
Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA - aepstein
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10190893-jon-stewart-dramatic-chipmunk-call-out-congressional-nerd-bashing
======
pinaceae
it points to a big shift in society and the economy.

software is now a cornerstone of the world economy. modern life runs through
the internet. even if you personally avoid the internet, you depend on it.

but the baby boomer generation, represented by these politicians has not
understood it. they know engineers as the guys building houses, bridges,
aeroplanes, rockets. but software? it is an invisible world to them. child's
play. how hard can it be to build the internet vs. the hoover dam.

i don't think this will change soon nor can it be actively changed. we need to
wait till this generation simply dies out and gets replaced by the ones who
grew up with computers. for a larger part of society in the western
hemisphere, that means birthdates in the 1970s. yes, gates, jobs were born
earlier, but the majority of their _users_ were born later. they were
visionaries, outliers.

and the circle will begin again, facebook generation vs. privacy defenders.
and who knows whats after that...genetics?

~~~
kiba
For last couple of centuries or so, each generation grows up with
unprecedented change in their lifetime.

For example, I enter elementary school, the internet started to take off and
browsers were primitive. Nowadays, we can enjoy the convenience of movie
streaming, fast browsers, and extraordinary rich video games(Dwarf Fortress, I
am looking at you). So it doesn't make sense to me that congressmen are
literal dinosaurs. Rather, I think they stop updating their model of the world
and refuse to absorb any knowledge for the last couple of decade.

In any case, the situation with copyright is not new. If you look at the issue
centuries ago, you would realize that we been having this debate for a long
time. Today, the internet only make pirating easier than ever and bring the
issue of copyright to the forefront of public consciousness.

We thought about "old versus new" business model because we lack an
understanding of the history of copyright. In reality, it have much more to do
about how your model of how to make money.

~~~
saulrh

      For last couple of centuries or so, each generation grows
      up with unprecedented change in their lifetime.
    

I'd argue that this generation's changes aren't just unprecedented, but in an
entirely different category. Not just in size, but in speed and extent. The
cell phone alone is the most fundamental change in society in human history;
suddenly, every person on earth can communicate instantly with almost any
other person, and can broadcast an image to almost the entire planet in a
matter of hours. And we couldn't do that twenty years ago. We couldn't even do
that five years ago.

~~~
dalke
Consider someone who died in 1955 at the age of 70. In their life they saw the
introduction of: home electric providers, telephones, radio, movies,
automobile, air travel (from nothing to the jet age!), nuclear energy, the
polio vaccine, penicillin, color photography, frozen food, and more. There are
also less known changes with deep impact: the introduction of municipal
garbage service cleaned up our cities and improved health, the vertical filing
system revolutionized data management, Linotype made it possible to have
newspapers more than 8 pages long, the tractor, artificial fertilizer, and a
mass of farm inventions opened up agriculture. Home refrigerators lets people
keep fresh food longer and more cheaply than ice boxes could. Modern foods
ranging from cornflakes to PEZ were invented during that time.

And you think the cell phone is more fundamental than, say, the widespread
deployment of telephones in the first place? Before then, there was no way to
have a voice conversation with someone more than a 100 meters away.

When the polio vaccine was invented "church bells were ringing across the
country, factories were observing moments of silence, synagogues and churches
were holding prayer meetings, and parents and teachers were weeping. One
shopkeeper painted a sign on his window: Thank you, Dr. Salk. 'It was as if a
war had ended', one observer recalled." (Wikipedia for Jonas Salk.) That
vaccine still saves the lives of 100,000s of children every year even when
compared to the 1800s. For that matter, before penicillin you could die
because of a rose thorn accidentally scratching your mouth, as the sad story
of Albert Alexander shows.

Tell me, how is the cell phone a more fundamental change than these?

~~~
molmalo
You have a very valid point. I can't think of the enormous change the
introduction of the home electric providers must have been. I mean, from
candles to bulbs!

But then again, I think that the main difference now is the current rate of
adoption of the new technologies. How many years took to build the electric
system? How many years took the use of the mobile phone to become widespread?
Everything moves faster and faster, and that's what is letting lots of people
behind. They just can't adapt fast enough.

For example, my mother. Every time she has a new mobile phone, she asks me to
teach her how to use it. I start saying, "Read the screen, think, decide and
then press the buttons." Because, i tell her "if not, what will you do when
even your TV has more and more menus?" Of course, she grumbles, but at least
tries. And when she REALLY needs help to learn something, i help her.

And I see this pattern everywhere. Tech changes so fast now, that while a few
people adapt extremely fast, and to some it takes it a little longer, to the
rest, they're just tired of learning how to use new stuff, every now and then.

~~~
dalke
The complaint that people "just can't adapt fast enough" has been a near
constant refrain for over a century. Read even the Wikipedia page about the
"Roaring Twenties" and then tell me that the amount of change in that decade
was slower than now.

Let's take some examples. Your baseline is the cell phone. The first
commercial mobile phone was in 1983, so you're suggesting a time span of about
25 years. (Before 1983 it was possible to connect a two-way radio through to
the phone system, but that's not the point you're trying to make.) By 1988,
friends of mine had car phones. The StarTac phone came out in 1996 and marks
the start of "widespread consumer adoption." But I would say that it took
until 2005 where it started to supplant having a land line.

The first commercial (pre-built and for consumer use) radio receiver was in
1920. That marks the start of the "golden age of radio", which ended when TVs
became more popular in the late 1950s. Surely that was as fast as the uptake
of cell phones.

Semiconductor transistors were invented in 1947. "Transisterization" was so
fast that crew of the Minnow had a transistor radio (in 1964) and no one was
surprised by it. Transitors made entirely new categories of technology
possible, so that we had a transistor-based game console (Pong-style "tennis"
and "racquet-ball") in ~1975.

The first commercial (synthetic) detergents were introduced in 1933 (that's
when Dreft was introduced) and "by the 1950s, soap had almost been completely
replaced by branched alkylbenzenesulfonates." Not bad for 20 years! Actually
it was bad, because we then found out it wasn't that biodegradable and had to
find a replacement.

The neon light was first presented in 1910 and "became very popular for
signage and displays in the period 1920-1940."

Prohibition lasted for 13 years in the US, and had a huge impact on daily
life. That surely counts as an enormous change.

Cosmetics didn't become popular in the US until the 1910s, and the flappers of
the 1920 used it with a vengeance. (WP says that previously it was too closely
associated with prostitution, but the post-war trend was a reaction to the
previously popular demure look, and that "[a] skewed postwar sex ratio created
a new emphasis on sexual beauty, and because of the influence of Hollywood.)

All these big changes took place on the same time scale as the cell phone. How
then do you measure the amount of change now, and compare it to (say) the
amount of change in the 1920s? When was the last time that most people were
not "tired of learning how to use new stuff"?

~~~
molmalo
You are right in most of your comment. And yes, people always has been tired
of having to learn how to use new stuff (I can imagine a caveman grudging
about having to learn how to start a fire. LOL)

But the scale and complexity is important too. You can't compare a radio with
two dials, and a smartphone with lots of screens. It's a whole new level of
effort to learn how to use it. It takes more time, and it stack over previous
knowledge you are supposed to have. But I know lots of elder people who don't
even know how to turn on a computer. And sadly, they reject smart phones and
other new things because they just gave up.

~~~
dalke
I'm presuming that you've not heard much about the earliest radios. They had
two or three batteries in them ("A", "B", and at the beginning, "C" cells.)
Don't mix up the batteries when you wire them in and make sure you have the
right polarity as otherwise you might fry the tubes. Batteries could easily
leak, so check them out for problems. If you're on a farm, you might want one
powered from your car battery, which meant you could take it back to the car
or a generator in order to recharge it. Then there's antenna setup. And tube
replacement (since tubes go bad). Also, the early radios (excepting crystal
sets) usually had three or more dials. For example, when you change the
frequency you need to change the impedance of your antenna to match it. (Raise
the lid or read the owner's manual to find the chart of how those correlate.)

Radios got simpler to use, in part because of the strong demand to make them
simpler. They got simpler to use sometimes at the expense of more internal
complexity (a starter motor for an automobile, instead of a crank) but
sometimes because we just figured out an easier way to do things (Wozniak's
Disk II controller is a classic hacker example) .

On the other hand, you are omitting all of the difficult, complex things we
used to do, which we don't do now. Do you sew all your clothes, bedsheets, and
curtains? I sure don't. Sewing isn't easy. That's a "whole old level of
effort" I don't need to know. Do you regularly can or preserve your own foods?
A few do, but it's easier and cheaper to buy things from the store. Until the
last 1800s, many engineers and scientists learned draftsmanship (as different
than art, mind you) because that was the best way to make a visual record of
what you saw. Of course, the camera has nearly completely replaced that
requirement, which we use to learn different things. Evolution,
thermodynamics, Maxwell's equations, and more have simplified what was
previously a bunch of unconnected concepts.

Our culture rides the wave of "just complex enough." If it's too complex, like
early microcomputers, only a few people make the effort to learn it. It it's
useful enough, then there's a lot of work put into making it simpler. When it
gets simple enough, there's widespread use. So widespread use happens when
something is just barely simple enough for most people to understand.

The idea you are talking about is at least 45 years old. Alvin Toffler wrote
"Future Shock" in 1970 about this very topic. It popularized the phrase
"information overload", which was coined in 1964. Note how someone who was 20
then would be an "elder" now.

Again I ask you, how do you judge that the rate of growth is more now than it
was in the 1920s, or the 1970s? What meaningful metrics do you use, and how do
you correct for you own biases of what is important? As far as I can tell,
excepting the Great Depression, the amount of change and the turmoil over the
amount of change has been constant for over a century.

------
bravura
On the plus side, all the conspiracy theorists who claimed that Jon Stewart
and The Daily Shows were pawns of their parent multinational media
conglomerate, and thus wouldn't negatively cover SOPA, these people were
wrong.

On the negative side, no one in the news media or whistleblowers and WTF-
watchers like Jon Stewart knew what SOPA was until two days ago.

 _That's even scarier._

~~~
neilk
More on the plus side: Jon Stewart and his team of researchers and writers can
go from knowing nothing about a topic, to absolutely _nailing_ some of the
central absurdities, in less than a week.

Either comedy is easier than it looks or these guys are really good at their
jobs.

~~~
btilly
_Either comedy is easier than it looks or these guys are really good at their
jobs._

I vote for B.

~~~
bcowcher
I think its a little from both columns. The US government makes Jons job alot
easier than it has any right to.. and that scares me...

~~~
jean_valjean
The US government has been a staple of comedy for many, many years.

See: <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Will_Rogers> His quotes from 80 years ago
still sound timely.

~~~
vijayr
I dunno who this guy is, but he sure is funny:

 _This would be a great time in the world for some man to come along that knew
something._

 _You can't say that civilization don't advance, however, for in every war
they kill you in a new way._

 _Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat
with._

------
thebigshane
Everyone here (besides `jerfelix` apparently) is missing something crucial:

Jon Stewart showed 4 people using the word 'nerd'. _Three_ of them were anti-
SOPA! These were the congress(wo)men that were trying to bring in
experts/techies/geeks/nerds/whatever. So, I'm sorry that the techies here were
insulted by that word (I wasn't!) but _most_ of the people using the word were
actually fighting for _your_ side! And if you listened to them in context
(instead of such a short clip) I think you would have thoroughly agreed with
them.

I can excuse Jon Stewart for ignoring this important fact here because he is,
after all, a comedian.

Lofgren (Anti-SOPA)
[[http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&vi...](http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=674&Itemid=32)]

Issa (Anti-SOPA) [<http://issa.house.gov/>]

Watt (Pro-SOPA) [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Watt#Support_of_SOPA>]

Chaffetz (Anti-SOPA) [<http://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse>]

~~~
un1xl0ser
>Jon Stewart showed 4 people using the word 'nerd'. Three of them were anti-
SOPA!

So what? Were they anti-SOPA from the beginning, or just when we started
getting serious pressure applied... Even if they were instinctively anti-SOPA,
would it be fine if they refer to you as something similar to carnival show
(okay, that's a geek), as opposed to a concerned expert in the field? That was
at least my take-away from the clip, have not watched the full episode yet.

Do they refer to bankers as Till Fiddling Cash Rapists? Decorum counts for
something, and we are not a side-show.

~~~
JeremyBanks
You're currently attacking some of the representatives who actually tried to
prevent/mitigate the damage of SOPA (yes, before the PR storm) over some
quotes you've heard out of context. The term "experts" actually was used as
well, it's just not good comedy fodder.

You shouldn't comment if you aren't at all informed on the subject.

~~~
un1xl0ser
My point was not to attack those people, that word means something different.
What if they would refer to a member of the Marines as a jarhead?

My point was that The Daily Show may be slightly anti-SOPA by being liberal,
but they still have a point about the fact that they:

a) don't understand what they are legislating and rely on experts b) don't
appear to have enough respect to refer to these experts as anything other than
nerds

I don't care if they are for or against SOPA, that was not my point.

~~~
thebigshane
The fact that these Anti-SOPA people had enough respect for experts to seek
their advice means more to me than the words they used.

Some people really aren't offended by the term `nerd` or `geek` or even,
apparently, `l0ser`.

------
trun
I'm glad to see Stewart finally give this issue some coverage. I actually
think the more interesting part of this bit was his montage of Daily Show
clips using "copyrighted" content. It really underscores the importance of
fair use and the grey area that makes copyright violations such a difficult
area to police. The nerds bit was funny, but it was just the usual mockery of
our elected officials he usually does.

~~~
sage_joch
Lawrence Lessig has argued that fair use is not serving its intended purpose:
"In theory, fair use means you need no permission... But in practice, fair use
functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of the law, tied to the
extraordinary liability if lines are crossed, means that the effective fair
use for many types of creators is slight."

So yes, it's available to people/organizations with deep pockets (like The
Daily Show), but the majority of people take on considerable risk when they
try to leverage it.

------
ck2
Is "geek" too cool of a word now that they have to reach for the calculated
more insulting "nerd"?

(my apologies to proud nerds - but my point is that's not how they were using
it)

So if people who know what they are doing with computers are the equal of
geeks, do politicians think they are the dumb jocks in this high school
infantile throwdown?

~~~
cpeterso
These politicians used the insult "nerd" because they are trying to paint SOPA
protesters in a negative light and to distance themselves from responsibility
for the legislation's ill effects. ("How should I have known that would happen
after we passed SOPA? I'm not a nerd!")

~~~
ck2
Actually they used to have a department that informed them of all these things
in a non-partisan basis. But they shut them down.

<http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/>

I'd like to think this problem will be solved when any of them over 60 now
will eventually die off but unfortunately they also awarded themselves gold
plated heath care.

Ignorance knows no term limits and is somehow rewarded instead.

ETA: added this if anyone wants to discuss OTA further:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3488826>

~~~
pgeorgi
Given the right position ignorance is pure gold (eg. delivered as cheques by
lobbyists), no matter if "over 60" or not.

We have a couple of 30-somethings in German government, they "don't get it"
(and/or don't want to) either.

So I'd advise against only relying on the "biological solution".

------
jerfelix
I thought that Stewart made the congresspersons on the Nerds clip look all
look like ignorant supporters of SOPA.

The last speaker, Jason Chaffetz, who said "maybe we ought to ask some nerds
what this really does" was in opposition to SOPA.

Chaffetz has spoken out against SOPA since at least December 7th. See this
clip: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQJrNpAcT84> , where he also uses the
term "nerds", but he's saying it in opposition to SOPA. And this clip about
keeping the internet open, which dates back to 12/7:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t0Pl83_Apo> .

So, yeah, Jon Stewart is funny, but he'll use clips to make his point. This
sometimes leaves the viewers with an unfairly tainted view of the person in
the clip.

~~~
brown9-2
I disagree. It doesn't make Chaffetz look like a SOPA supporter. It just makes
him look like someone who believes in stereotypes and put-downs.

------
AgentConundrum
I was glad to see him call them out on that. I made a similar comment here on
HN about a month ago[1] saying that calling on "nerds", to me, implied a lack
of respect. The replies I received, however, seemed to disagree.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358472>

~~~
InclinedPlane
I think what you were seeing was that many "nerds" don't see the term as
particularly derogatory and even self-describe as such, though I suspect
several of the congressmen did mean to be derogatory in their use of it.

~~~
firefoxman1
It's derogatory because they used it in a way to imply that they didn't
particularly want to be associated with the group labeled "nerds." I've always
preferred the term "geek." Anyone else feel the same way?

~~~
georgieporgie
I've always thought "geeks" were Mac users (that was the crowd from which I
heard the term used most, back in my Amiga days), and nerds were nerds. That
said, I may call myself a nerd, you you best not be calling me a nerd. ;-)

Seriously, though, for a group of people who like to call each other out on
standards of conduct, it's pretty appalling that they used a derogatory term
to jokingly dismiss their utter lack of expertise in the area.

~~~
jaredsohn
Here's how someone on urbandictionary differentiates the terms
(<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=geek>):

................ Technical ...... Social

Title ............ Skills ......... Skills

\---------- ---------------- ------------

Normie ......... No ............. Yes

Geek ........... Yes ............. Yes

Nerd ............ Yes ............. No

Dork ............ No .............. No

------
hko
Really? "Nerds?" I think the word you're looking for is "experts."

------
sage_joch
Fun fact: the SOPA page on Wikipedia was still accessible during the blackout.

~~~
Sapient
It wasn't initially, they corrected that fairly early in the day though.

------
RyanMcGreal
Canadian link:

[http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPacka...](http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=102094)

~~~
dhughes
Ironic and sad having to do this has become so commonplace nobody even blinks
even more so considering the subject.

I refuse to use region specific links like that. Sure the two are separate
channels but breaking up the world into specific regions just segregates the
Internet into castes of countries. There's no reason I a Canadian shouldn't be
able to click that link and view Comedy Central a website on the _world wide_
web.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
All I can say is that the irony of my comment wasn't lost on me. :(

------
bane
When I was a kid, nerds were picked on...now Congress is feeling threatened by
us and calling our class out by name. _That_ is a change as big as the
technology the nerds brought about.

------
galaktor
The video linked in the article was not available here (Ireland), so for all
others affected, this should be it:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSc9eKOcH3w>

~~~
bad_user
It's funny because it is available in Romania/Europe.

~~~
galaktor
Last time I checked, Ireland was still part of Europe :-)

~~~
bad_user
That's why I said Romania. Most online content is usually blocked for me. Even
YouTube wouldn't allow me for a long time to create an account tied with
Google Apps, as the feature wasn't available in my country.

That's why I said it is funny - usually these websites are excluding
everything but the US with maybe Germany and UK added later. However in this
instance I think they've got a black list - as in, allow everyone except these
countries, like Ireland (allow all versus disallow all + exceptions).

~~~
dhimes
Interesting: I'm in the US and the vid wouldn't play for me either. Galaktor's
link does, however. Perhaps it's something else but censorship?

EDIT: mis-credited the link

------
nekojima
I am happy to be called a geek, nerd or expert. Thank you for the complement.
:-)

~~~
trentmb
In this case, however, they're laughing at you, not with you.

~~~
tfb
The joke is on them, however. "Nerds" always win in the end.

This whole SOPA thing - or variations thereof - will only be small hiccup in
the grand scheme of things. The advancement of technology and its ensuing
freedom will trump any current setbacks. When the older generations move on
and those who have grown up with the power of technology at their fingertips
are in power, who have relatively open minds and understand the freedoms that
technology provides, I think we'll really see some accelerated progression in
both tech and overall quality of life for everyone.

We should definitely continue to try to pave the way for future generations
and reduce these setbacks, but I believe the fact still remains that freedom
through technology is inevitable. It may take another couple of centuries of
dealing with ignorant politicians, general closed-mindedness, and corporation
unwillingness to innovate and change with the times... but we'll get there. I
just wish we could live to see it.

I'm afraid future generations won't appreciate it like we would.

~~~
ajuc
> The advancement of technology and its ensuing freedom will trump any current
> setbacks. When the older generations move on and those who have grown up
> with the power of technology at their fingertips are in power, who have
> relatively open minds and understand the freedoms that technology provides,
> I think we'll really see some accelerated progression in both tech and
> overall quality of life for everyone.

I'd like this to happen, but this seems to me very similiar to each past
generation idee fix.

First christians in Rome in first century thought when everybody will convert,
there would be obviously no sins, and it will be almost haeven on earth. They
were right with conversion dynamic, but wrong with the social implications.

The same for revolutionists, romantic nationalists, liberals, communists,
hippies, and now it's our turn. Every time the change happened, but the
consequences were not exactly as bright, as young idealists predicted.

I'd put my money on this time being exactly the same.

------
wrs
I suppose this is only fair, as I certainly use the term "politician" with the
same dismissive tone of voice on occasion. And I have to admit that there are
skills involved in being a successful politician that I don't much care to
understand or appreciate. So henceforth I will use the term with more respect.
Perhaps they will do the same someday.

------
nodemaker
On the positive side, this whole anti-"nerd" attitude actually inspires people
to become tech-entrepreneurs who are financially and socially powerful.

------
salem
This is where it's all heading <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy>

~~~
Karunamon
I really wish I had the karma to downvote this. Idiocracy was a funny story,
but it's hardly a documentary. Every time someone brings it up seriously, I
die a little bit inside.

~~~
jordan0day
Eh, you could say the same thing about any "cautionary tale". Unless it's not
a funny story, but you know what I mean.

But I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I'm constantly torn between believing that we're really living in novel times,
and the cliche that "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
That is, three hundred years ago, there were _a lot_ of ignorant, illiterate,
and quite possibly just plain _dumb_ people. The writings that survive from
that period and that we're most exposed to today tend to be from the most
educated folks, though. So it's easy to get the _sense_ that everyone in 1712
was highly intelligent, had a great grasp of the English language, also knew
at least Latin, and probably French, too, and that they always had
interesting, novel thoughts. Then when you look around the world today, it's
easy to convince yourself that society has really deteriorated.

On the flip side, there really are a lot of ignorant and just plain _dumb_
people today, too. People who say "We're turning into _Idiocracy_!!!!"
recognize this, but they perhaps don't recognize that we _used_ to be
_Idiocracy_ too. Perhaps we've _always_ been _Idiocracy_?

~~~
jff
We're _all_ DEVO!

------
nsxwolf
That's one tough to parse headline.

------
mjwalshe
And we are surprised by this? as the US is like the UK where a lot if not the
majority of politicians and the 1% are lawyers.

Out in the real world "engineers" are considered the little chap in oily
overalls (and a flat cap) who "fixes up the roller dont cha know"

Oh and that's how real engineers are seen in teh UK not some hobby php
programmer cobbling together some online shoe shop by cutting and pasting

