zlacker

Thank you for your comments and consideration of our time. I think it was Stanislaw Lem that said there is so much poor quality writing out there, reviewers should present the materials they find good in, rather than the bad--I know that's a bit different than what you are saying, but still relevant.

> think for themselves

That always interests me.

[edit]

I just read this paper in detail. Adding to coincidence here, I kept thinking back to Lem's Pirx the Pilot series and The Cyberiad. It makes me want to read more about the Lindbergh family. Also, it touches on another topic I was thinking about tonight, the thread on HN about Finnish as a universal language when Leary writes:

> French philosophy, for example, has recently stressed the importance of language and semiotics in determining human behavior and social structures.

this also extends to computer languages, IMO. Pointy haired bosses and their languages of choice is the modern equivalent of the mutation of the "pilot" to the "steerer" in his Greek to Roman example. I found this paper thought provoking, but like his LSD campaign, misguided in its exuberance of the benefits of the "Cyborg" experience. There are drawbacks. Who's to say the computer as rudder won't become the steerer, among other "bad things"?

>>stew-j+(OP)
In other words, like hallucinogens, computers and "cyber-enhanced" reality aren't necessarily bad medicine, but they are strong medicine. Playing them off as "cool" and enhancements worth trying without considering the drawbacks as well as benefits at hand is irresponsible.

The Greeks also gave us the example of Pandora's Box.