3 ms·

> "more people will understand technology" When has this ever happened? As technologies approach the refinement of appliances, it looks to me like the general

by roc 15y ago

> "more people will understand technology" When has this ever happened? As technologies approach the refinement of appliances, it looks to me like the general understanding plummets. Under-the-hood complexity all but kills the tinker class and buries the professional class in detail that further muddies their attempts to talk to the average person. Consider hardware issues. In absolute numbers there may be more hardware tinkers than 25 years ago. But as a ratio of technologists, they're shrinking. And as relevant to popular opinion and voting, the general public has no more (though not clearly less) understanding or appreciation for hardware freedom issues. Trusted computing, the issue of yesterday's hardware freedom battles, is simply the reality of mobile computing.

firefoxman1 15y ago
Absolutely right. The rate of new people understanding technology is pretty rapid at first, but then flatlines. I think actually less people understand how a car works than 2 generations ago, but when the Model T first made it to mass market the number of people who understood how the automobile works grew each year. But that trend couldn't have continued or everyone would be an expert mechanic by now, and that obviously isn't the case even though more people than ever own a car.
glhaynes 15y ago
Consider hardware issues. In absolute numbers there may be more hardware tinkers than 25 years ago. But as a ratio of technologists, they're shrinking. I'm not sure this is true. I'm not saying it isn't, but it's at least not obvious. (Unless you're counting, say, anybody who today owns a smartphone as a technologist.)
- roc 15y ago
  I was just relying on personal experience with programmers and IT people. When I started programming 20 years ago, pretty much anyone who worked at any level with computers could build a PC. These days, half the programmers I know can barely maintain their machines, let alone build one from parts. [1] If you told them they should oppose some piece of legislation because it would bar them from loading whatever OS they wanted on the hardware they purchased, they would (and do) shrug. They fully consider their choice to be synonymous with the hardware they bought in the first place. They don't think it at all odd that Android phones ship with locked bootloaders. [1] I don't mean to disparage them; some of them are fantastic programmers. That said, I do know far too many of them who are running home wifi with whatever configuration the Comcast/UVerse guy set up.
  - corford 15y ago
    Assuming your experience is not isolated, I find that very scary.
    - einhverfr 15y ago
      Well, I have always found the oldest documentation of a network or computing principle to be the clearest because it usually has not been so obscured by later attempts to make sense of it.... How many folks do I have to explain why the Open Systems Interconnect network model doesn't match what happens with TCP/IP over the wire? I do think that we've create a class of specialists who protect their specialties in part through obfuscation.
brlewis 15y ago
If the RIAA tried today to lobby for a law that all Interstate highways include checkpoints to search cars for infringing copies of movies or books, they wouldn't find a sponsor. This is not because the public has a deep understanding of auto mechanics. It's because the public understands that traveling at highway speeds is desirable and checkpoints to serve a special interest are not. It's hard to sway people today by arguing that highways make it too easy to transport infringing copies.
- roc 15y ago
  > "It's because the public understands that traveling at highway speeds is desirable and checkpoints to serve a special interest are not." 15 years ago I'd be agreeing with you. But the drunk driving checkpoints, the Patriot Act checkpoints, border security and the TSA nonsense makes it a little difficult for me to trust the public's ability to recognize serving a special interest for what it is, when it's bearing a promise that honest citizens have nothing to fear. If the RIAA were lobbying for checkpoints, if they insisted it would only affect "rogue" streets and that the critics of their proposal were just those who profited from the flow of illegal goods, I honestly would not feel comfortable enough to bet money on whether people pushed back.
  - brc 15y ago
    Absolutely. The madness of TSA checkpoints which everyone glibly accepts while privately thinking it is a giant waste of time proves your point well. Everyone always thinks these things will make things better for them, while assuming it will cost them nothing. And as always, some hawk will be saying 'won't someone think of the children'.
wtallis 15y ago
General understanding of appliances may not be very detailed, but on the other hand, we've got the first-sale doctrine, Magnuson-Moss, the Clayton Act, and others that make buying and selling tangible consumer goods more or less fair, reasonable, and predictable even to those who don't know much about those laws or the technology at issue. When you buy a car, you don't need to worry about whether getting an oil change from Jiffy Lube will get you in trouble the next time you take the car to the dealer for repairs. Those issues are settled, but not for cyberspace. When you buy software or hardware that includes software, no assumptions are safe, and you have to know quite a bit about the law and technology to figure out what your rights might be.

by roc 15y ago

firefoxman1 15y ago

Absolutely right. The rate of new people understanding technology is pretty rapid at first, but then flatlines. I think actually less people understand how a car works than 2 generations ago, but when the Model T first made it to mass market the number of people who understood how the automobile works grew each year. But that trend couldn't have continued or everyone would be an expert mechanic by now, and that obviously isn't the case even though more people than ever own a car.

glhaynes 15y ago

Consider hardware issues. In absolute numbers there may be more hardware tinkers than 25 years ago. But as a ratio of technologists, they're shrinking. I'm not sure this is true. I'm not saying it isn't, but it's at least not obvious. (Unless you're counting, say, anybody who today owns a smartphone as a technologist.)

roc 15y ago
I was just relying on personal experience with programmers and IT people. When I started programming 20 years ago, pretty much anyone who worked at any level with computers could build a PC. These days, half the programmers I know can barely maintain their machines, let alone build one from parts. [1] If you told them they should oppose some piece of legislation because it would bar them from loading whatever OS they wanted on the hardware they purchased, they would (and do) shrug. They fully consider their choice to be synonymous with the hardware they bought in the first place. They don't think it at all odd that Android phones ship with locked bootloaders. [1] I don't mean to disparage them; some of them are fantastic programmers. That said, I do know far too many of them who are running home wifi with whatever configuration the Comcast/UVerse guy set up.
- corford 15y ago
  Assuming your experience is not isolated, I find that very scary.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    Well, I have always found the oldest documentation of a network or computing principle to be the clearest because it usually has not been so obscured by later attempts to make sense of it.... How many folks do I have to explain why the Open Systems Interconnect network model doesn't match what happens with TCP/IP over the wire? I do think that we've create a class of specialists who protect their specialties in part through obfuscation.

brlewis 15y ago

If the RIAA tried today to lobby for a law that all Interstate highways include checkpoints to search cars for infringing copies of movies or books, they wouldn't find a sponsor. This is not because the public has a deep understanding of auto mechanics. It's because the public understands that traveling at highway speeds is desirable and checkpoints to serve a special interest are not. It's hard to sway people today by arguing that highways make it too easy to transport infringing copies.

roc 15y ago
> "It's because the public understands that traveling at highway speeds is desirable and checkpoints to serve a special interest are not." 15 years ago I'd be agreeing with you. But the drunk driving checkpoints, the Patriot Act checkpoints, border security and the TSA nonsense makes it a little difficult for me to trust the public's ability to recognize serving a special interest for what it is, when it's bearing a promise that honest citizens have nothing to fear. If the RIAA were lobbying for checkpoints, if they insisted it would only affect "rogue" streets and that the critics of their proposal were just those who profited from the flow of illegal goods, I honestly would not feel comfortable enough to bet money on whether people pushed back.
- brc 15y ago
  Absolutely. The madness of TSA checkpoints which everyone glibly accepts while privately thinking it is a giant waste of time proves your point well. Everyone always thinks these things will make things better for them, while assuming it will cost them nothing. And as always, some hawk will be saying 'won't someone think of the children'.

wtallis 15y ago

General understanding of appliances may not be very detailed, but on the other hand, we've got the first-sale doctrine, Magnuson-Moss, the Clayton Act, and others that make buying and selling tangible consumer goods more or less fair, reasonable, and predictable even to those who don't know much about those laws or the technology at issue. When you buy a car, you don't need to worry about whether getting an oil change from Jiffy Lube will get you in trouble the next time you take the car to the dealer for repairs. Those issues are settled, but not for cyberspace. When you buy software or hardware that includes software, no assumptions are safe, and you have to know quite a bit about the law and technology to figure out what your rights might be.