1. Russia is, obviously, a huge country with huge political power. Why can't they, one day, break their license agreement
Because, frankly speaking, given all the really important issues the world has to worry about, source code to an operating system hardly merits the attention of government types. Trying to subvert Truth, Justice and the American Way by releasing Windows source strikes me as peculiarly futile. Who, after all, would care?
In any case, IIRC, MS is only making portions of the source available, and it must be viewed onsite in Redmond. What? Some ex-KGB type is going to covertly copy down 30 million lines of code onto a legal pad under his desk?
Let me get this straight. The recording industry powers are so alarmed over deCSS that not only A) can't they be bothered to actually fly to Norway to attend the trial in person but worse B) they can't even bother to be at the friggin' phone when the court calls.
Somebody please tell me why they deserve to win this case.
I was running the links at the bottom of this article and ran across a couple of intersting quotes. In Windows cheaper than Linux, says Microsoft (05-11-2002) "[Microsoft's] European chief... claimed that Microsoft has been tracking... [TCO]... and that in 95 per cent of cases the 'TCO was better on the Windows platform'."
Whereas, just a few days early, in European Commission eyes Linux (31-10-2002), Netproject director Eddie Bleasdale claims, "the debate had moved beyond whether to use open source as the cost of ownership benefits were well understood."
What do you think? Is this true? Is Microsoft still fighting yesterday's battles? Has Linux really already won the TCO argument?
It'd be nice to see a domino effect: Banking, then insurance, then retail, then... consumer's desktops.
It looks as though the battle for the server market is being won by Linux. It was reported recently that most Wall Street trading operations are converting to the open source operating system.
This may not sound important but, for those like me who keep an eye on the markets, it is relevant. Some IT market sectors are strong technology validators and lead the way in adoption. Wall Street traders make up such a sector.
Was any such thing actually reported, and where can more details be found? And are Wall Street traders really such a bellweather of technology trends as the author claims?
How much irony, character development, and multiple plots are you expecting in books aimed at 6 year olds.
Personally, I don't know any six-year-olds who have read Harry Potter (though that's not to say there aren't any). I do know a lot of teenagers who have (Including most of my nearly 600 students). A lot of Rowling's audience could handle significantly more complex plot and character development.
Frodo's heroism is, precisely because of his struggle, much more human than Harry's, and therefore much more compelling.
It is also, in the end, was makes the evil in LOTR so much more terrifying. Harry Potter may be superficially threatened by evil, but we just wink and smile, knowing that it will never really touch him. The only suspense is in the details of how Harry defeats it.
In LOTR, evil can -- and does -- triumph over good -- in the fall of Boromir, the succumbing of Saruman and of Denethor, the self-doubts of Gandalf and Galadriel when offered the Ring (Gandalf -- even Gandalf -- says he would fail; and we believe him). And, most poignantly, in the figure of Frodo, who, for all his goodness, casts aside his quest and claims the Ring.
And therein lies the terror. Harry Potter's Voldemort is scary in a Halloweenish sort of way, but we never feel threatened by him. Sauron terrifies, because we see ourselves in Frodo.
Agreed. This, to my mind, is what makes Snape one of the most interesting characters in the book -- much more interesting than Potter and Co. Snape is a repentant Death-Eater who, for all his unpleasantness, is basically good. And that makes Snape something Potter is not -- a complex character, a character with depth and ambiguity and color. I just hope Rowling recognizes the potential in Snape's character, and doesn't continue to waste him on petty meannesses. Yeah, it was superficially cool to see Snape get his at the point of Harry's wand in book three (or was that four?), but how much more interesting it would be for Snape to turn out to be right once in a while. To see Harry, despite his spite for Snape, learn to respect him just a little.
Harry does break the rules sometimes, for bad reasons. It's usually just due to general teenager irresponsibility, though.
But "bad reasons" and "teenage irresponsibility" are not at all the same thing. The latter is just typical teenage shortsightedness. The former, like Frodo's claiming of the ring, is done with full knowledge of, and consent to, the evil of the act being committed. Harry's irresponsibility is something he will grow out of; it does not stem from any moral weakness or ambivalence in the character.
Sirrius Black was pretty borderline in book three, as well.
Only because Rowling wanted to keep us guessing as to his true nature. Once we figured out he was a good guy, it was quickly obvious that Sirius had never really committed an evil act -- either he was framed, or the acts just bore the shadows of evil -- shadows that vanished when the full light of the facts were shined on them. So, in the end, Black turns out to be just like Harry -- an insufferably good character that never really does anything bad.
...how the author draws from the Bible to construct the story.
Its a bit of a stretch.
What's a "bit of a stretch"? That Tolkien drew from the Bible? Both Tolkien and his creation were profoundly Catholic, whether drawing directly from the Bible, or more generally from Christian tradition. While elements of LOTR (the Valar, for example) have their parallels in Norse mythology, it's all wrapped up in a deeply Christian cosmology, even without being explicitly Christian.
Fundies, on the other hand, can't seem to get past the wizardry.
First it's a book written for and aimed at children and it resonates with themes that are important for children.
This presumes that children are incapable of "resonating" with adult themes, something I think is certainly not true. While children may not be able to articulate their intuitions, I think we sell them short if we assume that children can only relate to a sanitized, morally two-toned imaginary world like HP.
In that way it's much like LOTR or Dune
I disagree. HP is not at all like either LOTR or Dune. What HP lacks is not the moral certitudes -- both LOTR and Dune are pervaded with crystal clear notions of good and evil -- but the moral ambivalences which make people so human, and characters like Harry Potter so much less than that. The reason Frodo stands (figuratively) head and shoulders above Harry is because, in the end, he fails, or more, because he tries and fails. In LOTR, it is the struggle which makes Frodo a hero, despite his failure. In HP, it is circumstances which turn Harry into an accidental hero. But Harry never really struggles.
Harry is primarily a hero by happenstance. Frodo's heroism is, precisely because of his struggle, much more human than Harry's, and therefore much more compelling. Even for children.
although those who believe fantasy has religious content... tend to take fantasy as religion or a threat to their beliefs.
And yet Tolkien's creation is one of the most profoundly Christian stories written in the last couple of centuries. Too bad fundamentalists can't get past their shiboleths to recognize that.
"He... unfairly receives credit for the accomplishments of others and... skates through school by taking advantage of his inherited wealth and his establishment connections"
As anyone who has read the books knows Harry has always been uncomfortable with his fame.
So modify the quote to "...skates through school... while feeling badly about it." Same difference.
This is the one thing that bothers me about Harry Potter, as much as I enjoyed the stories superficially. The characters have no moral depth. The good guys are good guys; the bad guys are just mean. There's no struggle in Potter's goodness, just as there's no struggle in Malfoy's evil. The stories are finger-painted in pastels, with none of the moral ambivalences that make life (and characters) so interesting.
This is why I enjoy good literature -- because it shows me me -- the good, the bad, the failures and the (partial) successes. Harry Potter is cotton candy -- tasty, but there's no substance to take away from the experience.
Rowling could take lessons from Shakespeare -- or even Tolkien. There's a reason Shakespeare's plays are called tragedies -- because they're populated with tragic figures. MacBeth did not revel in his evils -- he was tormented by them. It was Hamlet's weaknesses in the face of his goodness which made his character so tragic. And that's where Potter falls down. There is no tragedy in Harry Potter (will Harry eventually succomb to evil, as Frodo Baggins did? Don't count on it). Even when he gets into trouble he does so for all the right reasons. He breaks rules because it is, under the circumstances, right to do so, and oh-so-dimensionless Harry Potter always does the right thing.
I think even children are quite capable of recognizing such issues -- intuitively, at least, even if they aren't able to verbalize it. I first picked up Tolkien at 12, and knew instantly I had found a treasure, even if I had to wait for Shakespeare to show me why.
Harry Potter entertains, certainly. But he doesn't challenge. And that's why, in fifteen years or so, no one will remember who he was.
Mr. Runner... resigned... after a covert police surveillance operation videotaped him stealing coffee, creamer, and paper from village supplies.
API, Toledo -- Police announced early today the capture of Mrs. Ima Kremnall, wanted since April on nearly three dozen counts of felony theft of condiments. Culminating a massive six-month sting operation involving federal law enforcement agencies from several states, more than a dozen FBI agents, responding to an anonymous tip phoned in late yesterday, converged on a Burger King's in Upper Sandusky, Ohio, where Mrs. Kremnall was apprehended attempting to flee the premises with what a police spokesman described as "more ketchup than she really needed."
Captain Sheth Fourbranes of the Toledo, Ohio criminal investigations division said a search of Kremnall's glove box yielded a cache of thirty three condiment packets from more than a dozen fast food restaurants scattered across six northern Ohio counties. "Ketchup, mustard, relish -- she had it all," Fourbranes, speaking at an afternoon press conference, said. "We estimate a street value on this stuff of nearly six bits."
The attorney general's office, calling this a "major victory for law-abiding citizens everywhere", said if convicted the accused could face up to forty two years in prison. Mrs. Kremnall, who is scheduled to be arraigned later this week, was unavailable for comment, but a friend of a friend is said to have described her as being "two french fries short of a Happy Meal".
You are obfuscating the point of the story - Microsoft is FINALLY pointing out that your software licenses are THEIR property, not yours..
You're confusing licenses here. This is about site licenses, not EULAs. K-Mart did not run out and buy 50,000 copies of Windows at the local PCs-R-US(TM). They purchased a site license from Microsoft. The terms of that site license are -- in some cases likely radically -- different from anything contained in the EULA that comes with store-bought copies, and most likely DO contain clauses about non-transferability.
This is not some sort of small-print bombshell that Microsoft has been holding close to its chest ready to spring on an unsuspecting world. It is part of a contract that corporations review and agree to when they purchase site licenses. While IANAL, I suspect it's probably even standard boilerplate stuff. K-Mart's lawyers were quite aware of the clause, you can be sure, before they signed it. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with your home copy of Windows XP.
Yes, I've seen this -- after an accident, interviewing witnesses, for example. I've never seen a cop standing around recording for no good reason.
2) your ad hominems are ok but mine aren't?
I used no ad hominems. Try looking up "ad hominem" and then look up "sophistry"; it's a description of your arguments, not of you.
good luck telling the government you don't like how your tax dollars are being spent...
They're called city council meetings; I've attended more than a few in the past, and yes, the city (at least where I lived; maybe you need a new place of residence) does listen to citizen input. State and federal government may be another story, but they're not the ones putting in cameras.
cameras [are] more efficient and spend less of your tax $.
It's what they're spending my tax dolloars on that's the issue, not how many of them they're spending.
in my second example i specifically said a detective. there's no reason he can't merely observe as well if he's hired to do that.
Detectives are even worse, as they cost more. But please see my previous comment. Have you ever seen a detective used in this fashion? I haven't. And this makes your argument speculative at best.
and how about a policeman who is standing and scrutinizing passers-by, trying to determine if they're up to something illegal? hence your argument is refuted.
As I recall the policeman's motto is "To protect and to serve." A camera does neither; it merely surveys and records. It doesn't direct traffic, it doesn't provide assistance, it doesn't help old ladies across the street, it doesn't even eat donuts. And even if a policeman does stand and scrutinize, he doesn't record. And don't try the bit about his brain is recording. His brain cannot simultaneously record the activities of hundreds of passersby, or recall them perfectly say ten years from now. He cannot remember clothes worn, items carried, or routes taken for even a small handful of pedestrians. His job is to look for suspicious activity and then act on it, discarding all other information. A camera merely records the activities of all persons, making no judgements and providing no assistance.
Your refutation is refuted.
your thick-headedness nonwithstanding
Just FYI, ad hominems rarely win points in debates. They're generally considered bad form.
there could easily be a detective at the same place
I suppose for argument's sake we could suppose a policeman on every corner doing nothing all day but sketching and taking notes, but in fact I've never seen this. Have you? And if I did go out one day to find police to stand around sketching the activities of random citizens, I'd sure as hell be demanding to know a) who authorized my tax dollars to be so wasted, and b) what business it is of the police department to be so recording my activities.
the only real difference is that the camera is vastly more efficient.
As mentioned above, there is a qualitative difference: the cop observes in order to discover and act upon suspicious activity. The camera merely observes.
All she has to do is memorize... a random sequence of ten or eleven numbers.
Not at all. That's why they invented phone books, directory assistance and one-touch dialing. Memorizing is a convenience, not a necessity.
As to the rest of your post, touching numbers on a phone keypad is certainly more intuitive than using a mouse (see previous discussions on this point), and is accomplished with relative ease by a far greater number of people than mouse movements. Second, my phone has a backspace key, doesn't yours?
"we all know"? don't presume to speak for others, and claim that your view is universal, it isn't!
Nah, he's right. We all know it's different. For one thing, installing a camera to watch me implies that I need to be watched -- i.e., that I'm untrustworthy. This is entirely different from the casual observer whose view just happen to pass over me as I perambulate down the boulevard.
Second, he's also right that the camera isn't simply watching, it's recording, in a way qualitatively different from the human brain casually recording and then discarding information, your sophistry notwithstanding.
The touch-screen may be the most intuitive.... However, it is one of the hardest interfaces to actually use... due to the current user interface being designed for a mouse
You're absolutely correct that mouse interfaces and touchscreens were never meant to get along. I should have been more specific: the most intuitive interface for my money is the touchscreen with appropriately-designed interface.
That a touchscreen would require a much simplified menu system (for lack of onscreen real estate) is actually a benefit, as it would force UI designers to simplify their interfaces.
You're also correct that speed and efficiency on the one hand, and ease of use on the other, sometimes find themselves at loggerheads, and one is forced to make choices. Obviously (anyone with a PDA will tell you this), entering text by tapping on a screen will never be as efficient as a keyboard; but then a keyboard has an enormous learning curve.
I'm pretty confident Microsoft didn't invent double clicking.
I don't claim to be an expert on the history of the double-click. I don't know who invented it, but Microsoft should have refused to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Instead, they built their interface around it.
I'll reiterate what I've already said: double-clicking a mouse is not a physically trivial task. Even people with high manual dexterity not uncommonly fail at it. I know I do. Those with limited digital dexterity -- arthristis sufferers, those with nervous disorders, take your pick -- can find it frustratingly difficult.
I personally use a three-button trackball, but it requires even greater dexterity than a mouse. And it always takes an effort to keep my third finger above the third button, rather than resting on it, where it's liable to unexpectedly pop up a context menu at the most inconvenient of times. Again, not a task for the physically limited.
If you can't move one object and recognize that it moves another object in proportion, you have brain damage and need special care.
Ah, yes, the classic blame-the-user rationale: "If he can't figure out my interface, then he's a damn moron."
If you can't hold a mouse steady, what's to stop you from pressing the wrong place on the touchscreen?
The primary problem touchscreens overcome is not an unsteady hand, but the difficulty of correlating the movements of an input device to an onscreen cursor. I don't know anyone -- even the most severely mentally handicapped -- who doesn't understand the concept of touch; sight and touch are the most fundamental interface mechanisms we have. Similarly, my touchscreen training sessions generally last about 4 seconds: "If you want it, touch it." Beats mouse training hands down (no pun intended!). The most usable and intuitive information kiosks I've seen -- in department stores, supplying directory information, etc. -- always use a touchscreen interface combined with a simple menu system -- no more than five items is ideal. Surprisingly, the use of icons vs. words doesn't seem to be of major importance for usability; using both together seems to achieve the best results.
Guess what my mother who is approaching 60 has learned it.
If we're going to toss out anecdotals, my mother, who has a Master's degree, is completely befuddled by computers, and is constantly forgetting when to double- and when to single-click. When I design interfaces, I design them with her in mind.
the only people that I've seen that haven't been able to comprehend...
You haven't seen too many people, have you? There are plenty of folks who neither fear nor oppose technology -- not a few, in fact, who recognize its value -- yet who, nonetheless, are hopelessly confused by it.
This is a "Mouse". See? It's got a little mousey tail! When you move it, that thing on the screen (it's called a cursor) moves.
Ignoring for a moment the condescending tone of your remarks, in fact, recognizing the correlation between the movements of a mouse and an onscreen cursor is not as automatic for many people are you assume. Like learning to throw a ball, it's actually a quite complex physiological-mental process which can break down at many points. Sure most folks -- especially those of us who have been using computers for any length of time -- think of it as the simplest of tasks, but easy does not mean automatic, and we must not lose sight of that fact.
If you click it twice real fast, it's called (You still with me?) "Double Clicking".
Don't get me started on double-clicking -- one of the stupidest GUI design decisions in Microsoft's less-than-illustrious career. I can't count the number of users I've worked with who just can't -- for whatever reason -- complete a double-click. Some are unable to hold the mouse steady enough between clicks. Others can't complete two clicks fast enough for the computer to recognize the "double" in "double-click" (yes, you and I know both of these settings are configurable; how many Joe Technophobes would?).
And why the left mouse button? Why not the right? Did you know many people have difficulty distinguishing between left and right? Did you know men are better at it than women?
Apple got at least this much right -- give them one button, and don't make them push it more than once. But, for my money, a touch-screen is still the most intuitive interface.
Double Clicking opens up this program. This program is called [foo]. It does [bar].
You mean if I want this computer to do something I have to open a "program"? Why? Why can't it just do what I want it to do?
And suddenly my grandmother can check her e-mail.
Yeah, sure. All she has to do is learn what a mouse is, figure out how to coordinate its movements with an onscreen cursor she may or may not be able to see, remember which button to click and how many times to click it, remember to hold it real steady while she's clicking it, figure out what an icon is and which blasted one represents e-mail (whatever that is).... And that all assumes she even understands why she should care. "If I want to talk with someone", she might say, "what's wrong with the phone?"
that is outweighed by the fact that I will only print the realy good pictures
I often do this with film, as well -- I simply request development only, no prints. A quick second visit to select the photos I want usually reduces the number of prints to less than half the number of frames shot. Since there's a one-hour shop just around the corner, the whole process (no pun intended!) normally takes about three hours start-to-finish, much faster -- and cheaper -- than I could print them myself. And as an added bonus they throw in a free 10x12 for each roll. I have yet to see a consumer-level digital camera than can match the quality of those 10x12s.
Your argument about archiveing is valid. However, there is a pretty good fix, print the picures... and put them in a photo album.
Sorry, but no. The prints aren't my archival format of choice, the negatives are. Prints generally don't capture all the detail of the film (thus, for example, when I digitize my photos, I always scan the negatives, not the prints). I do keep photo albums around for showing to friends, but the whole point of film is, well, the film.
I can fit 3 4x6 picures on a page. That's $0.33 per photo.
The cost of photo paper and ink seems to be about the same here, but, at current exchange rates, I pay the equivalent of about U.S. $0.12 per print, or $0.15 for reprints, which makes film much cheaper than digital. In any case, I've yet to see a consumer-level printer whose output wasn't obviously home-printed, at least to my eye. Nothing I've seen under $3500 truly produces "photo-quality" results.
The internet access, like the the computer does not count.
It would for me. Since I pay per minute, the cost of uploading multi-MB images, while not huge, would not be insignificant. In any case, I'll rephrase: Digital requires at least $2300 worth of equipment -- not including the cost of the camera.
Do you have a laptop?
See my reply elsewhere for the long version of this, but -- even if I had one -- lugging around a laptop plus support equipment (batteries, power supply and voltage converter) just to empty off a flash card hardly seems like a practical solution. Much easier to just drop used film into my pocket.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, frankly speaking, given all the really important issues the world has to worry about, source code to an operating system hardly merits the attention of government types. Trying to subvert Truth, Justice and the American Way by releasing Windows source strikes me as peculiarly futile. Who, after all, would care? In any case, IIRC, MS is only making portions of the source available, and it must be viewed onsite in Redmond. What? Some ex-KGB type is going to covertly copy down 30 million lines of code onto a legal pad under his desk?
Lee Kaiwen Taiwan, ROC
Somebody please tell me why they deserve to win this case.
Lee Kaiwen Taiwan, ROC
Whereas, just a few days early, in European Commission eyes Linux (31-10-2002), Netproject director Eddie Bleasdale claims, "the debate had moved beyond whether to use open source as the cost of ownership benefits were well understood."
What do you think? Is this true? Is Microsoft still fighting yesterday's battles? Has Linux really already won the TCO argument?
It'd be nice to see a domino effect: Banking, then insurance, then retail, then ... consumer's desktops.
Speaking of domino effects, can anyone shed more light on this quote from The rise and rise of the Linux empire (10-09-2002)?
Was any such thing actually reported, and where can more details be found? And are Wall Street traders really such a bellweather of technology trends as the author claims?
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
Personally, I don't know any six-year-olds who have read Harry Potter (though that's not to say there aren't any). I do know a lot of teenagers who have (Including most of my nearly 600 students). A lot of Rowling's audience could handle significantly more complex plot and character development.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
It is also, in the end, was makes the evil in LOTR so much more terrifying. Harry Potter may be superficially threatened by evil, but we just wink and smile, knowing that it will never really touch him. The only suspense is in the details of how Harry defeats it.
In LOTR, evil can -- and does -- triumph over good -- in the fall of Boromir, the succumbing of Saruman and of Denethor, the self-doubts of Gandalf and Galadriel when offered the Ring (Gandalf -- even Gandalf -- says he would fail; and we believe him). And, most poignantly, in the figure of Frodo, who, for all his goodness, casts aside his quest and claims the Ring.
And therein lies the terror. Harry Potter's Voldemort is scary in a Halloweenish sort of way, but we never feel threatened by him. Sauron terrifies, because we see ourselves in Frodo.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
Agreed. This, to my mind, is what makes Snape one of the most interesting characters in the book -- much more interesting than Potter and Co. Snape is a repentant Death-Eater who, for all his unpleasantness, is basically good. And that makes Snape something Potter is not -- a complex character, a character with depth and ambiguity and color. I just hope Rowling recognizes the potential in Snape's character, and doesn't continue to waste him on petty meannesses. Yeah, it was superficially cool to see Snape get his at the point of Harry's wand in book three (or was that four?), but how much more interesting it would be for Snape to turn out to be right once in a while. To see Harry, despite his spite for Snape, learn to respect him just a little.
Harry does break the rules sometimes, for bad reasons. It's usually just due to general teenager irresponsibility, though.
But "bad reasons" and "teenage irresponsibility" are not at all the same thing. The latter is just typical teenage shortsightedness. The former, like Frodo's claiming of the ring, is done with full knowledge of, and consent to, the evil of the act being committed. Harry's irresponsibility is something he will grow out of; it does not stem from any moral weakness or ambivalence in the character.
Sirrius Black was pretty borderline in book three, as well.
Only because Rowling wanted to keep us guessing as to his true nature. Once we figured out he was a good guy, it was quickly obvious that Sirius had never really committed an evil act -- either he was framed, or the acts just bore the shadows of evil -- shadows that vanished when the full light of the facts were shined on them. So, in the end, Black turns out to be just like Harry -- an insufferably good character that never really does anything bad.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
Its a bit of a stretch.
What's a "bit of a stretch"? That Tolkien drew from the Bible? Both Tolkien and his creation were profoundly Catholic, whether drawing directly from the Bible, or more generally from Christian tradition. While elements of LOTR (the Valar, for example) have their parallels in Norse mythology, it's all wrapped up in a deeply Christian cosmology, even without being explicitly Christian.
Fundies, on the other hand, can't seem to get past the wizardry.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
This presumes that children are incapable of "resonating" with adult themes, something I think is certainly not true. While children may not be able to articulate their intuitions, I think we sell them short if we assume that children can only relate to a sanitized, morally two-toned imaginary world like HP.
In that way it's much like LOTR or Dune
I disagree. HP is not at all like either LOTR or Dune. What HP lacks is not the moral certitudes -- both LOTR and Dune are pervaded with crystal clear notions of good and evil -- but the moral ambivalences which make people so human, and characters like Harry Potter so much less than that. The reason Frodo stands (figuratively) head and shoulders above Harry is because, in the end, he fails, or more, because he tries and fails. In LOTR, it is the struggle which makes Frodo a hero, despite his failure. In HP, it is circumstances which turn Harry into an accidental hero. But Harry never really struggles.
Harry is primarily a hero by happenstance. Frodo's heroism is, precisely because of his struggle, much more human than Harry's, and therefore much more compelling. Even for children.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
And yet Tolkien's creation is one of the most profoundly Christian stories written in the last couple of centuries. Too bad fundamentalists can't get past their shiboleths to recognize that.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
As anyone who has read the books knows Harry has always been uncomfortable with his fame.
So modify the quote to "...skates through school ... while feeling badly about it." Same difference.
This is the one thing that bothers me about Harry Potter, as much as I enjoyed the stories superficially. The characters have no moral depth. The good guys are good guys; the bad guys are just mean. There's no struggle in Potter's goodness, just as there's no struggle in Malfoy's evil. The stories are finger-painted in pastels, with none of the moral ambivalences that make life (and characters) so interesting.
This is why I enjoy good literature -- because it shows me me -- the good, the bad, the failures and the (partial) successes. Harry Potter is cotton candy -- tasty, but there's no substance to take away from the experience.
Rowling could take lessons from Shakespeare -- or even Tolkien. There's a reason Shakespeare's plays are called tragedies -- because they're populated with tragic figures. MacBeth did not revel in his evils -- he was tormented by them. It was Hamlet's weaknesses in the face of his goodness which made his character so tragic. And that's where Potter falls down. There is no tragedy in Harry Potter (will Harry eventually succomb to evil, as Frodo Baggins did? Don't count on it). Even when he gets into trouble he does so for all the right reasons. He breaks rules because it is, under the circumstances, right to do so, and oh-so-dimensionless Harry Potter always does the right thing.
I think even children are quite capable of recognizing such issues -- intuitively, at least, even if they aren't able to verbalize it. I first picked up Tolkien at 12, and knew instantly I had found a treasure, even if I had to wait for Shakespeare to show me why. Harry Potter entertains, certainly. But he doesn't challenge. And that's why, in fifteen years or so, no one will remember who he was.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
Captain Sheth Fourbranes of the Toledo, Ohio criminal investigations division said a search of Kremnall's glove box yielded a cache of thirty three condiment packets from more than a dozen fast food restaurants scattered across six northern Ohio counties. "Ketchup, mustard, relish -- she had it all," Fourbranes, speaking at an afternoon press conference, said. "We estimate a street value on this stuff of nearly six bits."
The attorney general's office, calling this a "major victory for law-abiding citizens everywhere", said if convicted the accused could face up to forty two years in prison. Mrs. Kremnall, who is scheduled to be arraigned later this week, was unavailable for comment, but a friend of a friend is said to have described her as being "two french fries short of a Happy Meal".
You're confusing licenses here. This is about site licenses, not EULAs. K-Mart did not run out and buy 50,000 copies of Windows at the local PCs-R-US(TM). They purchased a site license from Microsoft. The terms of that site license are -- in some cases likely radically -- different from anything contained in the EULA that comes with store-bought copies, and most likely DO contain clauses about non-transferability.
This is not some sort of small-print bombshell that Microsoft has been holding close to its chest ready to spring on an unsuspecting world. It is part of a contract that corporations review and agree to when they purchase site licenses. While IANAL, I suspect it's probably even standard boilerplate stuff. K-Mart's lawyers were quite aware of the clause, you can be sure, before they signed it. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with your home copy of Windows XP.
Yes, I've seen this -- after an accident, interviewing witnesses, for example. I've never seen a cop standing around recording for no good reason.
2) your ad hominems are ok but mine aren't?
I used no ad hominems. Try looking up "ad hominem" and then look up "sophistry"; it's a description of your arguments, not of you.
good luck telling the government you don't like how your tax dollars are being spent...
They're called city council meetings; I've attended more than a few in the past, and yes, the city (at least where I lived; maybe you need a new place of residence) does listen to citizen input. State and federal government may be another story, but they're not the ones putting in cameras.
cameras [are] more efficient and spend less of your tax $.
It's what they're spending my tax dolloars on that's the issue, not how many of them they're spending.
in my second example i specifically said a detective. there's no reason he can't merely observe as well if he's hired to do that.
Detectives are even worse, as they cost more. But please see my previous comment. Have you ever seen a detective used in this fashion? I haven't. And this makes your argument speculative at best.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
As I recall the policeman's motto is "To protect and to serve." A camera does neither; it merely surveys and records. It doesn't direct traffic, it doesn't provide assistance, it doesn't help old ladies across the street, it doesn't even eat donuts. And even if a policeman does stand and scrutinize, he doesn't record. And don't try the bit about his brain is recording. His brain cannot simultaneously record the activities of hundreds of passersby, or recall them perfectly say ten years from now. He cannot remember clothes worn, items carried, or routes taken for even a small handful of pedestrians. His job is to look for suspicious activity and then act on it, discarding all other information. A camera merely records the activities of all persons, making no judgements and providing no assistance.
Your refutation is refuted.
your thick-headedness nonwithstanding
Just FYI, ad hominems rarely win points in debates. They're generally considered bad form.
there could easily be a detective at the same place
I suppose for argument's sake we could suppose a policeman on every corner doing nothing all day but sketching and taking notes, but in fact I've never seen this. Have you? And if I did go out one day to find police to stand around sketching the activities of random citizens, I'd sure as hell be demanding to know a) who authorized my tax dollars to be so wasted, and b) what business it is of the police department to be so recording my activities.
the only real difference is that the camera is vastly more efficient.
As mentioned above, there is a qualitative difference: the cop observes in order to discover and act upon suspicious activity. The camera merely observes.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
Not at all. That's why they invented phone books, directory assistance and one-touch dialing. Memorizing is a convenience, not a necessity.
As to the rest of your post, touching numbers on a phone keypad is certainly more intuitive than using a mouse (see previous discussions on this point), and is accomplished with relative ease by a far greater number of people than mouse movements. Second, my phone has a backspace key, doesn't yours?
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
Nah, he's right. We all know it's different. For one thing, installing a camera to watch me implies that I need to be watched -- i.e., that I'm untrustworthy. This is entirely different from the casual observer whose view just happen to pass over me as I perambulate down the boulevard.
Second, he's also right that the camera isn't simply watching, it's recording, in a way qualitatively different from the human brain casually recording and then discarding information, your sophistry notwithstanding.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
You're absolutely correct that mouse interfaces and touchscreens were never meant to get along. I should have been more specific: the most intuitive interface for my money is the touchscreen with appropriately-designed interface.
That a touchscreen would require a much simplified menu system (for lack of onscreen real estate) is actually a benefit, as it would force UI designers to simplify their interfaces.
You're also correct that speed and efficiency on the one hand, and ease of use on the other, sometimes find themselves at loggerheads, and one is forced to make choices. Obviously (anyone with a PDA will tell you this), entering text by tapping on a screen will never be as efficient as a keyboard; but then a keyboard has an enormous learning curve.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
I don't claim to be an expert on the history of the double-click. I don't know who invented it, but Microsoft should have refused to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Instead, they built their interface around it.
I'll reiterate what I've already said: double-clicking a mouse is not a physically trivial task. Even people with high manual dexterity not uncommonly fail at it. I know I do. Those with limited digital dexterity -- arthristis sufferers, those with nervous disorders, take your pick -- can find it frustratingly difficult.
I personally use a three-button trackball, but it requires even greater dexterity than a mouse. And it always takes an effort to keep my third finger above the third button, rather than resting on it, where it's liable to unexpectedly pop up a context menu at the most inconvenient of times. Again, not a task for the physically limited.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
Ah, yes, the classic blame-the-user rationale: "If he can't figure out my interface, then he's a damn moron."
If you can't hold a mouse steady, what's to stop you from pressing the wrong place on the touchscreen?
The primary problem touchscreens overcome is not an unsteady hand, but the difficulty of correlating the movements of an input device to an onscreen cursor. I don't know anyone -- even the most severely mentally handicapped -- who doesn't understand the concept of touch; sight and touch are the most fundamental interface mechanisms we have. Similarly, my touchscreen training sessions generally last about 4 seconds: "If you want it, touch it." Beats mouse training hands down (no pun intended!). The most usable and intuitive information kiosks I've seen -- in department stores, supplying directory information, etc. -- always use a touchscreen interface combined with a simple menu system -- no more than five items is ideal. Surprisingly, the use of icons vs. words doesn't seem to be of major importance for usability; using both together seems to achieve the best results.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
If we're going to toss out anecdotals, my mother, who has a Master's degree, is completely befuddled by computers, and is constantly forgetting when to double- and when to single-click. When I design interfaces, I design them with her in mind.
But, then, anecdotals prove nothing.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
You haven't seen too many people, have you? There are plenty of folks who neither fear nor oppose technology -- not a few, in fact, who recognize its value -- yet who, nonetheless, are hopelessly confused by it.
This is a "Mouse". See? It's got a little mousey tail! When you move it, that thing on the screen (it's called a cursor) moves.
Ignoring for a moment the condescending tone of your remarks, in fact, recognizing the correlation between the movements of a mouse and an onscreen cursor is not as automatic for many people are you assume. Like learning to throw a ball, it's actually a quite complex physiological-mental process which can break down at many points. Sure most folks -- especially those of us who have been using computers for any length of time -- think of it as the simplest of tasks, but easy does not mean automatic, and we must not lose sight of that fact.
If you click it twice real fast, it's called (You still with me?) "Double Clicking".
Don't get me started on double-clicking -- one of the stupidest GUI design decisions in Microsoft's less-than-illustrious career. I can't count the number of users I've worked with who just can't -- for whatever reason -- complete a double-click. Some are unable to hold the mouse steady enough between clicks. Others can't complete two clicks fast enough for the computer to recognize the "double" in "double-click" (yes, you and I know both of these settings are configurable; how many Joe Technophobes would?).
And why the left mouse button? Why not the right? Did you know many people have difficulty distinguishing between left and right? Did you know men are better at it than women?
Apple got at least this much right -- give them one button, and don't make them push it more than once. But, for my money, a touch-screen is still the most intuitive interface.
Double Clicking opens up this program. This program is called [foo]. It does [bar].
You mean if I want this computer to do something I have to open a "program"? Why? Why can't it just do what I want it to do?
And suddenly my grandmother can check her e-mail.
Yeah, sure. All she has to do is learn what a mouse is, figure out how to coordinate its movements with an onscreen cursor she may or may not be able to see, remember which button to click and how many times to click it, remember to hold it real steady while she's clicking it, figure out what an icon is and which blasted one represents e-mail (whatever that is).... And that all assumes she even understands why she should care. "If I want to talk with someone", she might say, "what's wrong with the phone?"
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
that is outweighed by the fact that I will only print the realy good pictures
I often do this with film, as well -- I simply request development only, no prints. A quick second visit to select the photos I want usually reduces the number of prints to less than half the number of frames shot. Since there's a one-hour shop just around the corner, the whole process (no pun intended!) normally takes about three hours start-to-finish, much faster -- and cheaper -- than I could print them myself. And as an added bonus they throw in a free 10x12 for each roll. I have yet to see a consumer-level digital camera than can match the quality of those 10x12s.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
Your argument about archiveing is valid. However, there is a pretty good fix, print the picures ... and put them in a photo album.
Sorry, but no. The prints aren't my archival format of choice, the negatives are. Prints generally don't capture all the detail of the film (thus, for example, when I digitize my photos, I always scan the negatives, not the prints). I do keep photo albums around for showing to friends, but the whole point of film is, well, the film.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC
The cost of photo paper and ink seems to be about the same here, but, at current exchange rates, I pay the equivalent of about U.S. $0.12 per print, or $0.15 for reprints, which makes film much cheaper than digital. In any case, I've yet to see a consumer-level printer whose output wasn't obviously home-printed, at least to my eye. Nothing I've seen under $3500 truly produces "photo-quality" results.
The internet access, like the the computer does not count.
It would for me. Since I pay per minute, the cost of uploading multi-MB images, while not huge, would not be insignificant. In any case, I'll rephrase: Digital requires at least $2300 worth of equipment -- not including the cost of the camera.
Do you have a laptop?
See my reply elsewhere for the long version of this, but -- even if I had one -- lugging around a laptop plus support equipment (batteries, power supply and voltage converter) just to empty off a flash card hardly seems like a practical solution. Much easier to just drop used film into my pocket.
Lee Kaiwen
Taiwan, ROC