Ah, a breath of sanity -- the other point is that speaking is actually *slower* than typing, even for self-trained touch typists. (Spoken books for the deaf, for example, usually use a form of speech compression to speed things along; this has been going on since at least the mid-70's.) As for hand-writing recognition, my writing deteriorated so badly (ever since I started keyboarding about 99% of what I write) that even I can barely recognize it.
If you're addressing me (techwatcher), I happen to be a woman. A grown woman, it's true, but I do enjoy the company of children of all ages -- as witness my continuing visits to/.!
Last time I looked, MS included in its OS's a utility ("Accessory") called Wordpad, specifically for those of us who refuse to use (or even load) Word. It allows us non-Word users to read Word documents. So when you get a.doc document, try Wordpad! Even if you need to alter the file more than you usually can in Wordpad, you could copy the whole file (just using the clipboard, I mean) and drop it into your own WP for further processing.
You're absolutely right -- the (only) advantage of BASIC was that all the kids who had access to a PC had the same coding language available to them. It would be a Good Thing if all PC's now (and networks, too) had one (interpreted, relatively simple, high-level) language included in their utilities package.
Kids used to actually get a game (blocky graphics, no color, no kid today would put up with it...) and then be able to see how it worked -- deconstruct it. Then they could experiment with writing code to make a block look like it was moving across the screen, for example. I didn't start to learn programming until I was 18 (when I went to college), and I think that's late. (Of course, in my high-school days we didn't even have hand-held calculators! I think only accountants used calculators, and they were the big desk-top models.)
Please tell me (us) about the "Thinkoutside" keyboard?
Re: IBM doesn't know how to utilize Transmeta
on
IBM Wary of Crusoe?
·
· Score: 2
I have to agree on that... IBM still suffers from an odd lack of vision re future uses of "computers." (I stay "still" because, famously, one of the first IBM execs stated that the world could only use less than a half dozen computers!)
For example, their wearable computer design relies on spoken data entry (a keyboard is just an option). Now, try to imagine wandering around on your morning commute -- whether walking past sirens, squealing brakes, and horns in the city; or in your crowded seat on the bus or train; or in your own car -- and talking to your computer. Okay, maybe if only one person is doing it, with very carefully calibrated directional mikes, it might work... but if we're all doing it? No way!
This isn't a new problem: it was IBM which first came out with function keys along the top of the keyboard when everyone had just learned to key in the various ALT, CTRL, or SHFT fn key combinations in WP, etc. It is IBM which started moving the CTRL key around, and to this day continues the extremely un-ergonomic tradition of dark-colored keyboards on laptops. (If dark keyboards are such a good idea, just ask yourself this: how many separate keyboards one can buy as an add-on component come in dark colors? Oh, really? Wonder why not!)
These are smart people; I know they are smart. (I know this in part because my father worked for them for decades; and they sponsored my National Merit Scholarship, so I worked for them summers. I've also taken their continuing education seminars; brilliant teachers run these. And they have great in-house research publications.) So why are their designers so dumb? Back in the mid-80's, another IBM engineer told me they'd just created a fully automated plant to build... typewriters! I couldn't believe it! (He argued demand was still high, and would justify the cost of the plant. I'll give you a hint: One of us was right about that being a dumb move.) IBM even have dedicated (printed) glossy magazines in the academic style for researching this stuff, and they still almost always get it wrong. How come?
If IBM thinks a cheaper Intel/AMD chip would win over the Crusoe for a wearable (or long-life laptop), they've become even more clueless than usual. I don't care how cheap it is, I ain't gonna buy my fifth (sixth, if I count the old Model 100) laptop until what I want is out there: long (8-hour) battery life, lightweight (3-4 lbs. is good), with pluggable/modular storage components I can update as I please, and with good modular output and really excellent modular input. And for my major input module, I want a real, light colored, lightweight keyboard -- preferably one that is hinged in the middle so I can carry it around my neck when I'm mobile (and type as if I were playing an accordion). Yes, I'm serious. Listen, marketing guys, the CPU is in so many ways the least important part of the machine these days! As long as it runs my software, everything else about it is unimportant!
Jane Healy... began with a favourable attitude toward educational computing but came reluctantly to the conclusion that computers stifle learning and creativity and may cause damage to both vision and posture.
Duh, computers cause vision problems? Not if you're not using monitors... Cause posture problems? Not the way I use my laptop (lying down, since I have a bad back). Here's how I used a laptop (ancient Model 100) to help young, troubled students in a tutoring program, over a decade ago:
I observed certain troubled students (especially boys) were very stressed by the mechanics of writing, when they were asked to write a story. One boy in particular often became very distraught over his inability to keep a decent straight margin, or to separate words with the correct spacing, etc.
I invited the children (I was working with a small group, only 2-3) to tell me their story, and let me write it down for them.
Each child in turn would tell me one sentence that belonged next in the story (fortunately I am a fast touch-typist). The children's grammar problems virtually disappeared when they told me the sentence, as opposed to writing it down.
Their narrative skills developed at an amazing rate -- when a child failed to develop the story with his contribution, he immediately noticed this, and said, "No, wait!" and then gave me a better development.
After the children agreed the story was finished (I "helped" in the process overall, by asking after each few sentences whether or not we were finished now), I printed the story, having introduced many page breaks.
I gave printed copies of the complete story to each child so they could read their own work (which enormously helps children's reading skills, as many educators discovered long before me), and illustrate it.
Sitting a child in front of an oversized and badly placed monitor, and abandoning the child to a software product -- or even the Web -- is not "using computers in education." It is misusing computers instead of educating.
When I was a child, the dreaded phrase "look it up for yourself" in response to my queries for further information was a definite turnoff... very negative feedback which quickly taught most of us never to ask a teacher for advanced information. Now, I am sure, alert and computer-competent teachers help kids use computers to answer those questions, and easily explore as far as they want to in any given subject.
Don't worry -- the next generation of teachers will know very well how to incorporate computing and networking (and the network of knowledge and expertise now blessedly available!) in their lesson plans. As for the current crop of teachers, perhaps it is too late for many of them, but several kids are teaching one another -- sometimes online!
Before girls can really grow up to become grrlgeeks, they first have to pass through puberty, during which most boys and girls are not wholly comfortable in the presence of the other sex. Boys and girls both like to hang around in same-sex groups, be in same-sex lab teams, etc. It is very hard for boys and girls both to stand against this tacit code; those who do are ridiculed. So boys seldom choose activities in which girls predominate socially, and vice versa.
About a year ago, a local rag (the New York Times, I think) "investigated" why the rate of girls attending the special public high schools for math/science here had dropped to 37% -- the reason most girls who had passed the admissions test gave for NOT attending was that they didn't want to attend a school in which they wouldn't know anyone else.
I would like to do an intervention in which I formally mentor (for at least a few months) a small group of girls in the 6th and 7th grades, before they take the admissions test for these schools. (Btw, I have assessed and edited items on this test for the past 3-4 years.) Since I currently work as a consultant and basically set my own hours most of the time, I could easily run such an after-school program. So if any parent of a suitable girl (12-13, bright, interested in science/math, living in NYC) should read this, I would work very cheaply with a suitable group:
I am proposing an informal afterschool program of 2-3 hours daily , for up to 4 girls, to be billed at a total of $20/hour (not more than $300/week total, which could be split by the participating parents). My goal is to build connections among a peer group of girls who all want to go to the special school together, and can probably pass the test to qualify -- particularly with my tutoring/enrichment programs. We would meet in museums and libraries, as well as at the apartments of the participating girls.
If the program works as an informal pilot project (i.e., at least some of the girls are admitted and accept transfer to the special schools), we could work to build a larger-scale formal mentoring program, perhaps using local women college or graduate students as paid mentors (work/study?). The program could be called "Brightgrrls" -- and would have its own Web site, of course, to help other grrls build the necessary social links by themselves (using chat), and study with material posted on the 'Net. We could ask sixth grade teachers to identify likely candidates for the formal program; we could also encourage each paying group to include a subsidized low-income candidate.
I have been thinking about this a lot -- as perhaps you can tell! -- but unless I make contact with a suitable parent (or "networker" in the school system), I can't make much progress implementing such a program!
Btw, if G. Bush said "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it," he was quoting someone who said it a lot earlier than he.
When I was researching components for wearable PC's I ran across a site advertising flexible displays; I think I didn't store it in long-term memory (my head, I mean) because it was monochrome. But if a flexible screen is important to you, do look it up. (-8
Btw, there are also roll-up keyboards advertised (on a different site), but when I sent them an e-mail, I never got a response. They were for scientific/research users, and were also waterproof (and for nasty environments generally). Just in case you need one....
I don't care how old the news is! This is much nearer to usefulness than the dog (which I've seen, at the Sony Building).
The moment I began to read the specs, I started thinking about what a boon something like this can be for physically handicapped persons. It only needs to be stronger (and longer-powered) before a wheelchair user (or even a cane-dependent person such as myself) will have the help we need to be able to get over those missing curb cuts (with which Guiliani and his ilk have dotted NYC -- truly, places I used to be able to walk have been made inaccessible by replaced curbs recently!).
Some of us don't need a robotic assistant able to do much more than walk independently and climb stairs -- and of course, it would be nice if it could also carry groceries and other packages... I can almost see the day when restaurants will have signs outside saying "No robots (except service robots assisting physically handicapped persons)." (-8
I can't believe you actually said that "no program is 'objectively better' than any other." Maybe this is one of those many cases where I am "talking to fools," in which case I shouldn't even bother. But you're participating on/., which gives you some credibility, so I'll give it one more try:
Programs which have fewer errors (bugs) are 'objectively better' than programs which have many errors. That's why, when I used to teach programming, I graded some students' work as better than others (i.e., gave them higher grades on exercises).
Given similar features, programs which have consistent user interfaces are better than programs which do not. Similarly, programs with a more intuitive user interface are better than those with an arbitrary user interface.
Programs which have been tested (or, currently, since most programmers today are basically incompetent and never test their modules -- don't even program in modules, in fact -- programs which "go through extensive quality assurance tests") and, thus, are reliable, are better than programs which are not reliable. Btw, reliable means that it does the same thing (under similar circumstances) each time you invoke a routine.
This is not an exhaustive list. Try reading some of the books about programming (any language!) recommended by/. on its home page (lower right corner). Btw, just out of curiosity, why do you think people write books about how to program better if there's no such thing as "better?"
I'm curious as to how far this "everything is just an opinion" routine extends... Do you think the operation of gravity is optional in your case (I assume you're Californian; maybe the earthquakes have confused you?)? Do the laws of thermodynamics work in your vicinity -- even when you're not thinking about them?
You are mistaken; you can learn all about what actually happened in a real, concrete situation (instead of what ought to have happened according to abstract theory) by examining the domination of MS over the past 2 decades (almost). Let me point out a few facts to you, okay? Then if you still want to argue, it will be a good argument, and I'd love to learn something new.
In the early 80's, IBM asked MS (Gates et al) to deliver an OS for its new product, the PC. Gates basically took over an existing system (CPM) from its developer, who was smart in software development, but unfortunately not in any business sense. Btw, contrary to prevailing opinion, this was not the beginning of personal computing, which had been around for a couple of years, dominated by Radio Shack because their's were more "user-friendly." Radio Shack made two serious mistakes: it attempted to control the software market (by refusing to sell better, competing products made by third parties in their convenient stores), and ignored backwards compatibility when offering new hardware models (thereby alienating buyers/users).
The first killer-ap was Visicalc (the Harvard Business School was teaching a paper-based technique called "spreadsheets," allowing their graduates to examine "what-if" scenarios. These were a big deal, and Visicalc was simple software that allowed anyone (who could get a PC that ran it) to make a spreadsheet.
When IBM offered the first PC it sent teams of salespersons around to all its corporate customers to try to force them on us. At the time, I fought them off on the grounds that back then, they could not make their PC's communicate with their mainframes anyway (so their "leverage" argument had no grounds), and their WP software (only Wordstar) was inferior to what was available for other PC's. My department bought hardware that was technically inferior, but did connect to the data on the mainframe, and allowed us to prepare superior text files using greatly superior tools. (Since the files were ASCII, they could be transmitted without rekeying when the next generation of IBM-PC software became available.)
I then watched in total bemusement over the next decade or so as corporate PC's across the land were taken over by wave after wave of inferior WP software (by then I was a consultant rather than managing one department). First, there was Wordstar (because it was the only thing PC's could run). Then, Multimate took over -- and this was the version of Multimate that (you won't believe this!) was memory-page based, so that if you, for example, searched for a phrase to change it, the software loaded the first (printer-defined) page of the text and searched that page for the phrase, then if it didn't find it, loaded the next (printable) page and searched that, then... You get the picture. Even the software I'd used 3 years earlier (on non-IBM clone) was at least designed to allow a search to search the whole text! When I asked why Multimate was used, executives explained they had asked their hardware (mainframe) gurus what to use, and this was their answer. Their decision as to what software to use was based solely on the mainframe guys' choice, since they were supposedly going to "maintain" or support this software. (You KNOW that never happened!)
The point is that time after time, inferior products (such as MS's Powerpoint) took over from perfectly decent products (such as Freelance), based on irrational grounds. Let's look at these two presentation packages, for example. You know which one "won" the competition for desktop space, of course. But did you know that Freelance actually allowed you to create a "standalone" presentation -- you could put the result on a disk and any DOS machine could view it. With Powerpoint, you had to include a Window's accessory to run its "standalone" presentation, and it could (of course) only run on a machine that had Windows. Worse, Freelance really was an "inegrated" product -- that is, you could create a file in its suite's WP package and then see it as a presentation package -- and even go "backwards" into the WP version again to revise it. Powerpoint claimed to be part of an "integrated" package, but it turned out that the only sense in which that was true is that one used the same keystrokes in all the packages to do similar things.
So far I've only explained how objectively inferior products kept being chosen over superior products because of hype or marketing. That's not "wrong," of course, although it should make you uneasy. Now let's examine another case: I've been using the same software package for WP since the mid-80's. It's terrific, innovative, endlessly customizable, and I use it now for HTML generation (and will use it for XML and XHTML). But one feature it had was that you could (if you chose) have it automatically fix misspelled words -- type "teh" and see "the" in the blink of an eye, for example. In fact, you could load its "pers.spl" spelling dictionary just like any other file and put in your own shorthand (like MS will become Microsoft automatically), and you could load other named similar dictionaries to add to your shorthand lists (and you could have the code replaced automatically by whole phrases, even). Okay, you're familiar with this feature, you say; MS has it in Word. Yeah, but XyWrite had this feature in the mid-80's -- and then they released a tiny little upgrade version that didn't have it! I asked the local user's group why they'd removed the automatic spell-check/replace feature (you could optionally turn it off, after all)??? Turns out, MS had decided to put this feature in Word and threatened the XyWrite company with a lawsuit if they didn't take it OUT of their product!!!
No, of course they could not have WON that suit. The whole point is that they had the money to tie up XyWrite (which never charged as much for their superior product, being content to make a reasonable profit and focus on software development rather than marketing hype) in court, and XyWrite did not have the money to fritter away in court. MS knew this. They used their "extra" money (the money gained by being a monopoly in OS) to threaten other competitors with their ability to hire lawyers.
Now, go ahead and tell me why this is not destructive.
I for one see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those who control the purse strings turned away from nuclear proliferation, wasteful manned missions, and 'just for the sake of doing it' public spending and instead focused on understanding and making our own world better.
You may have missed it (press coverage has become lighter on this kind of thing as major media have continued to merge under control of those most invested in the status quo), but defense spending is still increasing. Yes, in the absence of viable enemies who can justify it... They're even still planning to pour billions into a program to shoot down a few (of the hundreds) of missiles that might come this way if some national (as opposed to terrorist) entity started hostilities -- the so-called "star wars" [sic] defense system.
Why is this happening? Because the money collected from taxpayers has to be poured into programs that will benefit the rich, who (is anyone surprised? surely not) make obscene salaries and stock gains from running and investing in such companies.
Ask any engineering student what happened back when the defense programs started to lose their justification (I know it's asking a lot, but if you're too young to remember, you can look it up): Engineering students could no longer get jobs! Why? Because in this country, almost the only research going on in high-tech/defense fields requiring their skills are funded by the "defense industry" (that is, taxpayers).
American educators have been moaning for years that American students don't take engineering courses, but the reason is the students couldn't get jobs if they did. Why is medical technology so expensive? Why doesn't this country have enough dialysis machines, or other non-lethal technology? This country is no more interested than any other set of national policy geeks in doing things to "benefit its people" -- this country can't even rouse itself to devote sufficient funds to educate its children, or provide minimal health care (unlike most civilized/wealthy countries).
You are right about the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) having no prohibition on monopolies. But you are wrong about the need for controls on corporations which seek monopolies... actually, the harm comes only after a company which has acquired a monopoly begins to use its control to stifle competition in its own AND ADJOINING business sectors.
I would agree, however, that the latter has been true only historically, in the "industrial age." In our new "information age," although not enough folks realize this yet, the new communication structure will result in completely different markets (following the completely different societal development). The new conditions:
All businesses sufficiently small in scope will tend to become monopolies. Another way of thinking about this is that businesses will cooperate, a bit like the medieval guilds, so that they can be addressed (by sellers/suppliers and by buyers/customers) as a single entity.
Each monopoly will be toppled if it either abuses suppliers/sellers (by forcing prices down too low), or overcharges buyers.
Monopolies will arise because only a highly efficient organizational structure can survive in an efficient communication structure; they will be toppled because the "barrier to entry" in the information age is largely communications/computing power, and the price of this will continue to follow Moore's law for quite a time to come. So setting up a company will become cheaper and cheaper; therefore, if anyone is stupid enough to make it worthwhile for a potential competitor to undercut the existing organization, competition will arise and very quickly the old organization will collapse.
I wonder if you could help me help one of my poorer, marginalized, non-techie acquaintances? She lives in an SRO (single-room occupancy) hotel in New York with an archaic MANUAL telephone switchboard. After the newest owners took over, and they began to convert "empty" rooms to luxury hotel units (so they could charge $140/night instead of an average $100/week), her incoming telephone service "mysteriously" deteriorated. After a frantic attempt to get her new landlord have staff clean up their act (duh!), she wised up enough to buy herself a cellular phone.
I think she works as some kind of barely-trained night nurse, but she is an independent, so her clients all have to know her phone number. She has been using the same telephone number (with the 917 area code which around here means "beeper" or "cell-phone") for two years, since June '98. Just a few days ago, she got a letter from Sprint PCS, claiming they are about to close their pre-paid phone card service (which she had to use, of course), but offering to let her trade up to an "account limit" service.
The problem is, Sprint PCS is claiming that not only do they have to change her phone number, but that they "don't have the technical capacity" to put a message on her old line, other than that "the number is no longer in service!" She called several times to ask different customer service operators about this, they all say the same thing, and she is in tears over it.
I told her I would try to look into it for her. Is there any possibility Sprint PCS had to give up this service for an upcoming merger, and the line is going to another company? Could this poor woman somehow buy her old number from the other company?
Yesterday I called the FCC, and they said they didn't have jurisdiction, but it sounded like an issue for the NY Public Services Commission. When I called them, their initial routing message claims they no longer have jurisdiction over either cellular or pre-paid phonecard services. We're left with the Better Business Bureau (duh...), or the NYS Attorney General's office (if some crime were committed). Is it really possible that this service, so essential to the livelihood of the few very poor persons in this country who depend on a telephone service and have no other access to it, is really unregulated?
Any information or assistance would be greatly appreciated!
It's worse than that... there is no small elite formed of people who are capable of convincing people that they should be in power...
For example, those who don't care for Bush or Gore, who did nothing to help either of them and remain unconvinced that either is even minimally competent or worthy of support, have the wonderful choice of either voting for one of these, or not voting for either. Neither of these upper-class-white men, obviously, is capable of convincing people that they should be in power -- they just fit their respective party machines well enough that those who actually do control these things set them up as their newest puppets.
It seems the original article is somewhat misleading, and actual digital signatures were not enabled by the legislation under discussion. But assume that someday, each registered voter is allowed one corresponding digital signature --since registration is the control over multiple votes, why not simply link a particular digital signature to the existing record? (This does away with the problem of multiple signatures used for various purposes being employed by a voter to vote more than once, without reducing the number of signatures anyone can legally retain.)
Online discussions of proposed legislation or petitions could avoid the equivalent of electronic ballot stuffing by making sure that contributors seeking to post a comment either use one of a list (a bare list, with no identifying fields attached) of official voter signatures, or use the equivalent of/.'s "Anonymous Coward" signature. IMHO, the latter is a great and innovative technique for facilitating online exchanges! We need more of these, and more will develop as we forge our way together as an online society.
Here in New York, cell phones are almost ubiquitous -- and they are usually in use by people on the street! So the kind of holster someone might otherwise keep them in doesn't enter into it. About a week ago I saw something I found very amusing:
I was walking past Madison Avenue and about 26th Street, where there is a large building with a plaza partly under the building, when one man said, in frustration, "I'm at Madison and 26th Street! Where are you!" His back was to me but I realized he was on a cell phone and looked around (without interrupting my own trajectory). Sure enough, another man walked to within a few feet of him and must have said, "Right behind you." First man turns around and sees second man, and they both hang up. Btw, it was well after 5pm, so the sidewalk was almost deserted already!
I've also seen a woman in front of the library reporting her whereabouts just as a car pulled up to pick her up.
I see far fewer "Walk-man" type devices in New York than cell-phones, perhaps because personal stereos are considered thief-bait, but cell-phones have come to be considered a necessity. In fact, although use of cell-phones within the library is supposed to be banished to certain well-defined areas, when I was waiting online to speak with a research librarian the other day, no less than 2 of the half-dozen waiting on line were using their cell-phones. Btw, I don't carry a cell-phone, but I expect my wearable to incorporate that functionality when I get it!
The reason I know you're wrong is that I need a wearable PC now, and have for the past couple of years. I bet there are quite a few people like me (though I do tend to be about 2 years ahead of the curve):
I am a writer; I have used laptops (almost exclusively) ever since they existed (I even used the old Model 100, storing the data I collected or wrote each day that night on the TRS Model I!). I could be even more productive and prolific than I am now if I didn't have to lie beneath my laptop every time I need to enter something. (Oh, I should mention I have a compressed lumbar disc so I use a laptop desk; can only sit 2-3 hours/day without pain. I can, however, walk around a lot, as long as it's not uphill.)
If I had a wearable, my PIM (still Ecco) could track all the details of my very diverse activities much better, being on all the time. Then I wouldn't have to keep those annoying (and easy-to-lose) little scraps of paper and do a batch of data entry to update it periodically.
If my word processor (still XyWrite) were always on, whenever I get an idea for one of the dozens of plays, novels, poems, stories, articles, books, etc. I am currently writing/revising, I could implement it, instead of (at least half the time) forgetting it. I could respond to correspondence in a timely manner. While waiting in line (painful if the wait is too long) I could distract myself with writing or reading.
And, of course, if I were connected while walking around to the Web (us New Yorkers don't have much use for cars), I wouldn't feel that frustration of being unable to check the hours a branch library is open, or the location of that store that carries odd cables, etc., while I'm "on the road." Not to mention all the other things I could be doing while walking.
Finally, I usually work as a consultant, but unlike some, I have to carry all my tools around with me. In part this is because I tend to work short-term, and I can't predict what I'm going to need on particular jobs that the client won't have. I was one of the first consultants to take her own laptop to the job -- but connectivity is increasingly important on the job, and facilities to dock laptops are too diverse at different clients. I think that's the final reason I need a connected wearable, but if I think of any others, I won't be able to update this list, will I?
What everyone keeps forgetting (or ignoring?) is that so many young people are growing up with this technology in their homes, or their friends' homes. And it is young people, historically, who often want to "change the world" but lack the tools to organize effectively, and young people who are currently so alienated they don't even bother to vote. So I think this is great!!! Younger people can practically take over from the current deadly "two-party" machines.
Not all changes will be good ones, and I agree actual voting (as opposed to circulating petitions or working in "committees" for change) should remain paper-based for now -- but only because of the potential for centralized (hacker/cracker) control and abuse of online elections. Online discussion, petitioning, "assembly," debate, and everything short of voting is good.
Btw, here in NYC I often see technologically illiterate and impoverished persons learning to use the Web at libraries. I don't know how widespread this phenomenon is, but I know that, for example, to fight a corupt landlord, elderly women, African-American women, poor women are using search engines and locating pages of relevant resources, including legal cases and agencies. These are people I know, and I also see others whom I don't know doing similar research online. These are the same people who would never have tried to find that same information from printed sources!
Let's suppose you're a lawyer in need of a few million bucks, or just greedy (note to lawyers: I'm not slandering you as a class!!!).
Here's how you make it:
Find a large group (as large as possible!) which all use one product. Preferably, the product should be used in more than one consumer-used device (such as floppy drives used in many brands of laptops).
Make sure that at some time, some documented problem was announced regarding the targeted product. The problem doesn't have to have actually done any damage -- the target of the suit need only be afraid of negative publicity.
Announce a class action suit.
Wait for the targeted company to calculate their costs (legal costs to defend against the suit, PR costs, downtime, need to keep and provide copies of every piece of paper -- or e-mail message -- from that moment on, etc.), and decide on a quick settlement.
Quietly announce the settlement, but don't bother to notify the end-users on whose behalf you supposedly are bringing this suit.
Collect your huge fee (a hefty percentage of the ENTIRE settlement -- more than any thousand of the suckers for whose protection you supposedly sued).
Using a tiny fraction of your part of the settlement, outsource the rest of the work.
Repeat as necessary (i.e., find new target product).
The solution to these ridiculous suits is to pass Federal (or State?) law(s?) to limit the percentage of fees lawyers can rake off class action suits, for example, to cover all documented costs of their suit plus no more than what 5-10 end-users of the product will receive.
Btw, Ralph Nader is running for President this year on the Green Party ticket; maybe we could all make lots of noise about that and ask him to include this splinter (well, it's hardly a plank, now is it?) in his platform?
Obviously, it is a good idea to avoid ego-involvement, or conflicts stemming from same, in coding as in other human endeavors. Can this be achieved in the free OS movement? Possibly, but not with current tools.
A great manager (there are very few) has two major functions with regard to her project members:
Bring out the best in each individual, in part by encouraging and supporting each as each requires. Different personalities have different "hot buttons," needs, respond to different incentives; although many techies think little about social factors, and probably most believe we are all fundamentally alike, this is not true.
Facilitate communicate in such a way that the individuals become a close team -- focussing on common goals, building common understandings, softening the edges of edgier personalites. (The latter is achieved by "translating," as in, "I think what Bill means is..., did I understand your comment, Bill?")
So, the open source movement clearly has two problems to solve if participants want to work together more effectively. First, it has no managers with these skills, since only techies are involved, and they (naturally) have to spend most of their time focussing on learning new technical skills. Second, really effective project management software for remote or diffuse projects doesn't yet exist.
Btw, more bandwidth won't solve the latter problem, because even perfect video conferencing doesn't allow the same kind of interaction that live meetings run by great managers achieve. For example, social researchers have determined that just the presence in a room of a mirror increases "objective self-awareness" (which generally inhibits free and creative exchanges). The mere presence of a tape recorder -- even if it's not turned on!-- has the same effect. So imagine what effect the recorders for video conferencing have....
That said, pro-active documentation (which I used to recommend when I managed documentation at Bear, Stearns in the early '80's) can certainly remove some of the potential conflicts,if nothing else by helping individuals who need to work alone choose areas not impinged on by others! The possible trade-off is that the strength of the open source movement is precisely a not-necessarily-scripted characteristic, its willingness to embrace a totally new (better or more comprehensive) answer or approach to already solved problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, a breath of sanity -- the other point is that speaking is actually *slower* than typing, even for self-trained touch typists. (Spoken books for the deaf, for example, usually use a form of speech compression to speed things along; this has been going on since at least the mid-70's.) As for hand-writing recognition, my writing deteriorated so badly (ever since I started keyboarding about 99% of what I write) that even I can barely recognize it.
If you're addressing me (techwatcher), I happen to be a woman. A grown woman, it's true, but I do enjoy the company of children of all ages -- as witness my continuing visits to /.!
Last time I looked, MS included in its OS's a utility ("Accessory") called Wordpad, specifically for those of us who refuse to use (or even load) Word. It allows us non-Word users to read Word documents. So when you get a .doc document, try Wordpad! Even if you need to alter the file more than you usually can in Wordpad, you could copy the whole file (just using the clipboard, I mean) and drop it into your own WP for further processing.
You're absolutely right -- the (only) advantage of BASIC was that all the kids who had access to a PC had the same coding language available to them. It would be a Good Thing if all PC's now (and networks, too) had one (interpreted, relatively simple, high-level) language included in their utilities package.
Kids used to actually get a game (blocky graphics, no color, no kid today would put up with it...) and then be able to see how it worked -- deconstruct it. Then they could experiment with writing code to make a block look like it was moving across the screen, for example. I didn't start to learn programming until I was 18 (when I went to college), and I think that's late. (Of course, in my high-school days we didn't even have hand-held calculators! I think only accountants used calculators, and they were the big desk-top models.)
Please tell me (us) about the "Thinkoutside" keyboard?
I have to agree on that... IBM still suffers from an odd lack of vision re future uses of "computers." (I stay "still" because, famously, one of the first IBM execs stated that the world could only use less than a half dozen computers!)
For example, their wearable computer design relies on spoken data entry (a keyboard is just an option). Now, try to imagine wandering around on your morning commute -- whether walking past sirens, squealing brakes, and horns in the city; or in your crowded seat on the bus or train; or in your own car -- and talking to your computer. Okay, maybe if only one person is doing it, with very carefully calibrated directional mikes, it might work... but if we're all doing it? No way!
This isn't a new problem: it was IBM which first came out with function keys along the top of the keyboard when everyone had just learned to key in the various ALT, CTRL, or SHFT fn key combinations in WP, etc. It is IBM which started moving the CTRL key around, and to this day continues the extremely un-ergonomic tradition of dark-colored keyboards on laptops. (If dark keyboards are such a good idea, just ask yourself this: how many separate keyboards one can buy as an add-on component come in dark colors? Oh, really? Wonder why not!)
These are smart people; I know they are smart. (I know this in part because my father worked for them for decades; and they sponsored my National Merit Scholarship, so I worked for them summers. I've also taken their continuing education seminars; brilliant teachers run these. And they have great in-house research publications.) So why are their designers so dumb? Back in the mid-80's, another IBM engineer told me they'd just created a fully automated plant to build... typewriters! I couldn't believe it! (He argued demand was still high, and would justify the cost of the plant. I'll give you a hint: One of us was right about that being a dumb move.) IBM even have dedicated (printed) glossy magazines in the academic style for researching this stuff, and they still almost always get it wrong. How come?
If IBM thinks a cheaper Intel/AMD chip would win over the Crusoe for a wearable (or long-life laptop), they've become even more clueless than usual. I don't care how cheap it is, I ain't gonna buy my fifth (sixth, if I count the old Model 100) laptop until what I want is out there: long (8-hour) battery life, lightweight (3-4 lbs. is good), with pluggable/modular storage components I can update as I please, and with good modular output and really excellent modular input. And for my major input module, I want a real, light colored, lightweight keyboard -- preferably one that is hinged in the middle so I can carry it around my neck when I'm mobile (and type as if I were playing an accordion). Yes, I'm serious. Listen, marketing guys, the CPU is in so many ways the least important part of the machine these days! As long as it runs my software, everything else about it is unimportant!
Jane Healy... began with a favourable attitude toward educational computing but came reluctantly to the conclusion that computers stifle learning and creativity and may cause damage to both vision and posture.
Duh, computers cause vision problems? Not if you're not using monitors... Cause posture problems? Not the way I use my laptop (lying down, since I have a bad back). Here's how I used a laptop (ancient Model 100) to help young, troubled students in a tutoring program, over a decade ago:
Sitting a child in front of an oversized and badly placed monitor, and abandoning the child to a software product -- or even the Web -- is not "using computers in education." It is misusing computers instead of educating.
When I was a child, the dreaded phrase "look it up for yourself" in response to my queries for further information was a definite turnoff... very negative feedback which quickly taught most of us never to ask a teacher for advanced information. Now, I am sure, alert and computer-competent teachers help kids use computers to answer those questions, and easily explore as far as they want to in any given subject.
Don't worry -- the next generation of teachers will know very well how to incorporate computing and networking (and the network of knowledge and expertise now blessedly available!) in their lesson plans. As for the current crop of teachers, perhaps it is too late for many of them, but several kids are teaching one another -- sometimes online!
Before girls can really grow up to become grrlgeeks, they first have to pass through puberty, during which most boys and girls are not wholly comfortable in the presence of the other sex. Boys and girls both like to hang around in same-sex groups, be in same-sex lab teams, etc. It is very hard for boys and girls both to stand against this tacit code; those who do are ridiculed. So boys seldom choose activities in which girls predominate socially, and vice versa.
About a year ago, a local rag (the New York Times, I think) "investigated" why the rate of girls attending the special public high schools for math/science here had dropped to 37% -- the reason most girls who had passed the admissions test gave for NOT attending was that they didn't want to attend a school in which they wouldn't know anyone else.
I would like to do an intervention in which I formally mentor (for at least a few months) a small group of girls in the 6th and 7th grades, before they take the admissions test for these schools. (Btw, I have assessed and edited items on this test for the past 3-4 years.) Since I currently work as a consultant and basically set my own hours most of the time, I could easily run such an after-school program. So if any parent of a suitable girl (12-13, bright, interested in science/math, living in NYC) should read this, I would work very cheaply with a suitable group:
I am proposing an informal afterschool program of 2-3 hours daily , for up to 4 girls, to be billed at a total of $20/hour (not more than $300/week total, which could be split by the participating parents). My goal is to build connections among a peer group of girls who all want to go to the special school together, and can probably pass the test to qualify -- particularly with my tutoring/enrichment programs. We would meet in museums and libraries, as well as at the apartments of the participating girls.
If the program works as an informal pilot project (i.e., at least some of the girls are admitted and accept transfer to the special schools), we could work to build a larger-scale formal mentoring program, perhaps using local women college or graduate students as paid mentors (work/study?). The program could be called "Brightgrrls" -- and would have its own Web site, of course, to help other grrls build the necessary social links by themselves (using chat), and study with material posted on the 'Net. We could ask sixth grade teachers to identify likely candidates for the formal program; we could also encourage each paying group to include a subsidized low-income candidate.
I have been thinking about this a lot -- as perhaps you can tell! -- but unless I make contact with a suitable parent (or "networker" in the school system), I can't make much progress implementing such a program!
Btw, if G. Bush said "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it," he was quoting someone who said it a lot earlier than he.
When I was researching components for wearable PC's I ran across a site advertising flexible displays; I think I didn't store it in long-term memory (my head, I mean) because it was monochrome. But if a flexible screen is important to you, do look it up. (-8
Btw, there are also roll-up keyboards advertised (on a different site), but when I sent them an e-mail, I never got a response. They were for scientific/research users, and were also waterproof (and for nasty environments generally). Just in case you need one....
I don't care how old the news is! This is much nearer to usefulness than the dog (which I've seen, at the Sony Building).
The moment I began to read the specs, I started thinking about what a boon something like this can be for physically handicapped persons. It only needs to be stronger (and longer-powered) before a wheelchair user (or even a cane-dependent person such as myself) will have the help we need to be able to get over those missing curb cuts (with which Guiliani and his ilk have dotted NYC -- truly, places I used to be able to walk have been made inaccessible by replaced curbs recently!).
Some of us don't need a robotic assistant able to do much more than walk independently and climb stairs -- and of course, it would be nice if it could also carry groceries and other packages... I can almost see the day when restaurants will have signs outside saying "No robots (except service robots assisting physically handicapped persons)." (-8
I can't believe you actually said that "no program is 'objectively better' than any other." Maybe this is one of those many cases where I am "talking to fools," in which case I shouldn't even bother. But you're participating on /., which gives you some credibility, so I'll give it one more try:
This is not an exhaustive list. Try reading some of the books about programming (any language!) recommended by /. on its home page (lower right corner). Btw, just out of curiosity, why do you think people write books about how to program better if there's no such thing as "better?"
I'm curious as to how far this "everything is just an opinion" routine extends... Do you think the operation of gravity is optional in your case (I assume you're Californian; maybe the earthquakes have confused you?)? Do the laws of thermodynamics work in your vicinity -- even when you're not thinking about them?
You are mistaken; you can learn all about what actually happened in a real, concrete situation (instead of what ought to have happened according to abstract theory) by examining the domination of MS over the past 2 decades (almost). Let me point out a few facts to you, okay? Then if you still want to argue, it will be a good argument, and I'd love to learn something new.
In the early 80's, IBM asked MS (Gates et al) to deliver an OS for its new product, the PC. Gates basically took over an existing system (CPM) from its developer, who was smart in software development, but unfortunately not in any business sense. Btw, contrary to prevailing opinion, this was not the beginning of personal computing, which had been around for a couple of years, dominated by Radio Shack because their's were more "user-friendly." Radio Shack made two serious mistakes: it attempted to control the software market (by refusing to sell better, competing products made by third parties in their convenient stores), and ignored backwards compatibility when offering new hardware models (thereby alienating buyers/users).
The first killer-ap was Visicalc (the Harvard Business School was teaching a paper-based technique called "spreadsheets," allowing their graduates to examine "what-if" scenarios. These were a big deal, and Visicalc was simple software that allowed anyone (who could get a PC that ran it) to make a spreadsheet.
When IBM offered the first PC it sent teams of salespersons around to all its corporate customers to try to force them on us. At the time, I fought them off on the grounds that back then, they could not make their PC's communicate with their mainframes anyway (so their "leverage" argument had no grounds), and their WP software (only Wordstar) was inferior to what was available for other PC's. My department bought hardware that was technically inferior, but did connect to the data on the mainframe, and allowed us to prepare superior text files using greatly superior tools. (Since the files were ASCII, they could be transmitted without rekeying when the next generation of IBM-PC software became available.)
I then watched in total bemusement over the next decade or so as corporate PC's across the land were taken over by wave after wave of inferior WP software (by then I was a consultant rather than managing one department). First, there was Wordstar (because it was the only thing PC's could run). Then, Multimate took over -- and this was the version of Multimate that (you won't believe this!) was memory-page based, so that if you, for example, searched for a phrase to change it, the software loaded the first (printer-defined) page of the text and searched that page for the phrase, then if it didn't find it, loaded the next (printable) page and searched that, then... You get the picture. Even the software I'd used 3 years earlier (on non-IBM clone) was at least designed to allow a search to search the whole text! When I asked why Multimate was used, executives explained they had asked their hardware (mainframe) gurus what to use, and this was their answer. Their decision as to what software to use was based solely on the mainframe guys' choice, since they were supposedly going to "maintain" or support this software. (You KNOW that never happened!)
The point is that time after time, inferior products (such as MS's Powerpoint) took over from perfectly decent products (such as Freelance), based on irrational grounds. Let's look at these two presentation packages, for example. You know which one "won" the competition for desktop space, of course. But did you know that Freelance actually allowed you to create a "standalone" presentation -- you could put the result on a disk and any DOS machine could view it. With Powerpoint, you had to include a Window's accessory to run its "standalone" presentation, and it could (of course) only run on a machine that had Windows. Worse, Freelance really was an "inegrated" product -- that is, you could create a file in its suite's WP package and then see it as a presentation package -- and even go "backwards" into the WP version again to revise it. Powerpoint claimed to be part of an "integrated" package, but it turned out that the only sense in which that was true is that one used the same keystrokes in all the packages to do similar things.
So far I've only explained how objectively inferior products kept being chosen over superior products because of hype or marketing. That's not "wrong," of course, although it should make you uneasy. Now let's examine another case: I've been using the same software package for WP since the mid-80's. It's terrific, innovative, endlessly customizable, and I use it now for HTML generation (and will use it for XML and XHTML). But one feature it had was that you could (if you chose) have it automatically fix misspelled words -- type "teh" and see "the" in the blink of an eye, for example. In fact, you could load its "pers.spl" spelling dictionary just like any other file and put in your own shorthand (like MS will become Microsoft automatically), and you could load other named similar dictionaries to add to your shorthand lists (and you could have the code replaced automatically by whole phrases, even). Okay, you're familiar with this feature, you say; MS has it in Word. Yeah, but XyWrite had this feature in the mid-80's -- and then they released a tiny little upgrade version that didn't have it! I asked the local user's group why they'd removed the automatic spell-check/replace feature (you could optionally turn it off, after all)??? Turns out, MS had decided to put this feature in Word and threatened the XyWrite company with a lawsuit if they didn't take it OUT of their product!!!
No, of course they could not have WON that suit. The whole point is that they had the money to tie up XyWrite (which never charged as much for their superior product, being content to make a reasonable profit and focus on software development rather than marketing hype) in court, and XyWrite did not have the money to fritter away in court. MS knew this. They used their "extra" money (the money gained by being a monopoly in OS) to threaten other competitors with their ability to hire lawyers.
Now, go ahead and tell me why this is not destructive.
I for one see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those who control the purse strings turned away from nuclear proliferation, wasteful manned missions, and 'just for the sake of doing it' public spending and instead focused on understanding and making our own world better.
You may have missed it (press coverage has become lighter on this kind of thing as major media have continued to merge under control of those most invested in the status quo), but defense spending is still increasing. Yes, in the absence of viable enemies who can justify it... They're even still planning to pour billions into a program to shoot down a few (of the hundreds) of missiles that might come this way if some national (as opposed to terrorist) entity started hostilities -- the so-called "star wars" [sic] defense system.
Why is this happening? Because the money collected from taxpayers has to be poured into programs that will benefit the rich, who (is anyone surprised? surely not) make obscene salaries and stock gains from running and investing in such companies.
Ask any engineering student what happened back when the defense programs started to lose their justification (I know it's asking a lot, but if you're too young to remember, you can look it up): Engineering students could no longer get jobs! Why? Because in this country, almost the only research going on in high-tech/defense fields requiring their skills are funded by the "defense industry" (that is, taxpayers).
American educators have been moaning for years that American students don't take engineering courses, but the reason is the students couldn't get jobs if they did. Why is medical technology so expensive? Why doesn't this country have enough dialysis machines, or other non-lethal technology? This country is no more interested than any other set of national policy geeks in doing things to "benefit its people" -- this country can't even rouse itself to devote sufficient funds to educate its children, or provide minimal health care (unlike most civilized/wealthy countries).
What about that fellow who planned to rocket himself into space from his backyard? If they all hooked up together, who knows how far they could go?
You are right about the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) having no prohibition on monopolies. But you are wrong about the need for controls on corporations which seek monopolies... actually, the harm comes only after a company which has acquired a monopoly begins to use its control to stifle competition in its own AND ADJOINING business sectors.
I would agree, however, that the latter has been true only historically, in the "industrial age." In our new "information age," although not enough folks realize this yet, the new communication structure will result in completely different markets (following the completely different societal development). The new conditions:
Monopolies will arise because only a highly efficient organizational structure can survive in an efficient communication structure; they will be toppled because the "barrier to entry" in the information age is largely communications/computing power, and the price of this will continue to follow Moore's law for quite a time to come. So setting up a company will become cheaper and cheaper; therefore, if anyone is stupid enough to make it worthwhile for a potential competitor to undercut the existing organization, competition will arise and very quickly the old organization will collapse.
Thanks, I'll have her try this immediately, if she can (I don't know where she got her phone).
Thanks, I'll do that if she didn't get it at Radio Shack and can't use the other idea.
I wonder if you could help me help one of my poorer, marginalized, non-techie acquaintances? She lives in an SRO (single-room occupancy) hotel in New York with an archaic MANUAL telephone switchboard. After the newest owners took over, and they began to convert "empty" rooms to luxury hotel units (so they could charge $140/night instead of an average $100/week), her incoming telephone service "mysteriously" deteriorated. After a frantic attempt to get her new landlord have staff clean up their act (duh!), she wised up enough to buy herself a cellular phone.
I think she works as some kind of barely-trained night nurse, but she is an independent, so her clients all have to know her phone number. She has been using the same telephone number (with the 917 area code which around here means "beeper" or "cell-phone") for two years, since June '98. Just a few days ago, she got a letter from Sprint PCS, claiming they are about to close their pre-paid phone card service (which she had to use, of course), but offering to let her trade up to an "account limit" service.
The problem is, Sprint PCS is claiming that not only do they have to change her phone number, but that they "don't have the technical capacity" to put a message on her old line, other than that "the number is no longer in service!" She called several times to ask different customer service operators about this, they all say the same thing, and she is in tears over it.
I told her I would try to look into it for her. Is there any possibility Sprint PCS had to give up this service for an upcoming merger, and the line is going to another company? Could this poor woman somehow buy her old number from the other company?
Yesterday I called the FCC, and they said they didn't have jurisdiction, but it sounded like an issue for the NY Public Services Commission. When I called them, their initial routing message claims they no longer have jurisdiction over either cellular or pre-paid phonecard services. We're left with the Better Business Bureau (duh...), or the NYS Attorney General's office (if some crime were committed). Is it really possible that this service, so essential to the livelihood of the few very poor persons in this country who depend on a telephone service and have no other access to it, is really unregulated?
Any information or assistance would be greatly appreciated!
It's worse than that... there is no small elite formed of people who are capable of convincing people that they should be in power...
For example, those who don't care for Bush or Gore, who did nothing to help either of them and remain unconvinced that either is even minimally competent or worthy of support, have the wonderful choice of either voting for one of these, or not voting for either. Neither of these upper-class-white men, obviously, is capable of convincing people that they should be in power -- they just fit their respective party machines well enough that those who actually do control these things set them up as their newest puppets.
It seems the original article is somewhat misleading, and actual digital signatures were not enabled by the legislation under discussion. But assume that someday, each registered voter is allowed one corresponding digital signature --since registration is the control over multiple votes, why not simply link a particular digital signature to the existing record? (This does away with the problem of multiple signatures used for various purposes being employed by a voter to vote more than once, without reducing the number of signatures anyone can legally retain.)
Online discussions of proposed legislation or petitions could avoid the equivalent of electronic ballot stuffing by making sure that contributors seeking to post a comment either use one of a list (a bare list, with no identifying fields attached) of official voter signatures, or use the equivalent of /.'s "Anonymous Coward" signature. IMHO, the latter is a great and innovative technique for facilitating online exchanges! We need more of these, and more will develop as we forge our way together as an online society.
Here in New York, cell phones are almost ubiquitous -- and they are usually in use by people on the street! So the kind of holster someone might otherwise keep them in doesn't enter into it. About a week ago I saw something I found very amusing:
I was walking past Madison Avenue and about 26th Street, where there is a large building with a plaza partly under the building, when one man said, in frustration, "I'm at Madison and 26th Street! Where are you!" His back was to me but I realized he was on a cell phone and looked around (without interrupting my own trajectory). Sure enough, another man walked to within a few feet of him and must have said, "Right behind you." First man turns around and sees second man, and they both hang up. Btw, it was well after 5pm, so the sidewalk was almost deserted already!
I've also seen a woman in front of the library reporting her whereabouts just as a car pulled up to pick her up.
I see far fewer "Walk-man" type devices in New York than cell-phones, perhaps because personal stereos are considered thief-bait, but cell-phones have come to be considered a necessity. In fact, although use of cell-phones within the library is supposed to be banished to certain well-defined areas, when I was waiting online to speak with a research librarian the other day, no less than 2 of the half-dozen waiting on line were using their cell-phones. Btw, I don't carry a cell-phone, but I expect my wearable to incorporate that functionality when I get it!
The reason I know you're wrong is that I need a wearable PC now, and have for the past couple of years. I bet there are quite a few people like me (though I do tend to be about 2 years ahead of the curve):
I am a writer; I have used laptops (almost exclusively) ever since they existed (I even used the old Model 100, storing the data I collected or wrote each day that night on the TRS Model I!). I could be even more productive and prolific than I am now if I didn't have to lie beneath my laptop every time I need to enter something. (Oh, I should mention I have a compressed lumbar disc so I use a laptop desk; can only sit 2-3 hours/day without pain. I can, however, walk around a lot, as long as it's not uphill.)
If I had a wearable, my PIM (still Ecco) could track all the details of my very diverse activities much better, being on all the time. Then I wouldn't have to keep those annoying (and easy-to-lose) little scraps of paper and do a batch of data entry to update it periodically.
If my word processor (still XyWrite) were always on, whenever I get an idea for one of the dozens of plays, novels, poems, stories, articles, books, etc. I am currently writing/revising, I could implement it, instead of (at least half the time) forgetting it. I could respond to correspondence in a timely manner. While waiting in line (painful if the wait is too long) I could distract myself with writing or reading.
And, of course, if I were connected while walking around to the Web (us New Yorkers don't have much use for cars), I wouldn't feel that frustration of being unable to check the hours a branch library is open, or the location of that store that carries odd cables, etc., while I'm "on the road." Not to mention all the other things I could be doing while walking.
Finally, I usually work as a consultant, but unlike some, I have to carry all my tools around with me. In part this is because I tend to work short-term, and I can't predict what I'm going to need on particular jobs that the client won't have. I was one of the first consultants to take her own laptop to the job -- but connectivity is increasingly important on the job, and facilities to dock laptops are too diverse at different clients. I think that's the final reason I need a connected wearable, but if I think of any others, I won't be able to update this list, will I?
What everyone keeps forgetting (or ignoring?) is that so many young people are growing up with this technology in their homes, or their friends' homes. And it is young people, historically, who often want to "change the world" but lack the tools to organize effectively, and young people who are currently so alienated they don't even bother to vote. So I think this is great!!! Younger people can practically take over from the current deadly "two-party" machines.
Not all changes will be good ones, and I agree actual voting (as opposed to circulating petitions or working in "committees" for change) should remain paper-based for now -- but only because of the potential for centralized (hacker/cracker) control and abuse of online elections. Online discussion, petitioning, "assembly," debate, and everything short of voting is good.
Btw, here in NYC I often see technologically illiterate and impoverished persons learning to use the Web at libraries. I don't know how widespread this phenomenon is, but I know that, for example, to fight a corupt landlord, elderly women, African-American women, poor women are using search engines and locating pages of relevant resources, including legal cases and agencies. These are people I know, and I also see others whom I don't know doing similar research online. These are the same people who would never have tried to find that same information from printed sources!
Let's suppose you're a lawyer in need of a few million bucks, or just greedy (note to lawyers: I'm not slandering you as a class!!!).
The solution to these ridiculous suits is to pass Federal (or State?) law(s?) to limit the percentage of fees lawyers can rake off class action suits, for example, to cover all documented costs of their suit plus no more than what 5-10 end-users of the product will receive.
Btw, Ralph Nader is running for President this year on the Green Party ticket; maybe we could all make lots of noise about that and ask him to include this splinter (well, it's hardly a plank, now is it?) in his platform?
Obviously, it is a good idea to avoid ego-involvement, or conflicts stemming from same, in coding as in other human endeavors. Can this be achieved in the free OS movement? Possibly, but not with current tools.
So, the open source movement clearly has two problems to solve if participants want to work together more effectively. First, it has no managers with these skills, since only techies are involved, and they (naturally) have to spend most of their time focussing on learning new technical skills. Second, really effective project management software for remote or diffuse projects doesn't yet exist.
Btw, more bandwidth won't solve the latter problem, because even perfect video conferencing doesn't allow the same kind of interaction that live meetings run by great managers achieve. For example, social researchers have determined that just the presence in a room of a mirror increases "objective self-awareness" (which generally inhibits free and creative exchanges). The mere presence of a tape recorder -- even if it's not turned on!-- has the same effect. So imagine what effect the recorders for video conferencing have....
That said, pro-active documentation (which I used to recommend when I managed documentation at Bear, Stearns in the early '80's) can certainly remove some of the potential conflicts,if nothing else by helping individuals who need to work alone choose areas not impinged on by others! The possible trade-off is that the strength of the open source movement is precisely a not-necessarily-scripted characteristic, its willingness to embrace a totally new (better or more comprehensive) answer or approach to already solved problems.
If you're talking about New York, NY -- that's spelled "Manhattan." If you're not, please tell me so I can leave here for there!