you work too hard, you outsouce your mundane tasks, you won't unplug, you make a lot of money, your baby cries for mommy.

the only person asking you to do it...is you.

I have a lot of programmer friends, some of whom also contribute to open source and some who don't. My perception is that the ones who contribute to open source do so because they love hacking on code and are doing it all the time anyway. To put it another way, the only people writing open source software who don't love it are the ones being paid by a company to write it.

I would compare it to a freelance writer who also has a blog. They are giving away their writing for free, but the professional networking and personal advertising aspect of the blog is mostly a side-benefit. If they're doing it just to get noticed, it's probably going to suck.

Back then, from about 1948 to 1953, I nearly always had a novel open on my school desk mixed with my text books and note books.

This was because I found the lessons too slow.

As a teacher one has to repeat, revise, and incorporate redundancy in ones presentation of the material.

To hold your students attention you need to giive them drama, like live laboratory demonstrations, and audio-visual fun "as seen on TV".

Conley makes several excellent points that I feel require a response. Generally, I agree that what passes as productivity today has drastically shifted, as has the concept of work. However, I worry about this blurring of personal and professional roles. As liberating as it is, it likely offers new challenges for youth that we cannot yet forsee. I feel that as an educator that most students are not able to keep their minds from wandering when multitasking, although they will certainly tell you quite the opposite. I write this with no small amount of conflict myself, as someone who blurs various roles, and although gainfully employed, eschews office space.

In response to Hugh Watkins - Neil Postman posited that the danger in educational television is not that it encourages learning, but that students would begin to expect the classroom to function as entertainment. This has certainly come to pass. "Drama" and "audio-visual fun" are not really the answer, nor the solution, but part of an immersive environment educators must compete with daily.

I'm sure I've got much wrong and am trying to explain too much in too little space (and would need a book) but here is my perspective.

Well, maybe I'm a little quaint but I always thought that there was a major point of having all the extra technology. Advances such as the car, microwave, dishwasher,heavy machinery, medical advances, robots, computer and cellphone were to give us more time. Isn't our time the most valueable thing? Fifty years ago there was predictions that the future was to behold the leisure class - that productivity was suppose to release us from the drudgery of work.

Then, somewhere in there, work became exciting. Work gave us meaning (and a bonus of money). High productivity workers were praised, promoted, given bonuses (golden handcuffs) and used as a role model. Leisure definitely fell to the wayside as an afterthought - a realm of the lazy crowd. Work ethic pushed us to work productively harder, longer and more effectively. Much of the facebooking, e-mailing, texting and blogging is to build networks and contacts as much as enjoyment. Businesses seek these precious productive workers.

All this money in these wealthy workers seems to have pushed them to produce more money in more effective ways. They now had the means to buy capital - and did so in droves. You know how it works - get your money to work for you (work smarter, not harder). Real estate boomed and rents soared as new speculative buyers attempted to cash in on "the dream". House prices rose and so did the labour costs, material costs and middlemen fees. Everyone made money. An upward spiral of money-working-for-you-speculation. Yayy. Unfortunately it was based upon some lies, false hope and bad math. It became a ponzi scheme in need of buyers.

And what is even more ridiculous is that the bailouts and stimulus packages are built upon the premise of future generations paying for it all. To do so, some of the workers will have to be more productive and paid better - possibly allowing for another generation to attempt buy capital and so on.

I'm sure high productive workers are anxious. It seems no matter how hard or how smart they work there is few gains in hard times. The wave that raised all boats has passed and now all boats seems to be falling. Everyone wants to be the genius who avoided the depression.

There really is an ugly income gap. It is disastrous for the poor and near impossible to escape. Previously two-tiered services has now found a near-empty middle ground and few lost cost providers. The hierarchy is reaching fuedalistic proportions. Everything is tilted to accomodate the rich. It has grown to the point where a poor worker, no matter how hard they work, will never keep up with the wealth providers and will never live to their parents lifestyle.

The problem of trying to bail out the distressed homebuyers is that it will only perpetuate what has already happened. Rich workers will work that much harder and use their wealth to work for them again. Speculation will resume in earnest. House prices had been too high for a long time and threaten to become so again with government propping them up. The banks realize this and will let prices drop until a bottom is found.

I think a real return to the leisure dream needs to occur. Productive workers can put their skills to solving social issues instead of self-serving purposes. Fantasy? Yeah, sure but then so is a speedy recovery. At least their anxiety will be quelled with the gift of productive charity. Additionally a much heavier tax needs to be introduced to the speculation class. The fear that they will be underutilized, disinclined due to taxes, wasted or squandered has been shown as a false fear now that we have seen how such selfish productiveness also can become destructive to the whole society.