This format change is not enough to warrant the replacement of the format we have now. The last few years of existing DVD have been a huge success. Players are easily found for $30, most new release titles are $20 (less than a family trip to the theatre BTW), and most back catalog stuff can be had for less.
People are building libraries and have players where they want them. Turning all that over is going to take a *long* time; namely, years --many of them. People will get players that read both formats of course, but it's too late really to even make a significant dent in the existing player base already out there now.
The whole problem I have with this is linked to my enjoyment of the current formats compared to the new ones. Existing DVD played on high-end equipment is a very good experience. Existing DVD played on most equipment in use today is an excellent experience. The new format will do little to enhance the latter (maybe longer movies on one disc, but who really cares?), and does improve the former, but not to a high enough degree.
Simply: It is not a big enough deal to make a difference.
This whole thing will get news because people can smell the money surrounding DVD and those amounts of money talk.
From a geek perspective, the existing DVD formats are essentially open. I can do anything I want to the DVD media I own. Players today are getting a lot better for playing backups or home authored content. Later this year I plan to build a myth box for a home video on demand service to make things easier. All of this stuff will happen at low price points and with tech easily understood and well supported on Linux.
I have nearly 300 titles on existing DVD. I made that investment because the current format and display technology delivers an experience that is quite good for the home. Will I replace those titles? For 95 percent of them, the answer is a clear "NO." Better question: Will I be forced out of them? Not a chance really, because the format is open enough to prevent that from actually happening.
So the money thing is a red herring in my mind. The numbers just are not there once everything is taken into account. Why the news then?
Control. The studios essentially lost it with the current formats. Sure, most folks endure the restrictions because most players honor them. Anybody that wants a decent ad free experience can get players and or software that will do the trick nicely. (That is what the myth box will be for. Encode the movies only, leave the crap and keep the discs safe from the kids.)
These guys are stupid really. Even though the existing formats are essentially open, most people find the price worth the experience and will likely continue to do so. A decent balance has been struck by accident that really makes the current system as a whole workable for everyone in general, but...
the greedy bastards are itching for a second chance to get it right this time...
I believe folks are used to how things work now. The only thing that pisses of the masses are the simple restrictions in place now. The media moguls can't help but add in the controls they think they need and the public will hear all about them to the demise of any format other than the one they have now.
Nice tech, but clearly niche tech for some time to come...
I am running older PC hardware. Interestingly enough, the features that made the long cycle possible are those that put the cost of said PC directly in line with an Apple machine. Go figure...
Anyway, you are finding what many folks are finding; namely, that your hardware today really will continue to do the job longer than they want you to believe it will.
OS X is a well crafted OS from what I see. Getting faster with new releases is a rare trend these days. After the design is well tweaked, I suspect this part of things will slow a bit, but will not likely regress into the mess that currently is win32 and a lot of Linux.
Sort of confirmes my idea regarding intergrated Linux machines. Well constructed hardware running Linux would exhibit many of the same value traits you currently see in OS X. The message to the market would be good for both camps...
to me the Mac is good enough. The latest batch of machines are all plenty fast for what most folks do.
Now it comes down to OS preferences, applications used and such. One can run pretty much anything under win32 these days, most things on OS X and most *other* things under Linux.
Price is still a consideration for me. I now have my eye on a Mac, but still need to live within my means for now. That means build it or white box Intel hardware for about one more cycle. I like the Mac because of the nice synergy between the hardware and the OS and standard apps --always have. (SGI started doing a fine job of this back in the early 90's as well.)
I totally believe Intel / AMD systems will, in general, be able to run faster simply because the release cycle is shorter and because of market demands for speed. There is always somebody willing to pay for peak performance. Sadly, this means hot-running Intel chips.
The good enough factor is growing interesting these days however. Most folks don't need a third of the CPU being sold today. With hardware prices being what they are, selling slower machines for less money really does not make any sense. Given the basic truth that all the machines today are fast enough, maybe we will finally see some creative differentiators again on the PC side of things --an area where Apple has the clear lead.
Tangent mode on:
Why doesn't somebody start making nice intergrated Linux machines? There is enough of a market to really ask the question: Does every PC need to run win32 anymore?
Apple clearly keeps its market based on a lot of different factors besides performance. Seems their model could be emulated today at a very reasonable price point using Linux as the core OS and building out from there.
How many here would buy a nice machine made to run Linux? Imagine a cool form factor, many intergrated features (video i/o, DVD, audio, USB, Card Readers, graphics and such all in the box, nicely supported configured and ready to go?)
It's almost as if the Desktop Linux project needs a hardware partner. The two together could give application developers a solid target to focus on... Just a coupla thoughts.
Ok, so the machine is used to generate ballots... In other posts, I have indicated this is acceptable and stand by that.
I still have worries regarding subtle manupulation of the vote results; however, this can be done with paper systems as well... Your description of the process gives me some reason to learn more for sure.
Your point regarding the blind is a good one and I agree with it. In fact, I never really considered the problem from their position. I am going to take a look at the options our vote by mail system here in Oregon provides blind people. Hmmm....
Details aside, this makes good sense to consider because any measure of independance for the blind is worth working for simply because people value that enough to make the work worth the effort.
My position about the work being a part of the voting process is important. I don't want voting to be marginalized more than it already is. A balance between making things too hard with unnecessary reductions in turnouts and the "too easy" process with potentially high turnouts containing results not well thought out is something I do not see in the discussion where it should be.
Maybe I am a bit too touchy on this point, but dammit voting matters. A lot of people made significant sacrifices to make it a reality for the rest of us later on. I am not sure the majority of people today really understand that.
Thanks for giving me a reason, as asked, to explore more. I'll give it a read and some thought.
I am not sure electronic is the way to go. Maybe you could post some information here to address a couple of concerns:
1) The information detailing the will of the people should be moved via a means that is human traceable and readable and durable. Paper seems ideal for this because it addresses all three issues and because it takes people to actually do the moving. Any of us can observe the process and many of the movements and all the results are there for questions later.
Once the information moves into the form of electronic bits, how can we be sure of the movements, audits, and machine credence?
2) Why take the work out of the process in the first place? We have plenty of workers who are willing to do their civic duty. Making voting fast and easy seems to be the wrong bottleneck to solve. Voting is important --important enough to do a bit of work to see it done right. Why not use the electronics to get better information to the voters and encourage more political discussion on the issues? (Would be a nice check on the media at this point which I think we need.)
What you are doing is better than Diebold for sure --make no mistake. I just don't see the point after learning what I have about the voting process in general.
Here in Oregon we have the mail in ballot. Counting happens quickly enough and the costs appear to be in line with voter expectations.
Turnout is somewhat of a problem on some issues, but the tax related elections are seeing good results. (hmmm)
Another interesting side-effect is related to the political messaging. Voters can commit to a vote anytime after they get their ballots. Maybe it's me, but I hear more political discource over a longer period of time because of this. You can't just blast your message and time it to get votes, you have to keep up the efforts.
Anyway, I am not so sure the paper really is that costly. The counting can be as distributed as is needed to get the job done and we have plenty of people. Isn't a fair system worth a bit of work? The cost issue is really a non-starter. There are always going to be plenty of retired people willing to do their part to contribute to society in a positive way. Let 'em do it! (Lots of them if we need that.) I just am not sure complexity is an issue given the ready supply of workers for the task.
Seems to me these electronic systems (obvious flaws aside) are a way to get out of the work necessary to run a democratic society. It is almost as if the spin is marginalizing voting in a bad way.
None of this is hard and it all matters more than we know. A bit of work a few times a year properly distributed is not too costly and keeps some important civics lessons in mind at the same time. Speeding the process in order to get onto bigger and better things strikes me as hasty and unwise...
One other thought along these lines. I am not sure we want elections that are too fast and easy. The current effort required to hold an election is a nice check against rapid change. Now you could argue that rapid change is what we need today, and I would agree with you. But, we must also consider the effect of too many elections. It takes time to see how the results affect society. We could end up with a political race condition of sorts with the American people suffering as a result while groups take advantage of that...
Even though I am a technical person, I reject electronic voting altogether at this point. There are too many issues with the process and its connotations for me to endorse it. I like the mail in system, but that is clearly not the way things are going to go, so...
Use the machines to assist in making a paper ballot, even grab quick stats from them to make polls easier or more timely, but that must be it. The will of the people must be recorded on media in human readable format.
Go for the simple solution, sell the civic duty to enough folks to get the work done in a timely manner and then move on to bigger and better things.
Just had another thought. We could do a lot better job of collating and publishing the relevant information for folks to read and understand via electronic means. I find it frustrating to read the voters pamplet only to learn enough to then go seek the actual language in question. The paid arguments are lame these days when anyone can comment. We should have discussion boards and public awareness of them, so people can engage the issues with greater fidelity than we do today. (I know there are problems with this, but the idea is sound.)
Re: outsourcing! That's funny as hell. We Americans have realized we don't have time to count our votes, we are too busy shopping and writing laws for the rest of you! So why not just be the good little bitches you are and count 'em up for us. In fact, you can just consider these votes yours because we are going to force the results via treaty anyway. --Right!
Not sure really. I guess knowing the possibilities now will motivate the right folks and we will see the feature soon enough.
Computers are pretty damn fast these days. Given that, I strongly disagree with all the folks who want to get rid of X. Adding these kinds of features is a good thing, just don't break the network features at the same time....
I have one idea, though it has very little to do with menus.
Say you have one of those annoying supposedly informative dialogs. (Press ok to continue, or selection invalid...) Instead of simply blasting the dialog on the screen, you could fade it in, the user notices, but does not need to click or anything because:
a: it does not obstruct what is happening, but is more easily noticed than status indicators, more intuitive than things like cursor changes,
and
b: since it is transparent, it can fade away.
Basically, I believe there are GUI elements that could inform people and possibly present transient choices in a manner that is not as distracting as todays "ok to..." elements.
Think video game like instead of microsoft office like, but with some style.
I agree totally with you on the menus. Nice eye candy, but little use at this point.
On one hand, you have Microsoft simply trying to make its products do more things so they can get more money from their customers and get as many new customers as they can. Can't really fault them for that, it's what companies do.
Because they control the OS, they are always going to have the upper hand with regard to applications. Why? Because they get the power of the default first and formost.
At first the solution seems simple. Either force them to carry other products, or deny them the right to intergrate their own. Full disclosure of the API interfaces is sort of a 50/50 comprimise in that it would potentially allow others to make apps on par, but still does little to help mitigate the power of the default.
The hard truth is that most folks really don't want to choose. They want to buy the machine and have it do stuff for them. Maybe as the art of computing continues to become common knowledge, people will be more willing to make choices. Until then, the power of the default really trumps most everything else.
Is this Microsofts fault? Not really, though I would like to believe it is. They happen to have been in the right place at the right time with this understanding in place.
One thing really burns my arse though. They know they have the power of the default and could easily maintain a healthy share with it and strong products alone, but they go one step further.
They make things hard for others on purpose to not only maintain their already healthy marketshare, but to go ahead and use questionable contracts, pricing, and hidden API information to make it has hard as possible for anyone else to even present an alternative. This combined with over zealous interdependancies between their products put most folks at a serious disadvantage when it comes to choice.
This is why I work damn hard to avoid the entire mess on a personal level. OSS gets almost everything done, but it does take work. The tradeoff is dollars and control. With OSS, I trade my time for both the ability to keep more of my dollars (or spend them where it makes sense --Mandrake!) and exercise the higher level of control over my computing environment.
Realistically, what is the DOJ going to do? They could demand any number of things of Microsoft. Who knows they might even get some of them after a 10 year legal battle that renders them moot. Like that would get us anywhere!
I suppose, they could directly begin to set the pieces in place to foster more government regulation of the market to enable choice that way, but that would hurt OSS. (Maybe not, but I find it hard to believe that regulation could help because OSS really depends on freedom at its core.) Regulation of software is really a slippery slope I am not sure any of us really want to enter onto.
Software really is just information. Computers are information tools, given the nice turing complete ones we can get today. Freedom in computing really means freedom of thought and expression no matter how you stack it. So regulation does not work well here.
Another facet of the problem is political. Gates success is admired by almost everyone that seeks that kind of power and influence in the world. We all know money makes the world go around no matter how altrustic we think we are. In the eyes of many people today generating such a fortune in a short time means Gates is doing the right things.
In these tough economic times, (ignoring whose fault it is) attempts to temper the momentum Microsoft has really won't fly politically. (Though it should, it's not like any of us are getting the benefit.)
Sorry, this is turning into a ramble of sorts, but there is another angle to the political side of things and it boils down to control. Microsoft has a lot of it and they make money. Others seeking control of computing to build similar fortunes all gravitate to the largest point of control in the hopes they can get things going their way. This means reducing
Fair enough on the binary and operators. Though I still would keep the operators because understanding those work for a whole lot of things besides electronics. Basic critical thinking skills for one.
Think about it for a moment. What if a kid was told they can have a candy or coke and chips or milk? I have done this wanting the kids to keep the sugar down while still allowing the choice of getting two treats at the store. I can tell you that almost every one of them took that to mean they could have the candy and the coke. They understood their correct choices only when the or/and was explained and the condition understood with a little discussion. Working through that kind of thing is a general critical thinking benefit that *will* help them later on when reading things or making complex choices.
Linking these things to computing somehow later would be easy.
As for the radio example, that was a real understanding I remember having when I was very young.
The key point was that sombody told me the sound got converted into electrical waves and back. (using the terms given to me as a kid BTW). A bit later someone else said that lightning was also electrical.
Hearing the sounds on the old AM radio during a storm related the two ideas more fully. It is these sort of simple conceptual facts that I was looking for with regard to computing. Nothing too technical like what frequency (using the radio example), but enough to spark understanding at a basic level as a foundation for later learning (or not depending on the kid).
The idea being with computers to understand why so many things are the way they are. Maybe even to set some initial expectations as to the computers working nature enough that things will be less of a surprise when they go exploring later. (Again, or not depending on the kid.)
Again using the radio example, neither fact was beyond reasonable expectations for young people to know and understand, yet hearing them made a difference to me. Now, I am the type to ask wierd questions anyway, but I can tell you from experience with my own kids that they sometimes benefit from stuff like that. It does not hurt, keeps school interesting and they just might gain some simple understanding while sitting board on the bus wondering about their world.
You should have thought through the radio thing a bit more.
BTW, I assume you have started higher math to a degree. Do you remember when you understood we only really add things together? The + sign does not really mean add, it means positive.
When solving terms (2x+3x-5=7x+3), the signed terms get added together right? Where is the + sign in that? Kids spend a bunch of time learning that + means add and minus means subtract only to spend more time unlearning these ideas in favor of signs and simple operators to process and solve equations. Does not seem to hurt them one bit as most of them get through it.
The stuff I am talking about is no different really. (maybe binary math is to a degree) I am not saying change everything, that is like the new math crap I spend time working through with my kids. But I am saying educators would be wise to link a few things to computing when it makes sense where they do not now. --Technical details aside, don't you agree?
Maybe we agree more than we think and the issue is semantics.
When I listed binary and the logic operators, I was not talking anything more than basics. What they are and how they work. Maybe do a little counting and some addition for a bit just to make 'em stick.
The logic operators are easliy done in many contexts --not just computers. You could talk about sets of things, use them to give instructions, place conditions on things. Again the idea being to learn a bit about how computers "think".
Many of the items on the list I gave are about setting expectations. As a kid, the radio was a fairly impressive thing. Once I knew the very basics (They have a place to broadcast from, the stuff they want to say gets converted into electric waves that go through the air, my radio reconverts that into (mostly) their intended sound) little things along the way made more sense. (Why does lightning make sound also could it be because those were both electrical?)
Detail is a problem with this sort of thing however. It is easy to add too much. I guess my point is that whole areas are being ignored when they should not be.
As for numeric representation, I will stick with this one. It is as simple as the little code puzzles they put on the back of cereal boxes, but it means a lot. The idea of symbols being numbers and numbers being the things computers work with is important. Many of these same ideas apply to math as well because they help tie the abstract to the real.
When we work with a computer in any sense, we agree on the abstract representation the computer makes and apply the results to the real world we live in. That is why we have to have interfaces and cannot just talk or write to the computer.
In any case, take any school subtract three items from the list and do the rest and the kids are going to be in pretty decent shape compared to what many of them get now.
Detail is tough, agreed. I would rather see something more than we see now.
You say doubleclick Open Office and File-Open. Well, what about "Save". What does that mean exactly? Does it mean keep for later, or does it mean erase what I had and keep what I see now?
Where is the information stored? Why is some information preserved when I turn off the computer while other information isn't? How do I know?
I am sorry, but the basics of computing should be common knowledge today.
The level of detail does not need to be high, but it does need to be higher than you indicate. My school went through the basics of electricity. magnets, and radio. Most people today understand how the radio works, they should know how the computer works too. Understanding how the data flows in a general way is not that hard.
It could be framed as a simple game of sorts. Have all the kids play the different roles. A couple of them are the CPU, others are the RAM, others the disk. Use the Intercom to illustrate a network to the other classroom.
Could be some field trips, or special class sessions like they had for cars and telephones when I was young. Those were interesting sessions that everyone got something out of. At the very least, the fear factor was removed as the "magic" behind the tech was replaced with some understandable representation.
None of these things are what I wish I had learned. (I was a geek, so I learned them anyway.)
Society today is making the same decisions about computers as they did cars long ago. They are going to be an important part of things. Literacy is important, basic understanding is important.
None of it is hard. All of it matters.
These are things I want to happen sure. Why? Because I believe technology today is ahead of both the law and the ability for the general public to debate on. We bitch here about stupid laws and yet we also say that the stuff is too tough to learn or not needed as part of a general education. The combination of technology and government is one that leaves most of us at a disadvantage as long as it continues to be ignored.
My reaction to this is change. Every item I listed can be covered easily from 6th through High School. Much of it can be framed around everyday situations and needs we all have. The rest can be optional, elective, extra credit stuff that the really interested or board can persue.
Maybe that list is too inclusive... I can accept that. What I cannot accept is the lack of attention the subject is getting now. A big part of school is about building our future leaders and wealth makers. Good schools make a nation strong.
The current state of things, at least in the schools I have seen, is pathetic. Simple task based education with very little depth and almost no regard for the social issues past the lame propaganda put forth by the media companies.
I agree with you. In my state, Oregon, we have a state mandated testing program. It is in addition to the standardized tests you and I both had.
The requirements of this program are directly tied to funding at both state and federal levels. Basically this system assumes that:
- teachers need to be told what to teach because they won't do it right without help from the state, (I call bullshit.)
and
- the students and their parents need feedback that is easy to digest and quantify.
The result being:
- teachers have little time to really teach things that matter because they have to meet the testing goals early and often;
- students go through school learning a bunch of task based information that does little to foster critical thinking skills;
- the state of Oregon spends a bunch of money on out of state developed testing programs (figure that one out...) to get information that does nobody any real good because:
it takes months, on average, for the results to be returned ruining the feedback loop for the most part. (Students are already onto the next task by the time they get the results from the first one.)
This means:
the best shot for the teachers is to simply teach to the test, or suffer the consequenses,
and
teach to the lowest common denominator because of the funding and job performance issues.
To top this off, the state uses the schools as a lever to prop up its excessive spending in other areas while the teachers hands are tied and their compensation is low.
This whole thing sucks and most folks here do not even know it. Teachers cannot say anything negative about the system. Parents can withhold their kids from testing, but the school is encouraged to fight that because of the funding issue. Many schools do not even know parents have an option. (I read the statutes and printed them for the school along with a letter detailing my reasons. They 'did research' and found it to be true. They fight me on it all the time, even said it was because they get comped on the tests.
The schools cannot really inform the parents because they have a conflict of interest. The State is not going to do it because the program looks good to the powers that be, plus they get dollars for doing it. Teachers are all quiet, unless they know you and can safely speak their mind. Students are simply trying to do what they are being asked to do. All of the positive information you will find on the net regarding the CIM/CAM program is State produced.
Sure there are bad teachers, but where I live, the problems appear to come from higher up. One good thing to note though:
Last year my son asked me about Open Office. He was doing his powerpoint slides on it using the Linux LTSP lab at the school! Cost of software is an issue that is leaving room for multi-OS exposure which can only be a good thing.
The problem I have with the whole mess is this:
Most teachers are behind the times on computing issues. (Other issues as well, but I am not qualified for those.) The education they go through prepares them well for the three R's, but is seriously lacking in computing.
Our state has a ton of out of work computing professionals, many qualified to teach some of this stuff with authority. They can't actually do that because they don't have the education background!
If the state was smart, they would find a way to get folks into the K-12 classrooms for subjects not covered in the basics and give their future taxpayers an education that might actually give them a fighting chance at making some real dollars to tax...
Sorry for ranting, I guess I am trying to say it's not all the teachers fault... --at least here anyway.
You made an interesting distinction: the secretary compared to the (implied) programmer / power user.
Basic user skills are not very related to language, in this we agree. Those skills can be learned by most anyone at any time. However these are not the skills that people need to make the most of their computing experiences. Only having these sorts of skills are a large part of the problem we have with computing today.
Nobody growing up today should be considering the nature of a computer as a 'magic box'. Early on, this was true because computing was new enough, but today that has changed.
Computers are basically everywhere today and they are only going to become more pervasive in the years to come. Understanding the core nature of computing is important and is related to language more than you are giving it credit for.
You are dead on in the last paragraph regarding perspective. Most schools are missing it and the questions you raise are good ones more folks should be asking before sending their kids into the computer enabled classroom.
(BTW, I believe we should not see computer use prior to 6th grade. --Kids need time to gain mastery of the three R's before getting to use the computer. If you think of the computer as a tool to help think, which is computing when you really think about it, one must be capable of thinking on their own in order to get the proper benefit of the tool.)
What students need to know? (6th grade - HS)
(About computing)
0. Computers do exactly two things, in general. They add numbers together and move numbers around.
1. The nature of information and how it is processed. Basics only here, RAM ROM CPU Storage, I/O concepts.
2. Why base 2 numbers? Logic AND, OR, NOT, XOR and others. Make kids give instructions for general tasks using these operators when they make sense. Use plain english for these and include problems and situations that require some simple basic logic to express.
3. The representation of things using numbers. This is where computing is a lot like language. We make up new words all the time to define and convey ideas in a shorthand way. --This makes things easier for us. Example: Joe is an asshole. What combination of words replace 'asshole'. A large part of the problem understanding computers is directly related to the concepts inherent in this type of discussion.
4. Types of computers. Embedded, complex, cluster, personal. Compare and contrast the microwave controller, personal computer, cell phone computer, game machine. How are they different? What representations of data are important to their function?
5. Computing concepts. Basic programming using some semi-natural language. Anybody should be able to ask a computer to perform many basic tasks. Everyone should have written a simple program or two to get the computer to do exactly what they want instead of learning which software to purchase or how to combine functions to get the same result. Text files should be important.*
This is not a UNIX thing, or an anti GUI thing, it is a language thing. Learning how to manupulate representations of things we find important in a form the computer is good at processing in a meaningful way. Having grown up on the 8bitters, this comes naturally, on todays computers this information needs to be taught because the higher level representations possible today allow the core of what is happening to be glossed over too easily. --"Magic Box"
6. Software. All software is simply information just like anything else we put into a computer. What makes it different from data?
7. Ethics. The computers of today, for the most part, do what we tell them to. Lets hope that continues to be true. Given this, what responsibilities do we have? Compare and contrast 'hacking' to 'cracking'. Why are they different and how important is that difference?
8. Culture. Once people begin using networked computers (0-6 do not require th
I do want things to consume less bandwidth because that is the right thing to do. I was referring to cosmetic changes and those of style. Too many of those and things could go sour.
The other reply to my post indicated this works if done incrementally. That is likely the way to go. For a moment, I envisioned the "new and improved"/. all trendy and disgusting...
I agree given that information. I never did pay too much attention to the Times and WSJ, but could always identify them quickly enough through the changes. Clearly they did the right thing in that I really did not notice much.
Looking forward to faster page loads in either case. Maybe the resulting savings will make the site easier on OSDN...
is a bad idea. Personally, I like it. Reducing the necessary bandwidth to use the site is a good thing though for everyone involved. Why spend money you don't have to in a down economy.
Things do look a bit dated, but maybe that is a good thing. The popularity of/. is not an issue so what's to prove by changing the look? Gain new users? Have more impact?
Anyone that matters knows the site already. The content is the reason they return, not the pretty icons. Getting more impact through a more compelling rendering might matter to a few folks, but will the expense be worth it?
Maybe this is the wrong comparison... Take an established publication like the Times or WSJ. Do they make big changes often? No. The formula works and is a big part of their identity.
I think they keep things the way they are because they know change works against the needs of their readers; namely, access to relevant content easily.
Unless I am missing something, major changes to/. would prove to be a mistake.
I have thought about this for a while now. I work somewhere that promotes the "latest tech". It's good stuff and I get to keep lots of different skills up, but I have learned something over the last couple of years that bothers me:
The latest tech is not always the answer. Most problems are common and can be addressed nicely with existing tech, provided one has both support from PHB's and the skills to handle the problem.
Funny thing, I am finding many of my "new" skills involve learning about the new stuff while many of the problems remain the same. (I am sure this is not true for all industries, but for mine this appears to be the case.)
Problem is that I see many folks can spend some time and energy really applying what they have and get a very high percentage of the return without all the expense, pain and other things that go with new solutions.
I love tech, but lately I really wonder if the next layer of stuff coming down the line is really worth it all.
In a very real sense, maybe "IT" does not matter as much these days.
the simple fact that technology has outpaced the ability for society in general to deal with it and those in the know are taking advantage.
The law regarding technology is in the dark ages right now. We are fighting basic battles over information. Our ability to even process our own information freely is under attack. Our very ability to think and discuss things with one another is under question today.
Our leaders, in general, are behind the times with regard to technolgy and its potential effect on society today. Sure they have advisors, but who do they represent? Can we be sure their advice is in our best interests? This assumes our leaders are true in their desire to better the American People. Maybe they know full well how technology works today. What of their decisions then?
At least ignorance preserves some of the faith we have in our system of government... The alternative is an exercise for the reader. --You.
The general public is only now reaching a basic level of use competency. Lots of people have computers, but very few of us really understand them. Fewer still understand the potential long-term effects they promise.
Those who produce the technology of today have a huge advantage over those it affects. They have understanding and power without any high degree of direct accountability for their actions.
These things together really point to a problem that has been bothering me for quite some time, namely: how can we, as a society, represent ourselves in a fair and informed manner when we do not yet possess the understanding necessary to know the potential result of the choices we are being asked to make?
This whole voting affair finally illustrates, on a level many people can understand, the danger present in the unbalanced state of things here in the US. We are rapidly reaching a state where the companies call the shots while the citizens (or consumers as they like to call us) live with the consequenses.
Folks, this should not be happening by any measure. This is exactly the sort of thing our founding fathers did not want to happen. The words:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
were not intended for corporations. They were meant for us, you and me and the guy down the street. They were meant to express the idea that we are governed by ourselves. We are judged by our peers. We control and participate in the process that forms the society we must live with.
The fact that this crap has even happened reveals a problem far greater than which machine works best or is more trustworthy, or who paid off who.
The problem is not about technology. It is about who controls it and how it gets used and what people in general know about it.
For many people, computers are these mysterious things that process information in ways not easily understood, yet we trust them. Why is this? Are we lazy as a nation? Do people just not care? Maybe they feel stupid and are afraid to ask. Nobody else seems to be asking why should they?
As a kid I used to ask. Did not get answers then. As an adult I am asking again. Are you?
Until the Information age, all political discourse happened in ways one could trace to a degree. Sure, two people talking behind the fence are tough to audit, but the paper trail they leave as they execute on their plan is. Moving information required people to be involved back then. Recorded information was in a form not easy to change without somebody knowing about the nature of the change at a minimum. This brought with it a level of accountability we could ultimatly trust.
Today these things are not true anymore. Computers process and store information in ways that b
one would need to take a look at the entire system no?
I don't like electronic voting though I see plenty of ways to make it trustworthy. What I like less is groups seeking power through the manupulation of our very laws and process designed to protect against just that sort of abuse.
Too many elections showed too many suspect results. The amount of effort taken so far just to broach the subject and review the issue reveals to me an unacceptable level of risk.
Slashdot Mirror
that reproduce like weeds and leave shit where ever we go.
Truth is, our need to expand will trump any chance of primitive life on mars developing.
Do we have the right? I suppose if you take the really long view, then no; otherwise its survival of the fittest!
DVD is in for the very long haul for sure. Never thought about new tech, but I believe you are right.
Video on demand delivered one show pay-per-view at a time ain't gonna be it!
This format change is not enough to warrant the replacement of the format we have now. The last few years of existing DVD have been a huge success. Players are easily found for $30, most new release titles are $20 (less than a family trip to the theatre BTW), and most back catalog stuff can be had for less.
People are building libraries and have players where they want them. Turning all that over is going to take a *long* time; namely, years --many of them. People will get players that read both formats of course, but it's too late really to even make a significant dent in the existing player base already out there now.
The whole problem I have with this is linked to my enjoyment of the current formats compared to the new ones. Existing DVD played on high-end equipment is a very good experience. Existing DVD played on most equipment in use today is an excellent experience. The new format will do little to enhance the latter (maybe longer movies on one disc, but who really cares?), and does improve the former, but not to a high enough degree.
Simply: It is not a big enough deal to make a difference.
This whole thing will get news because people can smell the money surrounding DVD and those amounts of money talk.
From a geek perspective, the existing DVD formats are essentially open. I can do anything I want to the DVD media I own. Players today are getting a lot better for playing backups or home authored content. Later this year I plan to build a myth box for a home video on demand service to make things easier. All of this stuff will happen at low price points and with tech easily understood and well supported on Linux.
I have nearly 300 titles on existing DVD. I made that investment because the current format and display technology delivers an experience that is quite good for the home. Will I replace those titles? For 95 percent of them, the answer is a clear "NO." Better question: Will I be forced out of them? Not a chance really, because the format is open enough to prevent that from actually happening.
So the money thing is a red herring in my mind. The numbers just are not there once everything is taken into account. Why the news then?
Control. The studios essentially lost it with the current formats. Sure, most folks endure the restrictions because most players honor them. Anybody that wants a decent ad free experience can get players and or software that will do the trick nicely. (That is what the myth box will be for. Encode the movies only, leave the crap and keep the discs safe from the kids.)
These guys are stupid really. Even though the existing formats are essentially open, most people find the price worth the experience and will likely continue to do so. A decent balance has been struck by accident that really makes the current system as a whole workable for everyone in general, but...
the greedy bastards are itching for a second chance to get it right this time...
I believe folks are used to how things work now. The only thing that pisses of the masses are the simple restrictions in place now. The media moguls can't help but add in the controls they think they need and the public will hear all about them to the demise of any format other than the one they have now.
Nice tech, but clearly niche tech for some time to come...
I am running older PC hardware. Interestingly enough, the features that made the long cycle possible are those that put the cost of said PC directly in line with an Apple machine. Go figure...
Anyway, you are finding what many folks are finding; namely, that your hardware today really will continue to do the job longer than they want you to believe it will.
OS X is a well crafted OS from what I see. Getting faster with new releases is a rare trend these days. After the design is well tweaked, I suspect this part of things will slow a bit, but will not likely regress into the mess that currently is win32 and a lot of Linux.
Sort of confirmes my idea regarding intergrated Linux machines. Well constructed hardware running Linux would exhibit many of the same value traits you currently see in OS X. The message to the market would be good for both camps...
to me the Mac is good enough. The latest batch of machines are all plenty fast for what most folks do.
Now it comes down to OS preferences, applications used and such. One can run pretty much anything under win32 these days, most things on OS X and most *other* things under Linux.
Price is still a consideration for me. I now have my eye on a Mac, but still need to live within my means for now. That means build it or white box Intel hardware for about one more cycle. I like the Mac because of the nice synergy between the hardware and the OS and standard apps --always have. (SGI started doing a fine job of this back in the early 90's as well.)
I totally believe Intel / AMD systems will, in general, be able to run faster simply because the release cycle is shorter and because of market demands for speed. There is always somebody willing to pay for peak performance. Sadly, this means hot-running Intel chips.
The good enough factor is growing interesting these days however. Most folks don't need a third of the CPU being sold today. With hardware prices being what they are, selling slower machines for less money really does not make any sense. Given the basic truth that all the machines today are fast enough, maybe we will finally see some creative differentiators again on the PC side of things --an area where Apple has the clear lead.
Tangent mode on:
Why doesn't somebody start making nice intergrated Linux machines? There is enough of a market to really ask the question: Does every PC need to run win32 anymore?
Apple clearly keeps its market based on a lot of different factors besides performance. Seems their model could be emulated today at a very reasonable price point using Linux as the core OS and building out from there.
How many here would buy a nice machine made to run Linux? Imagine a cool form factor, many intergrated features (video i/o, DVD, audio, USB, Card Readers, graphics and such all in the box, nicely supported configured and ready to go?)
It's almost as if the Desktop Linux project needs a hardware partner. The two together could give application developers a solid target to focus on... Just a coupla thoughts.
Ok, so the machine is used to generate ballots... In other posts, I have indicated this is acceptable and stand by that.
I still have worries regarding subtle manupulation of the vote results; however, this can be done with paper systems as well... Your description of the process gives me some reason to learn more for sure.
Your point regarding the blind is a good one and I agree with it. In fact, I never really considered the problem from their position. I am going to take a look at the options our vote by mail system here in Oregon provides blind people. Hmmm....
Details aside, this makes good sense to consider because any measure of independance for the blind is worth working for simply because people value that enough to make the work worth the effort.
My position about the work being a part of the voting process is important. I don't want voting to be marginalized more than it already is. A balance between making things too hard with unnecessary reductions in turnouts and the "too easy" process with potentially high turnouts containing results not well thought out is something I do not see in the discussion where it should be.
Maybe I am a bit too touchy on this point, but dammit voting matters. A lot of people made significant sacrifices to make it a reality for the rest of us later on. I am not sure the majority of people today really understand that.
Thanks for giving me a reason, as asked, to explore more. I'll give it a read and some thought.
I am not sure electronic is the way to go. Maybe you could post some information here to address a couple of concerns:
1) The information detailing the will of the people should be moved via a means that is human traceable and readable and durable. Paper seems ideal for this because it addresses all three issues and because it takes people to actually do the moving. Any of us can observe the process and many of the movements and all the results are there for questions later.
Once the information moves into the form of electronic bits, how can we be sure of the movements, audits, and machine credence?
2) Why take the work out of the process in the first place? We have plenty of workers who are willing to do their civic duty. Making voting fast and easy seems to be the wrong bottleneck to solve. Voting is important --important enough to do a bit of work to see it done right. Why not use the electronics to get better information to the voters and encourage more political discussion on the issues? (Would be a nice check on the media at this point which I think we need.)
What you are doing is better than Diebold for sure --make no mistake. I just don't see the point after learning what I have about the voting process in general.
Here in Oregon we have the mail in ballot. Counting happens quickly enough and the costs appear to be in line with voter expectations.
Turnout is somewhat of a problem on some issues, but the tax related elections are seeing good results. (hmmm)
Another interesting side-effect is related to the political messaging. Voters can commit to a vote anytime after they get their ballots. Maybe it's me, but I hear more political discource over a longer period of time because of this. You can't just blast your message and time it to get votes, you have to keep up the efforts.
Anyway, I am not so sure the paper really is that costly. The counting can be as distributed as is needed to get the job done and we have plenty of people. Isn't a fair system worth a bit of work? The cost issue is really a non-starter. There are always going to be plenty of retired people willing to do their part to contribute to society in a positive way. Let 'em do it! (Lots of them if we need that.) I just am not sure complexity is an issue given the ready supply of workers for the task.
Seems to me these electronic systems (obvious flaws aside) are a way to get out of the work necessary to run a democratic society. It is almost as if the spin is marginalizing voting in a bad way.
None of this is hard and it all matters more than we know. A bit of work a few times a year properly distributed is not too costly and keeps some important civics lessons in mind at the same time. Speeding the process in order to get onto bigger and better things strikes me as hasty and unwise...
One other thought along these lines. I am not sure we want elections that are too fast and easy. The current effort required to hold an election is a nice check against rapid change. Now you could argue that rapid change is what we need today, and I would agree with you. But, we must also consider the effect of too many elections. It takes time to see how the results affect society. We could end up with a political race condition of sorts with the American people suffering as a result while groups take advantage of that...
Even though I am a technical person, I reject electronic voting altogether at this point. There are too many issues with the process and its connotations for me to endorse it. I like the mail in system, but that is clearly not the way things are going to go, so...
Use the machines to assist in making a paper ballot, even grab quick stats from them to make polls easier or more timely, but that must be it. The will of the people must be recorded on media in human readable format.
Go for the simple solution, sell the civic duty to enough folks to get the work done in a timely manner and then move on to bigger and better things.
Just had another thought. We could do a lot better job of collating and publishing the relevant information for folks to read and understand via electronic means. I find it frustrating to read the voters pamplet only to learn enough to then go seek the actual language in question. The paid arguments are lame these days when anyone can comment. We should have discussion boards and public awareness of them, so people can engage the issues with greater fidelity than we do today. (I know there are problems with this, but the idea is sound.)
Re: outsourcing! That's funny as hell. We Americans have realized we don't have time to count our votes, we are too busy shopping and writing laws for the rest of you! So why not just be the good little bitches you are and count 'em up for us. In fact, you can just consider these votes yours because we are going to force the results via treaty anyway. --Right!
Not sure really. I guess knowing the possibilities now will motivate the right folks and we will see the feature soon enough.
Computers are pretty damn fast these days. Given that, I strongly disagree with all the folks who want to get rid of X. Adding these kinds of features is a good thing, just don't break the network features at the same time....
I have one idea, though it has very little to do with menus.
Say you have one of those annoying supposedly informative dialogs. (Press ok to continue, or selection invalid...) Instead of simply blasting the dialog on the screen, you could fade it in, the user notices, but does not need to click or anything because:
a: it does not obstruct what is happening, but is more easily noticed than status indicators, more intuitive than things like cursor changes,
and
b: since it is transparent, it can fade away.
Basically, I believe there are GUI elements that could inform people and possibly present transient choices in a manner that is not as distracting as todays "ok to..." elements.
Think video game like instead of microsoft office like, but with some style.
I agree totally with you on the menus. Nice eye candy, but little use at this point.
I agree!
On one hand, you have Microsoft simply trying to make its products do more things so they can get more money from their customers and get as many new customers as they can. Can't really fault them for that, it's what companies do.
Because they control the OS, they are always going to have the upper hand with regard to applications. Why? Because they get the power of the default first and formost.
At first the solution seems simple. Either force them to carry other products, or deny them the right to intergrate their own. Full disclosure of the API interfaces is sort of a 50/50 comprimise in that it would potentially allow others to make apps on par, but still does little to help mitigate the power of the default.
The hard truth is that most folks really don't want to choose. They want to buy the machine and have it do stuff for them. Maybe as the art of computing continues to become common knowledge, people will be more willing to make choices. Until then, the power of the default really trumps most everything else.
Is this Microsofts fault? Not really, though I would like to believe it is. They happen to have been in the right place at the right time with this understanding in place.
One thing really burns my arse though. They know they have the power of the default and could easily maintain a healthy share with it and strong products alone, but they go one step further.
They make things hard for others on purpose to not only maintain their already healthy marketshare, but to go ahead and use questionable contracts, pricing, and hidden API information to make it has hard as possible for anyone else to even present an alternative. This combined with over zealous interdependancies between their products put most folks at a serious disadvantage when it comes to choice.
This is why I work damn hard to avoid the entire mess on a personal level. OSS gets almost everything done, but it does take work. The tradeoff is dollars and control. With OSS, I trade my time for both the ability to keep more of my dollars (or spend them where it makes sense --Mandrake!) and exercise the higher level of control over my computing environment.
Realistically, what is the DOJ going to do? They could demand any number of things of Microsoft. Who knows they might even get some of them after a 10 year legal battle that renders them moot. Like that would get us anywhere!
I suppose, they could directly begin to set the pieces in place to foster more government regulation of the market to enable choice that way, but that would hurt OSS. (Maybe not, but I find it hard to believe that regulation could help because OSS really depends on freedom at its core.) Regulation of software is really a slippery slope I am not sure any of us really want to enter onto.
Software really is just information. Computers are information tools, given the nice turing complete ones we can get today. Freedom in computing really means freedom of thought and expression no matter how you stack it. So regulation does not work well here.
Another facet of the problem is political. Gates success is admired by almost everyone that seeks that kind of power and influence in the world. We all know money makes the world go around no matter how altrustic we think we are. In the eyes of many people today generating such a fortune in a short time means Gates is doing the right things.
In these tough economic times, (ignoring whose fault it is) attempts to temper the momentum Microsoft has really won't fly politically. (Though it should, it's not like any of us are getting the benefit.)
Sorry, this is turning into a ramble of sorts, but there is another angle to the political side of things and it boils down to control. Microsoft has a lot of it and they make money. Others seeking control of computing to build similar fortunes all gravitate to the largest point of control in the hopes they can get things going their way. This means reducing
Good call on the lucrative bits. SCO wants all the bits for sure, but they are likely to end up in bits...
Can't resist today...
:P )
Sure, they don't hate the bits --they actually love bits, particularly bits they own...
The problem is simple: They want to own all the bits! (Maybe just the really good bits
Fair enough on the binary and operators. Though I still would keep the operators because understanding those work for a whole lot of things besides electronics. Basic critical thinking skills for one.
Think about it for a moment. What if a kid was told they can have a candy or coke and chips or milk? I have done this wanting the kids to keep the sugar down while still allowing the choice of getting two treats at the store. I can tell you that almost every one of them took that to mean they could have the candy and the coke. They understood their correct choices only when the or/and was explained and the condition understood with a little discussion. Working through that kind of thing is a general critical thinking benefit that *will* help them later on when reading things or making complex choices.
Linking these things to computing somehow later would be easy.
As for the radio example, that was a real understanding I remember having when I was very young.
The key point was that sombody told me the sound got converted into electrical waves and back. (using the terms given to me as a kid BTW). A bit later someone else said that lightning was also electrical.
Hearing the sounds on the old AM radio during a storm related the two ideas more fully. It is these sort of simple conceptual facts that I was looking for with regard to computing. Nothing too technical like what frequency (using the radio example), but enough to spark understanding at a basic level as a foundation for later learning (or not depending on the kid).
The idea being with computers to understand why so many things are the way they are. Maybe even to set some initial expectations as to the computers working nature enough that things will be less of a surprise when they go exploring later. (Again, or not depending on the kid.)
Again using the radio example, neither fact was beyond reasonable expectations for young people to know and understand, yet hearing them made a difference to me. Now, I am the type to ask wierd questions anyway, but I can tell you from experience with my own kids that they sometimes benefit from stuff like that. It does not hurt, keeps school interesting and they just might gain some simple understanding while sitting board on the bus wondering about their world.
You should have thought through the radio thing a bit more.
BTW, I assume you have started higher math to a degree. Do you remember when you understood we only really add things together? The + sign does not really mean add, it means positive.
When solving terms (2x+3x-5=7x+3), the signed terms get added together right? Where is the + sign in that? Kids spend a bunch of time learning that + means add and minus means subtract only to spend more time unlearning these ideas in favor of signs and simple operators to process and solve equations. Does not seem to hurt them one bit as most of them get through it.
The stuff I am talking about is no different really. (maybe binary math is to a degree) I am not saying change everything, that is like the new math crap I spend time working through with my kids. But I am saying educators would be wise to link a few things to computing when it makes sense where they do not now. --Technical details aside, don't you agree?
Maybe we agree more than we think and the issue is semantics.
When I listed binary and the logic operators, I was not talking anything more than basics. What they are and how they work. Maybe do a little counting and some addition for a bit just to make 'em stick.
The logic operators are easliy done in many contexts --not just computers. You could talk about sets of things, use them to give instructions, place conditions on things. Again the idea being to learn a bit about how computers "think".
Many of the items on the list I gave are about setting expectations. As a kid, the radio was a fairly impressive thing. Once I knew the very basics (They have a place to broadcast from, the stuff they want to say gets converted into electric waves that go through the air, my radio reconverts that into (mostly) their intended sound) little things along the way made more sense. (Why does lightning make sound also could it be because those were both electrical?)
Detail is a problem with this sort of thing however. It is easy to add too much. I guess my point is that whole areas are being ignored when they should not be.
As for numeric representation, I will stick with this one. It is as simple as the little code puzzles they put on the back of cereal boxes, but it means a lot. The idea of symbols being numbers and numbers being the things computers work with is important. Many of these same ideas apply to math as well because they help tie the abstract to the real.
When we work with a computer in any sense, we agree on the abstract representation the computer makes and apply the results to the real world we live in. That is why we have to have interfaces and cannot just talk or write to the computer.
In any case, take any school subtract three items from the list and do the rest and the kids are going to be in pretty decent shape compared to what many of them get now.
Detail is tough, agreed. I would rather see something more than we see now.
you know...
Very true.
You say doubleclick Open Office and File-Open. Well, what about "Save". What does that mean exactly? Does it mean keep for later, or does it mean erase what I had and keep what I see now?
Where is the information stored? Why is some information preserved when I turn off the computer while other information isn't? How do I know?
I am sorry, but the basics of computing should be common knowledge today.
The level of detail does not need to be high, but it does need to be higher than you indicate. My school went through the basics of electricity. magnets, and radio. Most people today understand how the radio works, they should know how the computer works too. Understanding how the data flows in a general way is not that hard.
It could be framed as a simple game of sorts. Have all the kids play the different roles. A couple of them are the CPU, others are the RAM, others the disk. Use the Intercom to illustrate a network to the other classroom.
Could be some field trips, or special class sessions like they had for cars and telephones when I was young. Those were interesting sessions that everyone got something out of. At the very least, the fear factor was removed as the "magic" behind the tech was replaced with some understandable representation.
None of these things are what I wish I had learned. (I was a geek, so I learned them anyway.)
Society today is making the same decisions about computers as they did cars long ago. They are going to be an important part of things. Literacy is important, basic understanding is important.
None of it is hard. All of it matters.
These are things I want to happen sure. Why? Because I believe technology today is ahead of both the law and the ability for the general public to debate on. We bitch here about stupid laws and yet we also say that the stuff is too tough to learn or not needed as part of a general education. The combination of technology and government is one that leaves most of us at a disadvantage as long as it continues to be ignored.
My reaction to this is change. Every item I listed can be covered easily from 6th through High School. Much of it can be framed around everyday situations and needs we all have. The rest can be optional, elective, extra credit stuff that the really interested or board can persue.
Maybe that list is too inclusive... I can accept that. What I cannot accept is the lack of attention the subject is getting now. A big part of school is about building our future leaders and wealth makers. Good schools make a nation strong.
The current state of things, at least in the schools I have seen, is pathetic. Simple task based education with very little depth and almost no regard for the social issues past the lame propaganda put forth by the media companies.
I agree with you. In my state, Oregon, we have a state mandated testing program. It is in addition to the standardized tests you and I both had.
The requirements of this program are directly tied to funding at both state and federal levels. Basically this system assumes that:
- teachers need to be told what to teach because they won't do it right without help from the state, (I call bullshit.)
and
- the students and their parents need feedback that is easy to digest and quantify.
The result being:
- teachers have little time to really teach things that matter because they have to meet the testing goals early and often;
- students go through school learning a bunch of task based information that does little to foster critical thinking skills;
- the state of Oregon spends a bunch of money on out of state developed testing programs (figure that one out...) to get information that does nobody any real good because:
it takes months, on average, for the results to be returned ruining the feedback loop for the most part. (Students are already onto the next task by the time they get the results from the first one.)
This means:
the best shot for the teachers is to simply teach to the test, or suffer the consequenses,
and
teach to the lowest common denominator because of the funding and job performance issues.
To top this off, the state uses the schools as a lever to prop up its excessive spending in other areas while the teachers hands are tied and their compensation is low.
This whole thing sucks and most folks here do not even know it. Teachers cannot say anything negative about the system. Parents can withhold their kids from testing, but the school is encouraged to fight that because of the funding issue. Many schools do not even know parents have an option. (I read the statutes and printed them for the school along with a letter detailing my reasons. They 'did research' and found it to be true. They fight me on it all the time, even said it was because they get comped on the tests.
The schools cannot really inform the parents because they have a conflict of interest. The State is not going to do it because the program looks good to the powers that be, plus they get dollars for doing it. Teachers are all quiet, unless they know you and can safely speak their mind. Students are simply trying to do what they are being asked to do. All of the positive information you will find on the net regarding the CIM/CAM program is State produced.
Sure there are bad teachers, but where I live, the problems appear to come from higher up. One good thing to note though:
Last year my son asked me about Open Office. He was doing his powerpoint slides on it using the Linux LTSP lab at the school! Cost of software is an issue that is leaving room for multi-OS exposure which can only be a good thing.
The problem I have with the whole mess is this:
Most teachers are behind the times on computing issues. (Other issues as well, but I am not qualified for those.) The education they go through prepares them well for the three R's, but is seriously lacking in computing.
Our state has a ton of out of work computing professionals, many qualified to teach some of this stuff with authority. They can't actually do that because they don't have the education background!
If the state was smart, they would find a way to get folks into the K-12 classrooms for subjects not covered in the basics and give their future taxpayers an education that might actually give them a fighting chance at making some real dollars to tax...
Sorry for ranting, I guess I am trying to say it's not all the teachers fault... --at least here anyway.
You made an interesting distinction: the secretary compared to the (implied) programmer / power user.
Basic user skills are not very related to language, in this we agree. Those skills can be learned by most anyone at any time. However these are not the skills that people need to make the most of their computing experiences. Only having these sorts of skills are a large part of the problem we have with computing today.
Nobody growing up today should be considering the nature of a computer as a 'magic box'. Early on, this was true because computing was new enough, but today that has changed.
Computers are basically everywhere today and they are only going to become more pervasive in the years to come. Understanding the core nature of computing is important and is related to language more than you are giving it credit for.
You are dead on in the last paragraph regarding perspective. Most schools are missing it and the questions you raise are good ones more folks should be asking before sending their kids into the computer enabled classroom.
(BTW, I believe we should not see computer use prior to 6th grade. --Kids need time to gain mastery of the three R's before getting to use the computer. If you think of the computer as a tool to help think, which is computing when you really think about it, one must be capable of thinking on their own in order to get the proper benefit of the tool.)
What students need to know? (6th grade - HS)
(About computing)
0. Computers do exactly two things, in general. They add numbers together and move numbers around.
1. The nature of information and how it is processed. Basics only here, RAM ROM CPU Storage, I/O concepts.
2. Why base 2 numbers? Logic AND, OR, NOT, XOR and others. Make kids give instructions for general tasks using these operators when they make sense. Use plain english for these and include problems and situations that require some simple basic logic to express.
3. The representation of things using numbers. This is where computing is a lot like language. We make up new words all the time to define and convey ideas in a shorthand way. --This makes things easier for us. Example: Joe is an asshole. What combination of words replace 'asshole'. A large part of the problem understanding computers is directly related to the concepts inherent in this type of discussion.
4. Types of computers. Embedded, complex, cluster, personal. Compare and contrast the microwave controller, personal computer, cell phone computer, game machine. How are they different? What representations of data are important to their function?
5. Computing concepts. Basic programming using some semi-natural language. Anybody should be able to ask a computer to perform many basic tasks. Everyone should have written a simple program or two to get the computer to do exactly what they want instead of learning which software to purchase or how to combine functions to get the same result. Text files should be important.*
This is not a UNIX thing, or an anti GUI thing, it is a language thing. Learning how to manupulate representations of things we find important in a form the computer is good at processing in a meaningful way. Having grown up on the 8bitters, this comes naturally, on todays computers this information needs to be taught because the higher level representations possible today allow the core of what is happening to be glossed over too easily. --"Magic Box"
6. Software. All software is simply information just like anything else we put into a computer. What makes it different from data?
7. Ethics. The computers of today, for the most part, do what we tell them to. Lets hope that continues to be true. Given this, what responsibilities do we have? Compare and contrast 'hacking' to 'cracking'. Why are they different and how important is that difference?
8. Culture. Once people begin using networked computers (0-6 do not require th
I do want things to consume less bandwidth because that is the right thing to do. I was referring to cosmetic changes and those of style. Too many of those and things could go sour.
/. all trendy and disgusting...
The other reply to my post indicated this works if done incrementally. That is likely the way to go. For a moment, I envisioned the "new and improved"
I agree given that information. I never did pay too much attention to the Times and WSJ, but could always identify them quickly enough through the changes. Clearly they did the right thing in that I really did not notice much.
Looking forward to faster page loads in either case. Maybe the resulting savings will make the site easier on OSDN...
is a bad idea. Personally, I like it. Reducing the necessary bandwidth to use the site is a good thing though for everyone involved. Why spend money you don't have to in a down economy.
/. is not an issue so what's to prove by changing the look? Gain new users? Have more impact?
/. would prove to be a mistake.
Things do look a bit dated, but maybe that is a good thing. The popularity of
Anyone that matters knows the site already. The content is the reason they return, not the pretty icons. Getting more impact through a more compelling rendering might matter to a few folks, but will the expense be worth it?
Maybe this is the wrong comparison... Take an established publication like the Times or WSJ. Do they make big changes often? No. The formula works and is a big part of their identity.
I think they keep things the way they are because they know change works against the needs of their readers; namely, access to relevant content easily.
Unless I am missing something, major changes to
I have thought about this for a while now. I work somewhere that promotes the "latest tech". It's good stuff and I get to keep lots of different skills up, but I have learned something over the last couple of years that bothers me:
The latest tech is not always the answer. Most problems are common and can be addressed nicely with existing tech, provided one has both support from PHB's and the skills to handle the problem.
Funny thing, I am finding many of my "new" skills involve learning about the new stuff while many of the problems remain the same. (I am sure this is not true for all industries, but for mine this appears to be the case.)
Problem is that I see many folks can spend some time and energy really applying what they have and get a very high percentage of the return without all the expense, pain and other things that go with new solutions.
I love tech, but lately I really wonder if the next layer of stuff coming down the line is really worth it all.
In a very real sense, maybe "IT" does not matter as much these days.
the simple fact that technology has outpaced the ability for society in general to deal with it and those in the know are taking advantage.
The law regarding technology is in the dark ages right now. We are fighting basic battles over information. Our ability to even process our own information freely is under attack. Our very ability to think and discuss things with one another is under question today.
Our leaders, in general, are behind the times with regard to technolgy and its potential effect on society today. Sure they have advisors, but who do they represent? Can we be sure their advice is in our best interests? This assumes our leaders are true in their desire to better the American People. Maybe they know full well how technology works today. What of their decisions then?
At least ignorance preserves some of the faith we have in our system of government... The alternative is an exercise for the reader. --You.
The general public is only now reaching a basic level of use competency. Lots of people have computers, but very few of us really understand them. Fewer still understand the potential long-term effects they promise.
Those who produce the technology of today have a huge advantage over those it affects. They have understanding and power without any high degree of direct accountability for their actions.
These things together really point to a problem that has been bothering me for quite some time, namely: how can we, as a society, represent ourselves in a fair and informed manner when we do not yet possess the understanding necessary to know the potential result of the choices we are being asked to make?
This whole voting affair finally illustrates, on a level many people can understand, the danger present in the unbalanced state of things here in the US. We are rapidly reaching a state where the companies call the shots while the citizens (or consumers as they like to call us) live with the consequenses.
Folks, this should not be happening by any measure. This is exactly the sort of thing our founding fathers did not want to happen. The words:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
were not intended for corporations. They were meant for us, you and me and the guy down the street. They were meant to express the idea that we are governed by ourselves. We are judged by our peers. We control and participate in the process that forms the society we must live with.
The fact that this crap has even happened reveals a problem far greater than which machine works best or is more trustworthy, or who paid off who.
The problem is not about technology. It is about who controls it and how it gets used and what people in general know about it.
For many people, computers are these mysterious things that process information in ways not easily understood, yet we trust them. Why is this? Are we lazy as a nation? Do people just not care? Maybe they feel stupid and are afraid to ask. Nobody else seems to be asking why should they?
As a kid I used to ask. Did not get answers then. As an adult I am asking again. Are you?
Until the Information age, all political discourse happened in ways one could trace to a degree. Sure, two people talking behind the fence are tough to audit, but the paper trail they leave as they execute on their plan is. Moving information required people to be involved back then. Recorded information was in a form not easy to change without somebody knowing about the nature of the change at a minimum. This brought with it a level of accountability we could ultimatly trust.
Today these things are not true anymore. Computers process and store information in ways that b
one would need to take a look at the entire system no?
I don't like electronic voting though I see plenty of ways to make it trustworthy. What I like less is groups seeking power through the manupulation of our very laws and process designed to protect against just that sort of abuse.
Too many elections showed too many suspect results. The amount of effort taken so far just to broach the subject and review the issue reveals to me an unacceptable level of risk.
Naaa, though I did jump at first when I read your reply :) Now, if you keep on asking...
Man, you have no idea. (Or maybe you do!) Boys are easier in this respect.