We can discuss the falibility of "eye witness testimony" if you like. Not only could they have mispercieved it, they can also misremember it. Experiment after experiment show that memory is in fact not like a tape recorder. People who want to think something can very easily trick themselves into "remembering" it.
So, even in the face of these things, if a real event was taking place, could they not be explained by tricks of light, or somesuch? (And which of those two would be simpler? An all knowing all powerful being, or a optical affect?)
I've never heard of either of these two "miracles", so I can't say anything for sure on them without actual data. Any fact, particularly motion daytime film, would be appreciated. These events sound interesting.
So how did it go with Linux ? (Score:3)
So, how is the Linux experiment going ? Have you given up, or are you quietly playing with it for an hour or so a day, learning a little more ?
This is a genuine question, not a flame !
--
Re:A -real- question (Score:2)
You are misrepresenting the libertarian position. I know of no libertarians who believe that Big Government is OK if it is run by corporations. Libertarians oppose big government in all its forms, whether it is run by "Big Business" or "Big Labor" or "The Proletariat" or anyone else.
No one disputes that corporations have a lot of influence in Washington and that that's a bad thing. But the thing to keep in mind is that the levers of power now controlled by corporate interests are still government institutions. A libertarian society would have a radically smaller government, and would therefore have less government power to be co-opted by corporations.
The reason that corporations are no longer accountable to the marketplace is that they have the power of government to interfere with the market. If we take that power away, they will be forced to compete on their merits with all comers.
The only way to accomplish this is a reduction in the size of government. There is no way you can give the government the amount of power it has and prevent special interests from putting it to their own purposes. If power exists, it will be used, and the only way to prevent its use is to take it away for good.
Dog chases tail... Real question. (Score:2)
my question then is,
Are you attempting to be the head of this beast for political guidance or are you attempting to be the tail to concisely package the actual news that does filter through this system and our opinions for the mainstream media readership that uses
Mike Ford
I get the impression... (Score:3)
Katz profits from his slashdot articles, because it promotes his name amongst the internet crowd. Also other sites and journalists may very well quote him because of his recognition. In addition, when it comes time to sell his books he can steer hundreds of slashdot jr.'s and newage types with his influence. Not only does this help pad out his otherwise nominal sales, but i'm convinced it sends a signal of sorts to his publisher. Unlike most other hacks, he has found a way to create a significant amount of sales and interest the first couple days the book hits the shelves using slashdot and other forums. This likely prompts the publisher to promote the book, and make it more visible...prompting more sales.
In short, Katz is a hack that appeals to kiddies and long hairs. As much as I despise him, i must give him some credit for figuring out a way to set himself apart from his kind.
Re:Anti-Katz (Score:2)
By definition, a religion is based on faith. What is faith? Unquestioning belief.
No, faith is not just unquestioning belief. The best definition I have heard is "belief put into action." We all have faith in something. For some it's their spouses. Do you really mean to say that scientists should not have faith in their spouses, if they are married? We all have faith in the laws of physics. How do you know they won't all change tomorrow? Faith is not exclusive to religion, but most religions involve faith.
I put my faith in Christ after a series of questions. When I was a teenager, I started asking them. Why does life seem empty to some of the most intelligent, insightful people who have ever lived? Why does our society tell us that money is a bad thing to live for and then look down upon those who abandon it for another pursuit? And so on...
MPAA and the whole CSS thing (Score:2)
What are your thoughts about the whole DeCSS fiasco? Do you believe it's a way for the MPAA control who has access to DVD data, rather than just a copyright control mechanism? Will you write a feature about it? :)
My OpenDVD artwork [ucalgary.ca]
Re:Anti-Katz (Score:2)
The difference between a mythology and a religion, is that the individual classifies it as such. At the same time, the vast majority of Christian people on this planet do not criticize other religions. Of course, it does happen, but those are the ones who are vocal.
Katz should have just a slight amount of respect for other religions. Respect is one step higher from tolerance, and tolerance is one step higher from holocaust. He exorcises tolerance from what I've read.
Re:Anti-Thought (Score:2)
"I want to know God's thoughts,..... the rest are details.." -- Albert Einstein.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use." -- Galileo Galilei
etc. The rules of Physics are the rules that God made. Rules are meant to be broken, but that doesn't mean that we, as humans, can break them. Just because someone may be scientific doesn't make them atheist, and just because someone is religious doesn't mean they're non-scientific.
Just something to think about.
Re:Anti-Katz (Score:2)
The difference between a mythology and a religion, is that the individual classifies it as such.
Translation (for stupid people): The individual (you or me), has each his own definition of the difference between a religion and a mythology.
i.e. I believe generally in Catholicism, which I should descibe more specificly as the teachings of Christ (I personally believe that the Old Testiment was more of a rule book with stories than anything else). I believe that worshipping Zeus and the Greek gods is a mythology. That doesn't mean that it wasn't ever considered a religion or that you may still practice religiously.
As for your final statement.
i don't respect the KKK, and i definately don't respect christianity (in any form.)
This just announces your ignorance to the world. Do I have respect for the KKK? No, absolutely not. Do I have respect for the individuals in the KKK? Believe it or not, I actually do, and this is why: They're human-beings and I believe they are making a mistake. They've been taught to hate, and they've collapsed into a depressing abyss that they needs help from escaping. Nobody is inherently hateful, they must learn it.
Do I have respect for Christianity? Absolutely. Christianity stands 100% for dealing with people like you who are ignorant to how people work, love, hate, etc. Now the practice of Christianity has been flawed, but of course you should expect this because we are all human-beings. I highly suggest you go out and read, in detail the New Testament, not for religious reasons, but rather for insight on how people work. I also suggest you watch American History X. It may give you a little insight into the human psyche.
I honestly feel bad for you, because you're your own worst enemy with that attitude.
Re:Wait, I know the answer. (Score:2)
/. can either listen to its screaming userbase, or they can lose their userbase. Its not a threat, its just an honest suggestion. You piss off your users and eventually they'll leave you. Its not a very hard concept to understand. I was nice and content having his crap filtered, but then they looped around it with the CmdrTaco and Roblimo posting stuff. I know how databases work, and I know its not difficult to filter a based on the word "katz" in someones post. I'm not suggesting it for ALL comments, just the initial posts on the main page. Its not hard.
Note to CmdrTaco. (Score:3)
I like your site a lot. I check it out on a daily basis and if time permitting, I usually involve myself in the discussions. When I noticed that you had an option to filter postings by users, I chose to filter Jon Katz for the obvious reasons.
Today, however, You and Roblimo decided to post stuff about Katz. Now I ask you why? Why are you posting a clip from his book? Why is Roblimo asking people to ask questions? Why isn't Katz posting it? Is it to give a different perspective? Or is it to force people who have Katz filtered to join in on the conversation? I'd really like to know your reasons. Please get back to me.
~~Kevlar
If you agree with this, then moderate up.
Anti-Katz (Score:5)
I am a Christian. I am a geek. I am not alone. Though we ChristoGeeks (a new demograph I just coined which you may proceed to patronize) tend to be a quiet group here on Slashdot, I felt the need to voice this question.
You seemingly never fail to rail upon religion (more often than not, Christianity) in each of your posts here. I haven't read your book, but more than likely you will do it in there too. My question is... why? Obviously you are against relgion, and seem to view it as a form of mind control/censorship. Did you have a bad experience with Christianity as a young child? Do you think the vocal minority of Christians in the public eye are obnoxious? Or is this simply another way to pander to your audience, who at the time is mainly comprised of anti-Christian slashdot readers.
Thanks for your time. At least reading your articles lets me see just how far the extreme left-wingers would like to take things.
p.s. Before any Christian-brainwashed-sheep hating
----- if ($anyone_cares) {print "Just Another Perl Newbie"}
Question for Jon Katz (Score:2)
Hi. What's the status of the Brill's Content gig? I can't remember seeing any of your articles in there lately, but haven't seen anything from you or Content which says that you aren't writing for them anymore. Thanks.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Pictures! (Score:2)
But I've often been reading these interviews (which, by the way, are far better than interviews most anywhere else - the questions are better and there is no time limit or sound byte requirement) and been curious about what the person interviewed looks like. I guess I'm kindof a visual person, and it's funny that while I've read things about John Katz, John Carmack, Mandrake, and a whole bunch of others, I'd at least like to see a picture.
--
grappler
Why is all this Katz stuff on the front page? (Score:2)
I have the Katz filter on, but there are two Katz stories on the front page today. So I feel I must add my voice to the cacophony of shouts that this be fixed once and for all
Just to make that clear, here is the question I would like to ask Katz:
Jon Katz, why don't you just fuck off and die? Does it give you a great deal of pleasure annoying /. readers and doing your media whore routine in an unfriendly environment?
Generation Gap (Score:3)
--Shoeboy
Re:Qualifications? (Score:2)
When I first came to slashdot, it was the "News for nerds" title that drew me. I'm a nerd. I'm a geek. And so forth.
Technical things are interesting. But there are other things that makes me pay attention too. For example - Jon Katz, when he is talking about the bullying of geeks.
I don't know about you, but I for one was the main "victim" of my school, from first to ninth grade. Only one slashdot poster has made me cry. And that is Jon Katz - because some of his articles hit too good.
Maybe his articles isn't interesting to you. They sure are to me. His articles are the best there is on slashdot - in my opinion.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
Not the real Bruce Perens (Score:2)
Eric
USA a post-Christian nation (Score:2)
Well, since you seem to be a nonchristian, this kind of puts you in the odd position of asserting that a bigotry that you would not experience must not exist ...
Technically, the USA (and most of the West) would be today post-Christian societies. While American society at one time was formed by some sort of Christian consensus (or at least Deist -- I know perfectly well that not all of the founders were orthodox Christians), the dominant "orthodoxy" today is a secular liberalism with a hearty dose of new age/neopagan/neognostic spirituality.
For some good examples of the ejection of pretty much all religious tradition (not just the Judeo-Christian one) from the public square, I recommend reading Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief : How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion.
At the risk of igniting flamage, the whole school prayer issue illustrates exactly what I mean. Yes, a few decades ago, we did have established prayers in public schools, and I think the courts were right to find this an impermissible establishment of religion. But we've moved beyond that today, where courts are finding that to permit students to exercise religion on campus is to somehow "establish" it. This is hardly "predominance."
Do you actually read the followups? (Score:5)
I know you read your email, since you've used email as a basis for a number of your essays, and you actually have answered whenever I've emailed you directly. However, I'm pretty sure I've never seen you participate in a Slashdot discussion itself, whether it was one about your own stories, or any other.
Do you actually read the feedback that gets posted as replies?
Re:Girls and Jon Katz (Score:2)
Notice, I didn't say "GIRLS FOR GEEKS", I said "Geek Girls". i.e. a girl like me...
I am in fact hoping that Jon will provide us with an enlightened response, as he hasn't yet.
Sexbots or no, it's possible that he'll produce more insight than some others here.
Girls and Jon Katz (Score:5)
Why doesn't Katz participate in the /. Community? (Score:3)
It *seems* as if you can relate to us, but do you actually, as it were, live in the trenches? There's the JonKatz I see as an author, journalist, etc, but there's also the JonKatz I'd be interested in seeing as the person, with opinions, viewpoints, and responses that aren't so thought out or calculated, edited, refined, etc.
JonKatz raw, so to speak.
-AS
Running to the mountain... a follow up. (Score:2)
Given those things, how do you feel that the things you are learning on your "journey" and expressed in your written "voice" are applicable to the (sometimes ravening) hordes here at Slashdot?
Re:Why here? (Score:2)
Every newspaper has its editorial section. Why not Slashdot?
Although, I will also agree that
1. Most newspapers run editorials from more than one person while Slashdot's editorials only come from Johnny Katz.
2. Most newspapers have a limit (500 words?) on guest editorials, while Slashdot lets Johnny ramble on+on+on...
Anyway, I don't filter him, but usually just ignore him because most of the time I don't care.
P.S. Usually, when I read the opinion pages of the paper, I look for the "Letters to the Editor" and especially the editorial cartoons. Slashdot could use the latter, but in a geek-oriented way.
Re:Why here? (Score:2)
"... don't care about the topic he's ranting on."
Preview? We don't need no steenking preview!
Karma pimp? (Score:2)
I'm leaping in late, so I will probably get lost in the fray, but here goes:
I love the Katz postings and I really don't much like Katz. I love the postings because some very good and elightened discussions follow your blatantly slanted and singleminded posts. In other words, when you read between the flames that follow any Katz posting you see some of the best of what Slashdot has to offer.
None of this has anything to do with my question. My question is this:
Do you see any danger in two tendencies I see in your postings about youth alienation? Tendency 1: You tend to assume that all alienated young people fall into one category: geek, and that that category is uniquely characterized by intelligence, computer use, and gaming culture. Tendency 2: You tend to elevate, dare I say, normal adolescent angst into a cause decrying the whole of the adult world.
I think you oversimplify. There are alienated kids who do not obviously belong to a marketing demographic. There are geeks who are not alienated. You seem to have a tendency to absolve the young and alienated from any resposibility for their status or their actions. How would you defend what you do against these assertions?
If I'm a karma whore, Katz is my pimp!
All the criticism (Score:3)
Re:How long (Score:2)
How much begging/money? (Score:3)
How high up the VA Linux management hierarchy did you have to call to get the Slasdot crew to violate their few remaining shreds of integrity and force you once again down our throats?
--
Java banners:
Bad for users because Java kills Netscape
How did you arrive at Slashdot? (Score:2)
GoodPint
Pro-Complication (Score:3)
I'm somewhere between an agnostic and an athiest. I don't know whether there is a god, many gods or no gods, but the whole idea seems pretty far-fetched to me. However I don't think too much about god / gods because there aren't too many "supernatural" events in my life that get me wondering about them. I believe in science because it's a pretty decent set of rules to live by. It's convenient to think that gravity exists because every time I've let go of something it has dropped.
However nearly every day I'm assaulted by organized religion. The most recent annoyance was the Super Bowl. Religious players seemed to think that "God" wanted one team to win, and were intent on thanking "Him" for every point. (Strangely however nobody was evidently angry with "Him" for their team losing -- maybe they just accept he wanted the other team to win).
Organized religion, and religious doctrine in particular has been given as a reason for a lot of brutality in history. It has also been the way monarchs maintained power, and that a class system was maintained.
To answer the questions in the original post:
Because it is the easier and simpler belief.
None whatsoever. However, unlike organised religious study, athiesm doesn't require any study.
I don't, but I know I've never seen anything that would make me think there might be.
Admittedly a lot. My dad didn't believe in any gods, and although my mom is now back to her Catholic religion she wasn't practicing when I was younger.
I don't really care, whether there is or isn't a god the laws of physics are not likely to spontaneously turn off. Life will go on as normal. Maybe when I die I'll find out there was a god and I'll go to heaven/hell/purgatory, but I'm not going to live my life differently on the off chance that happens. I guess the main reason I want to be right is the Wizard Of Oz type of thing. It would be sort-of disappointing to see the current nice self-consistent world be ruined by the extra metaphysical baggage of a god.
I think the big misunderstanding comes from the belief that being an athiest is simply another set of religious beliefs like being a catholic. I think that's completely wrong.
The athiest takes the world as what it appears to be. A sum of what our senses and sensors tell us is there. A person who believes in gods adds to that world view yet another "item", a god.
I see no reason to use the more complicated world system. I don't believe in gods, however I'm not going to shove my views in people's faces and constantly decry "there are probably no such things as gods!". As long as other people don't shove their views in my face I don't really care what they believe.
Unfortunately most religious beliefs seem to require the believer to spend time in worship or in prayer. They also seem to encourage people to follow leaders and to spread the belief system. These are things that athiests and agnostics don't have. This last difference is the reason you see Christians, Muslims and Jews involved in religious wars but you rarely see an army of athiests trying to kill all the people who believe in gods.
Anyhow, I know this is probably going to upset people but it's not meant to do that -- it's just that I get so tired of having organized religion in my face so much I sometimes have to vent. I apologize for it being a rambling post, but I won't apologize for my beliefs.
Reflection (Score:2)
Do you think that the stories you write or the ideas that you have about geek culture (or whatever) are very original? If so, don't you think that many Slashdot posters would be able to write articles just as well as you and argue strongly for them over and over, much the way that you do?
To explain where I'm coming from a bit, I'll point out that I think that many people get the feeling when they read your writings that you think you're some sort of geek saint who is enlightening us with your eternally insightful wisdom. I think that what you're saying probably is about as deep as the conversations most Slashdot readers have with their co-workers about Internet/geek culture or whatever.. but that's just me.
As many of the other question-posters, I have no intention of being hostile. We've all heard everyone's opinion of you, but I'd like to hear your opinion of you.
Re:Note to CmdrTaco. (Score:2)
Why do people insist on analyzing every action that every entity (person, company, robotic dog, etc.) affiliated with Slashdot makes? The scrutiny that Slashdot is put under is phenomenal; you won't see it anywhere else on the entire Internet.
Why? Because you folks are impossible to please. Slashdot is so close to perfection and so customizable and tailor-made and such genius that you are spoiled; You expect it to continue to be perfect - every day in every way. It's simply not worth it. Slashdot is, to say the very least, adequate for getting Geek news. Now, if I must suffer so much as to have to glance at a few stories to find the jewels (HELLO?! THAT'S HOW IT IS AT EVERY NEWS RESOURCE ON THE PLANET), then so be it.
It is worthless to attempt to prove that Slashdot is horrible, determine the motivation behind everything that encompasses Slashdot or why Rob does everything he does, all in the name of "Well, I'm just curious why it's like this."
Go register slashdot-sucks-im-gonna-tell-my-mom.com and start a forum dedicated to whining; keep it the hell off of Slashdot.
GO AWAY!
Re:Anti-Thought (Score:2)
I've met genuine atheists. But not many.
Seriously, there are plenty of people who, after thought and/or investigation, have conclueded that there is no deity. There are rather more who have simply decided that the whole thing sounds potentially iffy and like it might make their life harder, so don't bother really thinking about it.
This isn't unique to atheism - there are plenty of Christians whose faith is on a similar footing - but to call yourself an atheist when you're rather closer to a lazy agnostic isn't right.
Greg
Re:Wrong. Bad science is a faith, not good science (Score:2)
There are plenty who practice bad science and treat it as if it were religion. They're who our original poster was referring to, I'd suspect.
Greg
Re:Anti-Thought (Score:2)
I suppose the point is that we're talking a big question here. I mean, how much bigger can you get than 'Why am I here?'. Now, if you've come to the conclusion that there are no gods, so be it. I disagree with you but you're welcome to your opinion.
If you've come to the conclusion that you haven't seen any evidence so far so you're going to assume there aren't, that's not something I could agree with. I'd prefer it if you looked a little harder. Now, if you then decide that there still aren't any gods, fine - but you've now got the information to make the decision.
Those I was particularly objecting to, though, are those who decide that they don't much care whether there are any gods and so will believe there aren't. This strikes me as a little head-in-the-sand, to be honest, and is what I was objecting to particularly.
Ultimately, if you want others to refer to you by a specific term, feel free. However, you may find that that term has connotations or baggage which force others not to use it in reference to you, though. And to say that you believe there are no gods when you actually mean that you haven't met one yet but you're not going to consider the possibility is a little odd.
Please note again, this criticism isn't just aimed at atheism - there are plenty of people in any religion who are there by default rather than conviction.
Greg
Jon (Score:5)
Two questions:
1) As a techno-author where do you think we're headed with this whole Internet thing? Give me 20 years down the road, society, commerce, privacy, entertainment, just pick an area and tell me what you think.
2) Given that a number of people here seem to think that they could do your job better than you with no hands, no eyes, and a pen with no ink, what does it take to get where you are? i.e. Where should aspiring writers (in this genre) start, where does the path begin (or where did it for you) and what are the right turns to take?
Thanks, now stop using the phrase "geeks, programmers, and nerds" so much, it gets annoying. I prefer the term "typer" but since I made it up last week not many people are using it...
You, and the Community (Score:3)
Hey Rob. I know this is more than one questions - please pick whichever you believe is most relevant.
Mr Katz,
Rob Malda fairly correctly describes you as the most hated author on Slashdot. Whilst many of us seem to feel that you're simply looking at the issues you're writing about from an overblow point of view, seeing 'technical milestones of incredibly important significance', some of the posters on Slashdot have a particular peeve. Namely your qualifications.
Slashdot.org is a very technical forum - many of the posters on here simply read it because they feel it best sums up technical events in the Real World. However, your expertise seems to be rudimentary, at best. Linux, the prodigal child of the Slashdot community, proved to be quite a problem, as you struggled with it for quite a while, even writing articles about the difficulties you had. Many of us felt that you wrote those articles so you become more accepted by the crowd, and to show that you aren't just a Windows techie. Now, after quite an intro, here're the questions:
Thanks, and apologies for the length and number of questions. Just pick one.
Alex T-B
One single question: (Score:3)
Qualifications? (Score:4)
Having said that, here's my question: You've said yourself that you are not a technical person. What makes you think that you can speak for those of us who are?
(That isn't necessarily a flame, although I realize it sounds hostile. I'm merely curious and asking for qualifications.)
Will you adapt to Slashdot? (Score:3)
Now I'm going to ramble to explain my question....
I think what many people object to about your writings on
This annoys many because a)it gives you a greater voice than anyone else on slashdot and b)most feel you don't qualify for the position of slashdot summarizer because you're not a technical person (not that there's anything wrong with that!)
a) is the main point here, so let me go on - you don't research stories like a normal journalist. You write your impression and your opinion. There are times in many a slashdotter's life when they wish they could write up their opinion and submit it to slashdot, and get it automatically posted as a top-level article. But they can't. You can. Therefore, though in reality you're little more than an over-eager slashdot reader, you have this inside track that allows you to vent your views and get it published.
But, you're not informative, nor particularly insightful (ie you don't seem to offer anything more than that other slashdot reader who got worked up, wrote up an opinion piece, and submitted it to slashdot). You stir up trouble, which is probably the point. After all, I, unlike many outspoken slashdotters, enjoy you're articles - because of the discussion they provoke (and I don't mean the trolls!). Some of the best discussion are definitely provoked by your articles.
However, your article itself is of limited value in terms of insight offered, wit, or new facts uncovered. Your value is in soliciting the great varieties of opinions that exist in the
So, are you willing to change for the sake of the slashdot community?
Why here? (Score:3)
Truth or Parody (Score:5)
Your writing and it's effects. (Score:3)
I wonder.... (Score:3)
Honest question (Score:5)