3 ms·

I wrote a post about this last week saying why this sort of thought is wrong. In summary it is basically this: As people of power in a position to make importa

by TheCapn 15y ago

I wrote a post about this last week saying why this sort of thought is wrong. In summary it is basically this: As people of power in a position to make important decisions it is their PROFESSIONAL. ETHICAL. DUTY. to know all the facts that pertain to the situation. At no point is it our fault to not understand their system in its entirety but it IS their fault to be making conscious decisions that effect people and systems they do not entirely understand. As an engineer it boggles my mind to see someone weighing in on an issue they haven't rightfully studied before attempting to tackle. If there is a project I'm asked to assist on and I'm not confident I can work with my current level of knowledge> I tell my employer and I either get reassigned or scheduled for training. There is no faking it in my industry, why should they be allowed to fuck everything up because they were willfully ignorant. It goes past that though. They HAVE experts talking to them, or at least trying. The engineers, architects and experts that practically founded the internet have weighed in on how this is a bad idea and yet THEY'RE IGNORED! Don't pretend like this level of ignorance and pure negligence is acceptable for one minute because it just shows how complacent people have become with their representatives. /rant

scott_s 15y ago
In principle, I agree with you. But that gets us nowhere. Would you prefer to be "right" and not get what you want, or concede that this is just how things work and get what you want? I agree with the author of the article: we need to figure out a better way of educating Congress. I don't know how, but their ignorance makes this obvious. Blaming Congress for being ignorant does not get us what we want. I'm going to assume that we (where I define "we" as those people who have technical backgrounds and could explain the problem to someone in Congress given the chance) have done a poor job of educating Congress on how the internet works. With that as a given, and further assuming that we know organizations likes the RIAA are actively lobbying Congress, the current situation is inevitable. People in Congress are like passive journalists: they need to have a basic understanding of a wide range of topics, but sources come to them, instead of them going to sources. If only one side of an issue talks to them, then they're only going to understand that side.
- TheCapn 15y ago
  Excellent points. I never bothered to expand my thoughts beyond "why" it is broken mostly because I'm not American and don't necessarily have a say in the matter.
joeyespo 15y ago
> to know all the facts that pertain to the situation While I agree, I can relate as to why this will never be the case. Think back to when you first started programming, or were otherwise involved in technology. It was near impossible to know what you didn't know. And every now and then, that ignorance gave you the belief of being more of an expert than you actually were. This area is an uphill battle of constantly being reminded how little you actually know. I think it'd be dangerous to have them learn just enough without being actively engaged. It would give them the false belief of being an expert since they'd stop once they feel they have a firm grasp on the subject. > They HAVE experts talking to them, or at least trying. This may be the case. However, they can't tell the difference. To them, any "nerd" using technical jargon may or may not be an expert, and there's no way to know which. Dealing with so many unfamiliar subject areas, I'm sure they're experienced enough to know people lie. So ignoring the advice may just be a defensive measure, realizing they have no idea what's being advised or even how true it really is. It's a bad situation. I don't know how to solve it, but I believe trust is the key quality. More important than expertise.
pnathan 15y ago
One of the things geeks have a hard time dealing with is that laws are made for people, by people, and the principle of the legal system is that it must include the illogic of people to cope with the illogic of people.

by TheCapn 15y ago

scott_s 15y ago

In principle, I agree with you. But that gets us nowhere. Would you prefer to be "right" and not get what you want, or concede that this is just how things work and get what you want? I agree with the author of the article: we need to figure out a better way of educating Congress. I don't know how, but their ignorance makes this obvious. Blaming Congress for being ignorant does not get us what we want. I'm going to assume that we (where I define "we" as those people who have technical backgrounds and could explain the problem to someone in Congress given the chance) have done a poor job of educating Congress on how the internet works. With that as a given, and further assuming that we know organizations likes the RIAA are actively lobbying Congress, the current situation is inevitable. People in Congress are like passive journalists: they need to have a basic understanding of a wide range of topics, but sources come to them, instead of them going to sources. If only one side of an issue talks to them, then they're only going to understand that side.

TheCapn 15y ago
Excellent points. I never bothered to expand my thoughts beyond "why" it is broken mostly because I'm not American and don't necessarily have a say in the matter.

joeyespo 15y ago

> to know all the facts that pertain to the situation While I agree, I can relate as to why this will never be the case. Think back to when you first started programming, or were otherwise involved in technology. It was near impossible to know what you didn't know. And every now and then, that ignorance gave you the belief of being more of an expert than you actually were. This area is an uphill battle of constantly being reminded how little you actually know. I think it'd be dangerous to have them learn just enough without being actively engaged. It would give them the false belief of being an expert since they'd stop once they feel they have a firm grasp on the subject. > They HAVE experts talking to them, or at least trying. This may be the case. However, they can't tell the difference. To them, any "nerd" using technical jargon may or may not be an expert, and there's no way to know which. Dealing with so many unfamiliar subject areas, I'm sure they're experienced enough to know people lie. So ignoring the advice may just be a defensive measure, realizing they have no idea what's being advised or even how true it really is. It's a bad situation. I don't know how to solve it, but I believe trust is the key quality. More important than expertise.

pnathan 15y ago

One of the things geeks have a hard time dealing with is that laws are made for people, by people, and the principle of the legal system is that it must include the illogic of people to cope with the illogic of people.