Excellent interview!

A few weeks ago, I read MACHINE MAN, a novel by Max Barry in which the protagonist loses a leg in an industrial accident. Deciding he’s unhappy with the prosthetic legs available to him, he builds himself a better leg (with WiFi!) … but of course, then he’s stuck with one, inadequate human leg and his far superior “better” leg. I’ll give you three guesses what happens next. The novel is somewhat tongue-in-cheek in the way it follows this progression to its conclusion, but it really digs down and addresses some of the big questions this sort of transhumanist approach to augmentation raises.

Well said, Celeste. It's like this xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/903/

I think you nailed it when you called it a "mindset" and mentioned having "confidence and a willingness to explore." For example, say you are presenting a PowerPoint show, and the projector isn't communicating with one's computer. To me, a "tech savvy" person doesn't wait for the technician to show up; he or she fiddles with the computer settings and tinkers to try to get the projector working. One might not succeed at this, but it's the act of taking that additional step that earns one the "tech savvy" accolade.

That confidence, of course, can often come from experience. As one becomes more experienced, more literate in computers and how different programs work, one usually sees patterns in those programs. Becoming "tech savvy" means making that transition from, "Why isn't it Program A working??" to "Hmm, Program A isn't working. But I had a similar problem once with Program B, and *this* fixed it. I wonder if Program A is the same…." And there are levels of tech savviness! Some people are savvy with, say, Windows, and that's it—that's all they need, and that works for them. Other people are savvy with quite a few different operating systems: Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, etc. And some people are truly tech gods. "Tech savvy" is not just a single state of being but a continuum predicated on a willingness to engage with technology and learn about it.

I think there is a difference between being a "digital native" and being "tech savvy". Not everyone who is "tech savvy" is a "digital native" (some are "digital immigrants", if you will). And I would argue that the majority of "digital natives" are not tech savvy. Many, if not most, of my peers are digital natives; we were the first and second wave of teens growing up with the Web already established in our household. Not all of my peers are tech savvy though—they might have cell phones and use Facebook, but they will be just as lost as their parents if their computer begins malfunctioning.

She's not saying that police intrusions are less of a concern but that there are better checks in place against such intrusions and systems for dealing with such intrusions than there are for corporate intrusions. The police ultimately answer to the government and the people, but because it's more difficult to follow where one's information diffuses throughout the corporate sphere, a similar mechanism is harder to implement for corporations.

I thought Stoddart was anti-anti-business throughout this interview, since she repeatedly emphasized self-moderating privacy guidelines for business groups rather than more legislation and more government regulation.

I am concerned about the way that Facebook's attitude toward privacy has been changing. Matt McKeon created a great visualization of how Facebook's default privacy settings have changed since 2005:http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/ It shows the definite evolution toward less privacy by default.

The recent announcement that Facebook's "instant personalization" of other websites would be opt-OUT rankled me. That's exactly the sort of feature that should be opt-in because of its invasive, privacy-abrogating nature.

However, I'm not going to leave Facebook. I Facebook responsibly. I put only what I want to share with the rest of the world online, whether it's on Facebook or some other site. Most of my biographical information and interests are available on my website to the public at large, so why shouldn't they be available on Facebook too? I don't use many Facebook apps, either. Probably the worst case scenario is if a friend posts an embarrassing photo of me on Facebook and makes it available to the public--but leaving Facebook won't prevent that from happening. I'd have to ask the friend to remove it, and not do it again. I might even send the message by Facebook. . . .

Facebook should be censured for its approach to privacy, yes. But I don't think leaving Facebook is necessary yet. The privacy settings, when configured properly, do make it possible to Facebook responsibly. What matters is educating people so they're aware of how to use their privacy settings--and why it's so important.

Agreed about the segments!

Also, Nora gets mucho bonus points for using the word "bailiwick."

Do they have repair instructions for a time machine?

My first gen iPod nano broke last week, and I bought a replacement first gen iPod nano from eBay. It was only $37, and with 2 GB of space it's an upgrade from my 1 GB one. Had I known about iFixit, however, I would have thought twice. I can't wield a soldering gun to save my life, but I happen to have a brother who does these things.

Now I have an extra iPod nano that's in good condition aside from a battery that doesn't charge and a display that doesn't work. Is there a complementary site that matches me up with a DIY enthusiast who wants to repair an iPod nano but doesn't happen to have one? I could then ship it to him or her and feel less wasteful.

Thinking of _music_ as having soul seems rather backward. It's not the music that has the soul. I agree with Cope when he says that music has no inherent meaning. It's the listener who ascribes meaning to a piece, and hence, if the listener is the one, if anyone, who has a soul.

Now, when we create computers that are moved by music, that will be exciting. But for now, the ability to be moved by music is unique to humans, and that's something one can cherish.

Loved the interview. I appreciate that you took the time, Nora, to ask Marie some really great questions: to differentiate between the benefits of cell phones vs. similar technology, to explore the potential for more rigorous studies, to identify the motivations of the company sponsoring this project, etc. That's why I listen to Spark.

As a teacher-in-training, I'm excited by the prospects new technologies have for improving classroom experiences. However, like Chris above, I'm sceptical of any attempts to apply technology for technology's sake (whether it's because the companies have a business interest or just because "it's cool" and should therefore be used). It's very easy to get carried away.

I don't agree that "people who just don't gel with how computers work" exist. Perhaps there are people with a learning disorder similar to computers as dyslexia is to reading, but we don't give up on trying to teach dyslexic children how to read.

I don't think we _have_ been trying very hard. I learned how to type in elementary school, and that was it. In grade nine, we did the compulsory "integrated technology" course for Ontario high schools. Neither teacher nor students took the course very seriously.

The answer is not "more education" but "better education." For instance, education that teaches people the difference between a real login page and a fake login page. That's not something kids should have to learn "on the street" (if they ever learn it at all).