The old sub was the best...when I was a kid, I used to go to junk yards with my dad just HOPING to find something so cool. Back the in the fifties and sixties kids could do that kind of thing. My dad once found a Rolls Royce airplane engine, still in the packing crate in a junk yard.
Between The Mad Scientists Club and Alan Mendelsohn, The Boy from Mars (Daniel M Pinkwater) I don't know if I could pick a favorite; I think I've read those books at least 250 times each.
IANAL-so this is just personal opinion from an American citizen
On Question 1
I do not think code, in its everyday use form, is expressive, at least in the manner that Sullivan is attempting to argue. Code is basically English (for us) words put into a specific and rigid form, much like a sonnet in Iambic Pent or a Haiku; yet the purpose of code is different. It is designed to convey in a high-level manner a method or procedure to a computing device. That is no more expressive than me giving you directions to my house. Surely you can arugue that code can be beautiful, much like a well written play on words such as a sonnet. You can say that code can be rhythmic, or have an interesting patterned form. But when it comes right down to it, the ability of that code to be compiled and executed is its purpose.
I think Sullivan is walking a thin line here, and providing the judges an easy way out. Why doesn't she just attack the issue head on? The concept of code as expression is interesting, but I just don't see how it is relevant, given my belief that we shouldn't be arguing special case crap like that. We need to score an OVERWHELMING victory by making the government realize that code is the same as a written delineation of a task...as simply as I could freely write a copywritten manual as to how to open up a bank vault by listening to the tumblers, I should be able to write a manual as to how to do the same to the encryption scheme on a DVD.
Never before have restrictions been placed on free speech except on cases of public safety or national security, unless the speech would violate a binding and accepted contract or is false (slander/libel). I can't yell fire in a theater and I can't say that the Ford Explorer has rollover problems without evidence, but I certainly can write about how I've determined how a Master lock works and how to circumvent it. It seems to me that the MPAA (as is the RIAA) is attempting to use censorship as an easy route to avoiding more costly and subjective copyright infringement and intellectual property damage lawsuits. At least in the country I live in, it is still their burden of proof--DMCA or no. It is this that Sullivan must argue. The Government's use of "digital crowbar" is interesting...I didn't know crowbars were illegal. I didn't know that telling people how to USE a crowbar illegally was illegal. I thought that USING a crowbar in an illegal manner was illegal, and again our system of justice requires proof, evidence, that I committed an illegal act. Certainly, the MPAA would argue that they should be allowed to market a movie where Nicholas Cage uses a crowbar to illegally gain entry to a vehicle and illegally steal it. Until we, as a country, can get over this inability to see code as a mechanism, every bit as real as a hammer or Master lock, we are doomed to repeat this argument. If devices are examined at a logical level (where code lives) then there is NO difference between a physical entity and virtual one. That is where we must make our decisions of law.
So in closing, is all code "expressive"? No. Can code be labelled "expressive", sure. Does any of this matter to the case at hand? NO.
On Question 2
Fair use is a sticky topic, and definitely one that needs to be talked about. Personally, I think that fair use is beginning to border on consumer protection. For instance, could the MPAA advocate selling a DVD that would only work for 30 minutes and have to wait 5 minutes to work again? Certainly. I think we are getting into a gray area where what I pay for isn't necessarily what I get anymore. When I buy a DVD, I am buying the viewing rights to that flick. Under old copyright law, I was to be allowed to do WHATEVER I wanted to that movie, as long as I didn't redistribute the viewing privileges. Now, I pay for viewing privileges but am restricted from even watching the movie in its highest quality form. So what did I buy? Consumers need to be informed about DVD...and we need to boycott their purchase. That is "old market".
Once again we are arguing the same arguement: is DVD different than any other product? No, and it should not be. I should have fair use of the work as it is sold to me (that is, in full digital glory) not some half-assed video from TV. If the MPAA would like to argue that somehow the work is worth "more" at different quality levels, let them...but I don't think they would dare. The work is the work--whether in analog or digital, the format we are presented with is a subset of that. When I pay for a DVD, I am paying for rights to view the work, not the rights to play a DVD specifically. Under old copyright law it was specifically delineated that I was able to transfer that work to other media, so the right does not end at the media. The DMCA is directly at odds with this, and in a very un-"consumer protection" way. While we are looking at this, why don't we start paying more attention to possible instances of collusion between the MPAA and the DVD manufacturers. Are they ripping off the consumers?
The fair use arguments are another poor vantage point from which to argue our rights, and I really don't like this take. Essentially we have retreated from fighting for EVERYONE'S fair use, to only a few. That is crap. If I, as a citizen and consumer, have fair use, then so will everyone else (education). It is much harder to regain ground once you have conceded it, and make no mistake, we are conceded ground by fighting this battle like this. Again, we must re-examine what the MPAA is asking: they are asking to be able to sell you the rights to a product but continue to restrict your use of it, without any evidence that you are using it improperly---I don't see "fair use" in that. Do they have the right to put copy encryption on it? Yes. Should they be able to outlaw the reverse engineering of it? No. They cannot fairly have their cake and eat it too.
I really enjoyed Bill Joy's article in Wired last summer. But sometimes he sure can wander.
Why don't these artists that yell and scream about copyright infringement voluntarily release that "magic number"--how much they make per song (average) from the record companies? Could it be they don't want us to know? I'd have to say that it is probably pretty small, compared to what the record companies take. I'm not talking about how much they get paid for touring and whatnot, I'm talking about how much they get for selling a CD. Take out the cost of the CD manufacturing, the payoffs to Tower, and everything that deals with distribution. Napster doesn't need that. What you're left with is embarrassing...ask Courtney Love.
Furthermore, let's start looking at all the money the record companies are generating from the information of the buying public (our PRIVACY!) like demographic info and the ad revenues from Pepsi and crap. Suddenly, what Napster users are stealing doesn't look so significant. I'm not saying that infringing on copyright is okay or right, I'm saying that Napster is doing a better job of distribution than the idiots that are fighting it. Napster is more efficient, convenient, and less politcal. Copyright is about discrimination, it is about making sure that somebody else isn't making money off of your music---passing it off as theirs or bilking you. But if you are using a more expensive method of copying and distribution, let's call a spade a spade. I can't empathize with you anymore.
This whole thing reminds me of the Hitch Hiker's Guide, where all the third class citizens crash land on Earth and decide to use leaves as currency. They have to resort to burning down the forest to stem the counterfitting problem!
On a different note, if one more technologist (or even just somebody posing as an intelligent person) tries to tell me how great ASP stuff is going to be and how great optical networks are going to make my life, I will PUKE! The same greed mentality that has the record companies covering their asses exists in the Telecom world and the energy world. Hello Bill, wake up! If your precious optical network got built, every telecom, cable, satellite, and who knows what else provider would shrivel. It won't happen, they will make sure of it... sure the "network" will get built out, but it will look more like the duct system in Brazil than your utopia. I guarantee it. Why? Because as a consumer culture we are lazy and stupid and unable to force the companies to REALLY give us what we want.
And for my last rant: why does everone insist on saying that the Internet is to blame for all these problems? IT IS NOT! Sure it makes it easier, but it is merely an offshoot of the real "problem"---digitization. I have been copying software since 1982. Why? How? There was no internet! Because it is infinitely easy to make an EXACT duplicate of something that is comprised of nothing but zeros and ones when you have a device that reads and writes zeros and ones. And Bill Joy is worried about the book world--who is he kidding? Bookmaking has been primarily digital for at least 20 years, it is just that the publishers have not "released" the digital source and OCR technology hasn't stepped it up yet. I guarantee you that PDF and the e-books will eventually do to the book what "digital" music has done to musicians. And we'll be in this same argument...if that is what he worries about I worry about him. How many trees do we need to keep chopping down so Bill Joy can have little pieces of PAPER to copyright?
Eventually these morons will begin to see what copyright REALLY is about: credit. (and not credit cards) Whether or not YOU, the author, gets CREDIT for what you wrote, and maybe some form of renumeration.
Only in America could we be so bold as to rather DESTROY our creations than let them out of our CONTROL.
One of the greatest concerns that I have with the "online" presence of many of these political organizations is the blatant disregard for "The Truth" that some have. You mentioned in your article that the AlGore2000.org site seems unwilling to discuss the mechanics behind several of his proposals...to me this is nearly the same as writing a scientific paper with NO references or bibliography. Yet this behavior has become acceptable and commonplace in the polical arena. (In the media too, but that is another matter.)
How is an intelligent citizen to be assured that the information being presented is accurate, and, more importantly, complete? For an example, one needs to look no further than Maryland Governor Parris Glendenning's recent reference to youth handgun violence statistics that were obviously gleaned from Handgun Control Inc., although Glendenning says otherwise, that turned out to be nearly 200% overinflated compared to the actual FBI Crime statistics. HCI quickly corrected the info, with NO mention that previous info had been incorrect, and Glendenning made no further retraction or correction of his statement.
With politicians using such inaccurate information, and pushing it to eyeballs on websites, where is a person who is seeking The Truth to go?
Journalistic ethic seems to have died with Perry White (of Superman fame).
I'm sure that T. Jefferson and the boys would be shocked.
I think the political situation in this country has gravitated to the same point that it had when the Republican party formed out of the Democratic party.
On one side we have (have had, even) the Right spewing about getting government off their back (2nd Amendment), yet at the same time forcing their Christian Coalistion morality crap down everyone's throat. To me, these are opposite efforts.
But lately, on the other side, you have the Left censoring and stealing the rights of law-abiding citizens in the name of "saving" the children.
So which side am I to choose? I am a Democrat, although I'm not so sure that I can take another emotion-filled plea to pass more worhtless legislation that takes away MY rights -- how could any intelligent person GIVE AWAY their rights? -- because a bunch of other Democrats are so fearful for their children. And, not being a "God fearing Amer'can", I certainly can't vote for any more infusion of Church into State by backing Republicans.
This has got to end. The problem is, there seems to be no independent party that is SANE enough to rise out of the muck (Libertarians are who I'm specifically aiming at here.)
One point that I haven't seen raised here is the QUALITY of the printed doc in question... I pretty much have felt that M$'s docs lately sucked anyway, so I wasn't sorry to see them go. GOOD docs that are in PAPER form are INDESPENSIBLE. I don't care what the software manu-s do, if they simply jam a paper manual into a PDF file, it is just not as useful. So I truly believe the question of electronic vs printed is quite dependent upon the product in question. If the manufacturer is simply unable to adequately document their product, any manual (printed or not) is WORTHLESS, and I could care less if they include it. Unfortunately, more and more companies are being this "dumb"; they realize that consumers aren't REQUIRING them to properly document their warez.... so fuck the consumer. If this wasn't true, Microsoft would have far smaller sales figures (c'mon, they make a LOT of technical products -- and not ONE good manual!)
The other thing that really upsets me is this idiotic belief that electronic manuals need to take the form of a "virtual" paper book. Isn't it kinda the reason that "virtual" is so nice???? That you can do things OUTSIDE of reality in the virtual world? I can't even begin to count how many times I have gotten PDF (or HTML) manuals that aren't hyperlinked. WHAT THE HELL USE IS THAT? In paper manuals, I can understand how bulky it would be to EXHAUSTIVELY counter-reference everything... but electronically this isn't an issue. Also, last I checked, I can't PRINT an animation on a piece of paper (outside of the Cracker Jack box illusions). How many electronic docs have you seen where they SHOW you what needs to be done? I mourn the passing of Apple's Guide help software... simply the BEST e-help yet invented. It could actually WALK YOU THROUGH steps. That is what ONLINE docs need to do... unfortunately they don't. Also, it is so aggravating to get a PDF file that has 1" margins on the top and sides and is formatted like a PAGE! Give me one file for printing and one for online viewing -- the sad thing is Adobe allows for this in PDF, just nobody uses it. Until the software companies "re-invent", or actually INVENT, a very good way to get detailed information to the user in an effective format, paper manuals aren't going anywhere. Can anyone say "multimedia"? And let me tell you, the dancing paper clip just isn't "a very good way". I have seen users SCREAM at the damn little thing; it is so "cute" as it sits there SMUGLY, not imparting to the users the info they desparately need.
Finally, a final nail in the paper book coffin WOULD be the fact that electronic docs are updated and expanded... yet I have NOT found a single online help repository where I actually said "Wow, that was even better than the manual". (Okay, so this is really still part of GIGO --Garbage In, Garbage Out). And more times than not, the companies are just so HAPPY to get the damn warez out that they don't even spend the time updating and expanding said help resources -- usually because they are too busy deciding how they are going to get your next $100. I mean, if you look at the proliferation of the "help" sites for computers, it is OBVIOUS that the computer industry is doing a TERRIBLE job of documenting their problems themselves. How many times have you seen something posted on a website about a bug a month before the manufacturer gets around to posting a Library article or update? Even the BSD and Linux info repositories are incomplete; I understand that much of the work is done by volunteers, but the software is only as good as its documentation.
Before companies should get off the hook of providing good manuals, users should agree that: 1. The company is capable of THOROUGHLY documenting product features and provides good troubleshooting information. 2. The company is ABLE to transform such information into adequate paper form. They don't have to, but the idea is that I can get a paper manual if I want one. 3. The company has spent the time and money to transform such information into an active and accurate website that is easy to navigate and is well organized. 4. The company has implemented an online help facility that interacts with the product and user in a context-sensitive way, answering questions as well as expanding knowledge. The expansion of knowledge is important... when I read a book, I am often able to expand what I know because I come across a chapter detailing features I was unaware of. If the help system merely "responds" to my queries, I may never know the right question to ask. Much like the Catch 22 of how a dictionary can't really help you to spell a word -- if you can't spell it, you probably won't find it in a dictionary that is organized by spelling. 5. The company then REDUCES the price of the product accordingly, passing the savings of both the reduction in packaging and lack of printing costs to the consumer. At one time, the argument went that software costs SOOO much because of packaging and documentation. In this day and age, a $1 CD and jewelcase hardly justifies the cost of Microsoft Office 2000. 6. The electronic documentation is accurate, cross-platform (TOTALLY!!!), well cross-referenced, informative, and formatted to COMPLEMENT the virtual experience.
But none of this will happen... as user's, we'll simply be fed what corporate wants to feed us.
Over the past several months (really since the millenium craze took hold, I guess) I have begun to notice a very disheartening shift in the posting at Slashdot. At one time, anyone agreeing with WAVE or gun control or any other forms of overt fascism would have been flamed unmercifully. But not in the present...
We live in the United States of America, a country based in the rights of citizens, and yet we are allowing a most greivous threat to be mounted against the ideals that this very country is built upon... and for what? Fear. Pure and simple. Fear, the cornerstone of fascism. Except this time around, we have only OURSELVES to blame -- there is no dictator or fringe party. All this is occuring in the hearts and minds of "good" people who are afraid.
Personally I think that we, as a society, have become so entrentched in the concept of being "taken care of" by the government, that we are now helpless in the face of fear. We are unable to make sound judgements and tremble in mistrust of our fellow Americans. Somebody must help us.
Well, I, right here and right now, willfully and knowingly provide that I require no help... I believe in the rights of our citizens, and trust in their judgements. I also believe that no citizen -- no informed, intelligent, and patriotic citizen -- can give resonable tolerance to WAVE, or any of the other actions that persons living within this country, calling themselves citizens, have profered to "help" us, conceived in humilation, harassment, and suppression of freedoms. No, these persons are not citizens, although they may believe themselves to be; they do not put forth the thought or bravery needed to hold up the moniker "American". The Constitution of this land does not need altered; in fact, what is needed is for it to be followed.
Slashdot Mirror
Between The Mad Scientists Club and Alan Mendelsohn, The Boy from Mars (Daniel M Pinkwater) I don't know if I could pick a favorite; I think I've read those books at least 250 times each.
On Question 1
I do not think code, in its everyday use form, is expressive, at least in the manner that Sullivan is attempting to argue. Code is basically English (for us) words put into a specific and rigid form, much like a sonnet in Iambic Pent or a Haiku; yet the purpose of code is different. It is designed to convey in a high-level manner a method or procedure to a computing device. That is no more expressive than me giving you directions to my house. Surely you can arugue that code can be beautiful, much like a well written play on words such as a sonnet. You can say that code can be rhythmic, or have an interesting patterned form. But when it comes right down to it, the ability of that code to be compiled and executed is its purpose.
I think Sullivan is walking a thin line here, and providing the judges an easy way out. Why doesn't she just attack the issue head on? The concept of code as expression is interesting, but I just don't see how it is relevant, given my belief that we shouldn't be arguing special case crap like that. We need to score an OVERWHELMING victory by making the government realize that code is the same as a written delineation of a task...as simply as I could freely write a copywritten manual as to how to open up a bank vault by listening to the tumblers, I should be able to write a manual as to how to do the same to the encryption scheme on a DVD.
Never before have restrictions been placed on free speech except on cases of public safety or national security, unless the speech would violate a binding and accepted contract or is false (slander/libel). I can't yell fire in a theater and I can't say that the Ford Explorer has rollover problems without evidence, but I certainly can write about how I've determined how a Master lock works and how to circumvent it. It seems to me that the MPAA (as is the RIAA) is attempting to use censorship as an easy route to avoiding more costly and subjective copyright infringement and intellectual property damage lawsuits. At least in the country I live in, it is still their burden of proof--DMCA or no. It is this that Sullivan must argue.
The Government's use of "digital crowbar" is interesting...I didn't know crowbars were illegal. I didn't know that telling people how to USE a crowbar illegally was illegal. I thought that USING a crowbar in an illegal manner was illegal, and again our system of justice requires proof, evidence, that I committed an illegal act. Certainly, the MPAA would argue that they should be allowed to market a movie where Nicholas Cage uses a crowbar to illegally gain entry to a vehicle and illegally steal it. Until we, as a country, can get over this inability to see code as a mechanism, every bit as real as a hammer or Master lock, we are doomed to repeat this argument. If devices are examined at a logical level (where code lives) then there is NO difference between a physical entity and virtual one. That is where we must make our decisions of law.
So in closing, is all code "expressive"? No. Can code be labelled "expressive", sure. Does any of this matter to the case at hand? NO.
On Question 2
Fair use is a sticky topic, and definitely one that needs to be talked about. Personally, I think that fair use is beginning to border on consumer protection. For instance, could the MPAA advocate selling a DVD that would only work for 30 minutes and have to wait 5 minutes to work again? Certainly. I think we are getting into a gray area where what I pay for isn't necessarily what I get anymore. When I buy a DVD, I am buying the viewing rights to that flick. Under old copyright law, I was to be allowed to do WHATEVER I wanted to that movie, as long as I didn't redistribute the viewing privileges. Now, I pay for viewing privileges but am restricted from even watching the movie in its highest quality form. So what did I buy? Consumers need to be informed about DVD...and we need to boycott their purchase. That is "old market".
Once again we are arguing the same arguement: is DVD different than any other product? No, and it should not be. I should have fair use of the work as it is sold to me (that is, in full digital glory) not some half-assed video from TV. If the MPAA would like to argue that somehow the work is worth "more" at different quality levels, let them...but I don't think they would dare. The work is the work--whether in analog or digital, the format we are presented with is a subset of that. When I pay for a DVD, I am paying for rights to view the work, not the rights to play a DVD specifically. Under old copyright law it was specifically delineated that I was able to transfer that work to other media, so the right does not end at the media. The DMCA is directly at odds with this, and in a very un-"consumer protection" way. While we are looking at this, why don't we start paying more attention to possible instances of collusion between the MPAA and the DVD manufacturers. Are they ripping off the consumers?
The fair use arguments are another poor vantage point from which to argue our rights, and I really don't like this take. Essentially we have retreated from fighting for EVERYONE'S fair use, to only a few. That is crap. If I, as a citizen and consumer, have fair use, then so will everyone else (education). It is much harder to regain ground once you have conceded it, and make no mistake, we are conceded ground by fighting this battle like this.
Again, we must re-examine what the MPAA is asking: they are asking to be able to sell you the rights to a product but continue to restrict your use of it, without any evidence that you are using it improperly---I don't see "fair use" in that. Do they have the right to put copy encryption on it? Yes. Should they be able to outlaw the reverse engineering of it? No.
They cannot fairly have their cake and eat it too.
Why don't these artists that yell and scream about copyright infringement voluntarily release that "magic number"--how much they make per song (average) from the record companies? Could it be they don't want us to know? I'd have to say that it is probably pretty small, compared to what the record companies take. I'm not talking about how much they get paid for touring and whatnot, I'm talking about how much they get for selling a CD. Take out the cost of the CD manufacturing, the payoffs to Tower, and everything that deals with distribution. Napster doesn't need that. What you're left with is embarrassing...ask Courtney Love.
Furthermore, let's start looking at all the money the record companies are generating from the information of the buying public (our PRIVACY!) like demographic info and the ad revenues from Pepsi and crap. Suddenly, what Napster users are stealing doesn't look so significant. I'm not saying that infringing on copyright is okay or right, I'm saying that Napster is doing a better job of distribution than the idiots that are fighting it. Napster is more efficient, convenient, and less politcal. Copyright is about discrimination, it is about making sure that somebody else isn't making money off of your music---passing it off as theirs or bilking you. But if you are using a more expensive method of copying and distribution, let's call a spade a spade. I can't empathize with you anymore.
This whole thing reminds me of the Hitch Hiker's Guide, where all the third class citizens crash land on Earth and decide to use leaves as currency. They have to resort to burning down the forest to stem the counterfitting problem!
On a different note, if one more technologist (or even just somebody posing as an intelligent person) tries to tell me how great ASP stuff is going to be and how great optical networks are going to make my life, I will PUKE! The same greed mentality that has the record companies covering their asses exists in the Telecom world and the energy world. Hello Bill, wake up! If your precious optical network got built, every telecom, cable, satellite, and who knows what else provider would shrivel. It won't happen, they will make sure of it... sure the "network" will get built out, but it will look more like the duct system in Brazil than your utopia. I guarantee it. Why? Because as a consumer culture we are lazy and stupid and unable to force the companies to REALLY give us what we want.
And for my last rant: why does everone insist on saying that the Internet is to blame for all these problems? IT IS NOT! Sure it makes it easier, but it is merely an offshoot of the real "problem"---digitization. I have been copying software since 1982. Why? How? There was no internet! Because it is infinitely easy to make an EXACT duplicate of something that is comprised of nothing but zeros and ones when you have a device that reads and writes zeros and ones. And Bill Joy is worried about the book world--who is he kidding? Bookmaking has been primarily digital for at least 20 years, it is just that the publishers have not "released" the digital source and OCR technology hasn't stepped it up yet. I guarantee you that PDF and the e-books will eventually do to the book what "digital" music has done to musicians. And we'll be in this same argument...if that is what he worries about I worry about him. How many trees do we need to keep chopping down so Bill Joy can have little pieces of PAPER to copyright?
Eventually these morons will begin to see what copyright REALLY is about: credit. (and not credit cards) Whether or not YOU, the author, gets CREDIT for what you wrote, and maybe some form of renumeration.
Only in America could we be so bold as to rather DESTROY our creations than let them out of our CONTROL.
One of the greatest concerns that I have with the "online" presence of many of these political organizations is the blatant disregard for "The Truth" that some have. You mentioned in your article that the AlGore2000.org site seems unwilling to discuss the mechanics behind several of his proposals...to me this is nearly the same as writing a scientific paper with NO references or bibliography. Yet this behavior has become acceptable and commonplace in the polical arena. (In the media too, but that is another matter.)
How is an intelligent citizen to be assured that the information being presented is accurate, and, more importantly, complete? For an example, one needs to look no further than Maryland Governor Parris Glendenning's recent reference to youth handgun violence statistics that were obviously gleaned from Handgun Control Inc., although Glendenning says otherwise, that turned out to be nearly 200% overinflated compared to the actual FBI Crime statistics. HCI quickly corrected the info, with NO mention that previous info had been incorrect, and Glendenning made no further retraction or correction of his statement.
With politicians using such inaccurate information, and pushing it to eyeballs on websites, where is a person who is seeking The Truth to go?
Journalistic ethic seems to have died with Perry White (of Superman fame).
I'm sure that T. Jefferson and the boys would be shocked.
I think the political situation in this country has gravitated to the same point that it had when the Republican party formed out of the Democratic party.
On one side we have (have had, even) the Right spewing about getting government off their back (2nd Amendment), yet at the same time forcing their Christian Coalistion morality crap down everyone's throat. To me, these are opposite efforts.
But lately, on the other side, you have the Left censoring and stealing the rights of law-abiding citizens in the name of "saving" the children.
So which side am I to choose? I am a Democrat, although I'm not so sure that I can take another emotion-filled plea to pass more worhtless legislation that takes away MY rights -- how could any intelligent person GIVE AWAY their rights? -- because a bunch of other Democrats are so fearful for their children. And, not being a "God fearing Amer'can", I certainly can't vote for any more infusion of Church into State by backing Republicans.
This has got to end. The problem is, there seems to be no independent party that is SANE enough to rise out of the muck (Libertarians are who I'm specifically aiming at here.)
One point that I haven't seen raised here is the QUALITY of the printed doc in question... I pretty much have felt that M$'s docs lately sucked anyway, so I wasn't sorry to see them go. GOOD docs that are in PAPER form are INDESPENSIBLE. I don't care what the software manu-s do, if they simply jam a paper manual into a PDF file, it is just not as useful. So I truly believe the question of electronic vs printed is quite dependent upon the product in question. If the manufacturer is simply unable to adequately document their product, any manual (printed or not) is WORTHLESS, and I could care less if they include it. Unfortunately, more and more companies are being this "dumb"; they realize that consumers aren't REQUIRING them to properly document their warez.... so fuck the consumer. If this wasn't true, Microsoft would have far smaller sales figures (c'mon, they make a LOT of technical products -- and not ONE good manual!)
The other thing that really upsets me is this idiotic belief that electronic manuals need to take the form of a "virtual" paper book. Isn't it kinda the reason that "virtual" is so nice???? That you can do things OUTSIDE of reality in the virtual world? I can't even begin to count how many times I have gotten PDF (or HTML) manuals that aren't hyperlinked. WHAT THE HELL USE IS THAT? In paper manuals, I can understand how bulky it would be to EXHAUSTIVELY counter-reference everything... but electronically this isn't an issue. Also, last I checked, I can't PRINT an animation on a piece of paper (outside of the Cracker Jack box illusions). How many electronic docs have you seen where they SHOW you what needs to be done? I mourn the passing of Apple's Guide help software... simply the BEST e-help yet invented. It could actually WALK YOU THROUGH steps. That is what ONLINE docs need to do... unfortunately they don't. Also, it is so aggravating to get a PDF file that has 1" margins on the top and sides and is formatted like a PAGE! Give me one file for printing and one for online viewing -- the sad thing is Adobe allows for this in PDF, just nobody uses it. Until the software companies "re-invent", or actually INVENT, a very good way to get detailed information to the user in an effective format, paper manuals aren't going anywhere. Can anyone say "multimedia"? And let me tell you, the dancing paper clip just isn't "a very good way". I have seen users SCREAM at the damn little thing; it is so "cute" as it sits there SMUGLY, not imparting to the users the info they desparately need.
Finally, a final nail in the paper book coffin WOULD be the fact that electronic docs are updated and expanded... yet I have NOT found a single online help repository where I actually said "Wow, that was even better than the manual". (Okay, so this is really still part of GIGO --Garbage In, Garbage Out). And more times than not, the companies are just so HAPPY to get the damn warez out that they don't even spend the time updating and expanding said help resources -- usually because they are too busy deciding how they are going to get your next $100. I mean, if you look at the proliferation of the "help" sites for computers, it is OBVIOUS that the computer industry is doing a TERRIBLE job of documenting their problems themselves. How many times have you seen something posted on a website about a bug a month before the manufacturer gets around to posting a Library article or update? Even the BSD and Linux info repositories are incomplete; I understand that much of the work is done by volunteers, but the software is only as good as its documentation.
Before companies should get off the hook of providing good manuals, users should agree that:
1. The company is capable of THOROUGHLY documenting product features and provides good troubleshooting information.
2. The company is ABLE to transform such information into adequate paper form. They don't have to, but the idea is that I can get a paper manual if I want one.
3. The company has spent the time and money to transform such information into an active and accurate website that is easy to navigate and is well organized.
4. The company has implemented an online help facility that interacts with the product and user in a context-sensitive way, answering questions as well as expanding knowledge. The expansion of knowledge is important... when I read a book, I am often able to expand what I know because I come across a chapter detailing features I was unaware of. If the help system merely "responds" to my queries, I may never know the right question to ask. Much like the Catch 22 of how a dictionary can't really help you to spell a word -- if you can't spell it, you probably won't find it in a dictionary that is organized by spelling.
5. The company then REDUCES the price of the product accordingly, passing the savings of both the reduction in packaging and lack of printing costs to the consumer. At one time, the argument went that software costs SOOO much because of packaging and documentation. In this day and age, a $1 CD and jewelcase hardly justifies the cost of Microsoft Office 2000.
6. The electronic documentation is accurate, cross-platform (TOTALLY!!!), well cross-referenced, informative, and formatted to COMPLEMENT the virtual experience.
But none of this will happen... as user's, we'll simply be fed what corporate wants to feed us.
Over the past several months (really since the millenium craze took hold, I guess) I have begun to notice a very disheartening shift in the posting at Slashdot. At one time, anyone agreeing with WAVE or gun control or any other forms of overt fascism would have been flamed unmercifully. But not in the present...
We live in the United States of America, a country based in the rights of citizens, and yet we are allowing a most greivous threat to be mounted against the ideals that this very country is built upon... and for what? Fear. Pure and simple. Fear, the cornerstone of fascism. Except this time around, we have only OURSELVES to blame -- there is no dictator or fringe party. All this is occuring in the hearts and minds of "good" people who are afraid.
Personally I think that we, as a society, have become so entrentched in the concept of being "taken care of" by the government, that we are now helpless in the face of fear. We are unable to make sound judgements and tremble in mistrust of our fellow Americans. Somebody must help us.
Well, I, right here and right now, willfully and knowingly provide that I require no help... I believe in the rights of our citizens, and trust in their judgements. I also believe that no citizen -- no informed, intelligent, and patriotic citizen -- can give resonable tolerance to WAVE, or any of the other actions that persons living within this country, calling themselves citizens, have profered to "help" us, conceived in humilation, harassment, and suppression of freedoms. No, these persons are not citizens, although they may believe themselves to be; they do not put forth the thought or bravery needed to hold up the moniker "American".
The Constitution of this land does not need altered; in fact, what is needed is for it to be followed.