Isn't the iPhone a Newton, essentially? And I know a lot of Slashdotters are going to say "no you idiot it's a phone and doesn't have handwriting recognition and X and Y and Z!" but come on people that's not what I mean. The iPhone is a little, handheld computer, yes? It also has voice-communication built in, which we call a phone. So it doesn't have handwriting recognition. That might actually be a good thing! Actually maybe it is a lot harder to make apps for the iPhone? (I don't know.)
That's pretty cool, but what about non-alphabetic systems, such as Chinese, Japanese, or Korean? Does the physical act of reading depend at all on the unit of meaning we are scanning with our eyes? Not that the researchers should have done this in the same experiment, they're in England, so it makes sense for them to stick to the native language.
Flatland is an amazing book, and even though I read it in the early 1990s when I was in college I still love it today. It's easy to read, and the math is highly accessible, so much so I hesitate to call it math. For college or high school level, I also advise Torvald's "Just For Fun", I had one student get really into it.
I was wondering the same thing. However, "[sic]" is only used when the error was still there -- if you correct the error, you don't need "sic" since there is no error, although you'd need to note that you changed part of the quote, so like this: "I've [enjoyed] doing it." However, I believe there is some dispute as to corrections and changing different forms of spelling (such as with different dialects of the same language, like American and British English).
Given all the it's/its errors in Slashdot, this is kind of funny. You could reproduce that quote like so: "I've enjoyed [sic] [sic] doing it," but you'd want to indicate that you're quoting a quote.
From TFA:
"Many of the goods find their way into Europe and are knowingly bought as fakes by shoppers at markets and from street vendors. Firms claim that the poor quality copies dent their brand and divert profits and potenital clients."
If the goods are knowingly bought as fakes, how does that dent the brand? It's a fake, and the buyer knows that. It certainly doesn't divert profits, this is the same argument the RIAA (and probably the MPAA) makes, but it is not at all true. Buyers of pirated, cheap goods have the option of buying the more expensive, legit version. However the buyer refuses to do so because the price is too high for that buyer. Thus no money is diverted away from the real copyright owner. Basic economics. Lots of other things can be said about copyright, its cultural background, the specifics of the laws and their history, or even enforcement issues and might makes right.
You've never been to Canal St. or Chinatown in NYC, have you? I hadn't until recently, but remember DVDs for Borat and 007 before the official ones were out. Other cities, I don't know. But, I don't know if I'd say it barely happens. I have some Eastern European friends, they had a friend who sold bootleg CDs for a while in Europe. Nothing against Eastern Europeans, I'm just sticking to the facts I know, and it's just a small part of the big picture. In the US we had a good market for booleg concert CDs, but then the authorities cracked down (a new law? I don't recall) in the early/mid-1990s. I remember the day I went into my favorite Harvard Square (Cambridge, MA) bootleg CD store and all the bootleg CDs were gone. They had been there for years! I asked about it, and was told "we never had those." Crazy. Later I learned about the enforcement. In Thailand we're tourists, like at the Chang Mai night market, so the pirate CD sellers target areas we go to. In our home countries, we're not tourists. Tourists in NYC go to Canal St. and Chinatown. Maybe it's here and we don't see it. Getting official statistics is probably impossible.
I've been through the game once, and although (imho) I find the graphics amazing, especially when you're up very high and you look around and you can see things far away, the progression through the story line was too repetitive for me (but I still did it). The problem for me was that to kill the bad guys, you only need to run, jump and shoot. That can be a lot of fun, but you don't need to do anything else. Games like Call of Duty 2 and 3, Halo 2, and GTA III and Vice City all have what you could call "forced diveristy" in terms of mission gear, but Crackdown does not (run, jump, shoot with the heavy machine gun once you get it). For instance, if you want to advance the storyline in GTA: VC, you have to use motorcycles, drive a limo, steal and drive a tank, fly an RC mini helicopter, pick people up and take them places, and drive a boat. CoD (2 and/or 3) makes you drive a tank, a jeep, shoot various big weapons, use a sniper rifle, paddle a boat (which I thought was a bit dumb), and other things. These games force you to use different weapons and vehicles. Crackdown doesn't care if you can drive or not. I don't think there's any reason to ever use a pistol (unless you are totally out of ammo and you can't find anything better). I think some people will definitely like this less-forced storyline, but I found it too repetitive, especially given that the idea for "forced diversity" is out there in successful games. If they build that into Crackdown 2, it could be amazing.
I think there are different things going on. If laptops help my students learn, I'm all for them. But if they interfere... Different students will use them differently, and writing text-only may be appropriate in some classes (I drew a diagram this morning in my Free Speech class, though). If, as she says, they are trying to type in every word, that is a big problem. As some other readers have pointed out, pen and paper makes you think about the prof's words before you write them in your own way. You do need students to think about what you are saying. (I actually have one student who never brings a notebook, and asked him about it, he says he learns better that way -- I'm not sure, but the dept. chair vouched for him on it.)
The eye contact issue is actually important. Eye contract comes with a whole bunch of other communication channels (all composing the face), and this is one way we can get feedback about what is going on across the class (who is with us, who isn't, who is sleeping, who is texting on their phone...). (I am a Communication prof, and I've had to teach nonverbal.) Are they IMing? Email? You don't know, and if the computer helps them not pay attention and hurts their ability to learn, it's out. Yes every student is different, but you can't do case by case.
Also, the article is about LAW SCHOOL, which is NOT COLLEGE and very, very different even from most PhD classes. They really need to learn to analyze and think, not just repeat. Law classes are not democracies either.
For me this relates to powerpoint. I use it in 101, but not my upper level classes. With powerpoint you're somewhat stuck with the slides you have and the order they're in. If you have a good room you have some chalkboard not covered by the screen. Students have this odd habit of writing down everything word for word from powerpoint as if it is gospel. Creeps me out. But in the upper level classes the discussions are more free-wheeling, so I use the chalkboard and don't want to constrain my students with a fixed, linear, powerpoint presentation. Yes, you can jump around in powerpoint, but that really hurts the class if it goes badly.
This is indeed true for some expressions. I just finished teaching a class in nonverbal communication, and for part of it we looked at facial expressions. Researchers have identified 6-8 facial expressions that are the same around the world (currently), and so these are believed to be nature/hardwired into our brains. Ekman and Freisen did a lot of work on this. Here is a Google search that has some material. However it is not always true, smiling in different cultures can mean slightly different things. As for across history, well, the ancient Greeks used those smile/frown masks for drama, so I would assume the hard wired ones have been around a long time (since evolution takes place very, very slowly).
Maybe someone else pointed this out but the computer isn't really determining her mood, the people who judged all the other faces and constructed the algorithm did it, the computer just did the calculations. But Slashdotters knew that.
Nowhere in either of the articles do I see a mention of "legal copying", although that's what I expected. As an academic, we need to be able to make copies sometimes, and US law allows us to do so (see the law at Cornell). I feel, as may/.'ers, that the DMCA conflicts with this (did they ever amend it?).
However, as citizens, regardless of whether we are in a democracy, a supposed democracy, or some other less fortunate type of rulership, the Western belief is that our inalienable rights include the freedom of speech, which in this digital age may mean copying something for criticism, be it from the government or a corporation. These corporations should not be allowed to get away with this, but they will.
What I am saying is that we learn in school that the US "won the race to the moon", and there is no mention of a "race into space". We tried, we failed, we erased it from history, thus we avoid it. We don't go around saying "we came in second in the race to space!" We don't even think about it at all. It's avoided. It's amazing that some of the posters here think I don't know that. How did we get to the moon if we didn't get into space first?
We Americans may have won the first race to the moon, but we decided that the first race into space (satellite, human, take your pick) wasn't worth it since we were going to lose. Avoiding races you know you can't win isn't very sporting. If you want a real challenge, cooperation is much more difficult! (Eventually we succeeded at that too.)
Thankfully the Soviets got Sputnik up there, though, huh? Otherwise, no Internet for us!
I don't want to rant about non-Western bias, you troll you.
John Madden is of course still active in football, but he is not an athelete. Does the picture you linked to look like an athelete? Did you say something about reading comprehension?
And the second part of my post had nothing to do with the first part, thus the dual-part subject line.
When you ask,
wtf does no movie or athlete tie-ins have to do with D3, HL2 or H2?
that's exactly what I mean. The writer is using two completely different lenses that may or maay not overlap (and in this case, they don't). It's problematic. "As well" doesn't fully address the problem. If the ones listed are so highly anticipated, then that does not help the previous point about movies and (retired or not) atheletes.
I didn't like the article since it says that the Japanese have to change, i.e., their game manufacturers and game buyers don't know what they are doing, and should become more American.
This is especailly apparent in the last two paragraphs.
One version of globalization allows for different cultures to encounter each other, share, and learn while remaining relatively unchanged. Another version turns us all into consumers and forces Western culture on us all, so we are easier to market to and make money from.
It's also funny when the author contradicts himself, such as in the intro:
In the West, consumers look for games with ties to blockbuster movies such as Harry Potter or professional athletes such as John Madden.
The type of game makes a difference as well. "Doom 3," "Half-Life 2," and "Halo 2" are three of the most anticipated upcoming games among Western audiences.
Last I checked, there are no Doom, Half-Life, or Halo movies or athelete tie-ins. And John Madden is way retired.
There are at least three problems with his article. He conflates "games" with "computer games", "games" with "violent computer games", and he doesn't mention (unless I missed it) that playing games (not computer games) is something that all higher species do when they are young.
These are all real issues, and since he doesn't address them it's a big problem for his interview. It's very easy to talke about games, but there are a lot of games and to treat them all the same is extremely problematic. There are non-computer games (lots), computer games, violent computer games, multiplayer... etc. I am so sick of people conflating computer games and violent computer games, you get this script kiddies here who think anyone who dares to question the violence in computer games is attacking everything including Myst.
His article really isn't news either. It's been well known for a long time that all smart species play and learn from games. Human babies? Love to play! Primates? Play! Lions? The same! Kittens and puppies? They play all the time! It's a form of learning.
It's also been known for some time that stories are an important part of human history. Before we had writing, everything was an oral history, essentially, a story. Storytelling is a vital and ingrained part of the human experience. The Odyssey? Beowulf? Stories! (That makes four problems.)
My mom also ran over her laptop once, an Apple Powerbook 145 - luckily it was in its bag with a bunch of books, so the Volvo station wagon didn't totally kill it. It was squished, the floppy door was smaller, but it turned on! The screen had a bunch of blotches in it. Reminds me of the time I found a dead spider that had set up shop in the mouse buttons of a PB100, but that's another story.
Let me make a few comments, since Rob happens to be my uncle. He's got a PhD from MIT's Media Lab, and, among other things, used to work at NeXT, so trust me he knows what he's doing. Most comments here question scalability and security, so I'll address those. As some have pointed out, it's a MESH, so the nodes only see other, nearby nodes. The Ember nodes are inexpensive devices (I have a swag version on my fridge downstairs, it's small), if there is a bottleneck you add another one. These devices, as I understand it, are aimed at firms trying to do LAN-type of things where laying cable or fiber is expensive. However, a lot of such places already are wired for power, which was questioned by one poster.
As for security, again, under the scenarios I am familiar with, these devices are local and low-power, so you'd have to be onsite to snoop. But, the Ember nodes are flexible, low-level devices, so you run what you want over them. I don't see why that wouldn't enclude any type of encryption.
Granted, I don't work for Ember (IANAEE), but that's my understanding of it.
Actually, the poster already has excellent karma but didn't read the AOL article since he doesn't care - but Gecko, that's different. If I was trolling, which I wasn't (since when does anyone get their articles accepted? Like I expected it? Not!), then what are you doing? And it is more important anyways, which doesn't have anything to do with me. Have a little class yourself!
The NYTimes is not exactly correct about the Kasparov/Deep Blue match. The IBM programmers studied Kasparov's playing style intensely, and programmed Deep Blue to not just play chess but more specifically play and beat Kasparov, which is a slightly different thing from "playing chess." (Granted the machine could still beat almost anyone, but maybe not other masters with a different playing style.) Kasparov, on the other hand, was not allowed to study how Deep Blue might play at all. I also recall that Kasparov became a bit unhinged early on. So yes, Deep Blue did beat Kasparov, but the problem for it was not just "play chess" it was "beat Kasparov."
One problem with Slashdotters is they don't know a lot about a lot of things... Like the French worked on such a thing from 1969 up to 1987! Bruno Latour, a French sociologist of technology, wrote about it in a book called "Aramis." You can read about it at Amazon. The reviews even say it was like packet switching.
Unfortunately the reviewer doesn't understand the book, and says incorrectly that the project was "squashed by the French government." I had to read it for my doctoral exams... This is an idea that doesn't work, but since so few people know about technological failures and the basics seems easy enough, it keeps coming back. It's framed as "no one has done it, it must be cool!" instead of "no one that I know of has succeeded with this, perhaps they've all failed!" It is not the first of its kind at all, the author of the article has no idea what he's talking about.
Jobs understand what Katz doesn't, unless Katz is just trying to rile up some responses. Apple cannot compete with Dell, IBM, Gateway, Compaq, etc., in making beige boxes. It's a brutal market, and one that Apple isn't in - Apple does a mainstream OS and boxes. IBM couldn't do it with OS/2, but Apple is still chugging along.
What peeves me is that whenever one of the PC makers releases a new piece of hardware, it's all about the specs. When Apple releases something, it's held to a much higher standard. Apple brought the GUI, the floppy, easy networking, design, USB, etc., to the mass market, and now has brought Unix to the masses as well (and it's partially open sourced).
Katz, if you want to feed the monopoly that keeps you down, fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the iPhone a Newton, essentially? And I know a lot of Slashdotters are going to say "no you idiot it's a phone and doesn't have handwriting recognition and X and Y and Z!" but come on people that's not what I mean. The iPhone is a little, handheld computer, yes? It also has voice-communication built in, which we call a phone. So it doesn't have handwriting recognition. That might actually be a good thing! Actually maybe it is a lot harder to make apps for the iPhone? (I don't know.)
That's pretty cool, but what about non-alphabetic systems, such as Chinese, Japanese, or Korean? Does the physical act of reading depend at all on the unit of meaning we are scanning with our eyes? Not that the researchers should have done this in the same experiment, they're in England, so it makes sense for them to stick to the native language.
Flatland is an amazing book, and even though I read it in the early 1990s when I was in college I still love it today. It's easy to read, and the math is highly accessible, so much so I hesitate to call it math. For college or high school level, I also advise Torvald's "Just For Fun", I had one student get really into it.
Given all the it's/its errors in Slashdot, this is kind of funny. You could reproduce that quote like so: "I've enjoyed [sic] [sic] doing it," but you'd want to indicate that you're quoting a quote.
"Many of the goods find their way into Europe and are knowingly bought as fakes by shoppers at markets and from street vendors. Firms claim that the poor quality copies dent their brand and divert profits and potenital clients."
If the goods are knowingly bought as fakes, how does that dent the brand? It's a fake, and the buyer knows that. It certainly doesn't divert profits, this is the same argument the RIAA (and probably the MPAA) makes, but it is not at all true. Buyers of pirated, cheap goods have the option of buying the more expensive, legit version. However the buyer refuses to do so because the price is too high for that buyer. Thus no money is diverted away from the real copyright owner. Basic economics. Lots of other things can be said about copyright, its cultural background, the specifics of the laws and their history, or even enforcement issues and might makes right.
You've never been to Canal St. or Chinatown in NYC, have you? I hadn't until recently, but remember DVDs for Borat and 007 before the official ones were out. Other cities, I don't know. But, I don't know if I'd say it barely happens. I have some Eastern European friends, they had a friend who sold bootleg CDs for a while in Europe. Nothing against Eastern Europeans, I'm just sticking to the facts I know, and it's just a small part of the big picture. In the US we had a good market for booleg concert CDs, but then the authorities cracked down (a new law? I don't recall) in the early/mid-1990s. I remember the day I went into my favorite Harvard Square (Cambridge, MA) bootleg CD store and all the bootleg CDs were gone. They had been there for years! I asked about it, and was told "we never had those." Crazy. Later I learned about the enforcement. In Thailand we're tourists, like at the Chang Mai night market, so the pirate CD sellers target areas we go to. In our home countries, we're not tourists. Tourists in NYC go to Canal St. and Chinatown. Maybe it's here and we don't see it. Getting official statistics is probably impossible.
DRM is going to be killed off by monkeys and stray dogs?
I've been through the game once, and although (imho) I find the graphics amazing, especially when you're up very high and you look around and you can see things far away, the progression through the story line was too repetitive for me (but I still did it). The problem for me was that to kill the bad guys, you only need to run, jump and shoot. That can be a lot of fun, but you don't need to do anything else. Games like Call of Duty 2 and 3, Halo 2, and GTA III and Vice City all have what you could call "forced diveristy" in terms of mission gear, but Crackdown does not (run, jump, shoot with the heavy machine gun once you get it). For instance, if you want to advance the storyline in GTA: VC, you have to use motorcycles, drive a limo, steal and drive a tank, fly an RC mini helicopter, pick people up and take them places, and drive a boat. CoD (2 and/or 3) makes you drive a tank, a jeep, shoot various big weapons, use a sniper rifle, paddle a boat (which I thought was a bit dumb), and other things. These games force you to use different weapons and vehicles. Crackdown doesn't care if you can drive or not. I don't think there's any reason to ever use a pistol (unless you are totally out of ammo and you can't find anything better). I think some people will definitely like this less-forced storyline, but I found it too repetitive, especially given that the idea for "forced diversity" is out there in successful games. If they build that into Crackdown 2, it could be amazing.
They fixed it in the main post! Amazing! Now if they would fix all the it's/its...
I am pretty sure that Maine is not a commonwealth, but this is Slashdot so who fact-checks?
The eye contact issue is actually important. Eye contract comes with a whole bunch of other communication channels (all composing the face), and this is one way we can get feedback about what is going on across the class (who is with us, who isn't, who is sleeping, who is texting on their phone...). (I am a Communication prof, and I've had to teach nonverbal.) Are they IMing? Email? You don't know, and if the computer helps them not pay attention and hurts their ability to learn, it's out. Yes every student is different, but you can't do case by case.
Also, the article is about LAW SCHOOL, which is NOT COLLEGE and very, very different even from most PhD classes. They really need to learn to analyze and think, not just repeat. Law classes are not democracies either.
For me this relates to powerpoint. I use it in 101, but not my upper level classes. With powerpoint you're somewhat stuck with the slides you have and the order they're in. If you have a good room you have some chalkboard not covered by the screen. Students have this odd habit of writing down everything word for word from powerpoint as if it is gospel. Creeps me out. But in the upper level classes the discussions are more free-wheeling, so I use the chalkboard and don't want to constrain my students with a fixed, linear, powerpoint presentation. Yes, you can jump around in powerpoint, but that really hurts the class if it goes badly.
Maybe someone else pointed this out but the computer isn't really determining her mood, the people who judged all the other faces and constructed the algorithm did it, the computer just did the calculations. But Slashdotters knew that.
However, as citizens, regardless of whether we are in a democracy, a supposed democracy, or some other less fortunate type of rulership, the Western belief is that our inalienable rights include the freedom of speech, which in this digital age may mean copying something for criticism, be it from the government or a corporation. These corporations should not be allowed to get away with this, but they will.
What I am saying is that we learn in school that the US "won the race to the moon", and there is no mention of a "race into space". We tried, we failed, we erased it from history, thus we avoid it. We don't go around saying "we came in second in the race to space!" We don't even think about it at all. It's avoided. It's amazing that some of the posters here think I don't know that. How did we get to the moon if we didn't get into space first?
Thankfully the Soviets got Sputnik up there, though, huh? Otherwise, no Internet for us!
John Madden is of course still active in football, but he is not an athelete. Does the picture you linked to look like an athelete? Did you say something about reading comprehension?
And the second part of my post had nothing to do with the first part, thus the dual-part subject line.
When you ask,
wtf does no movie or athlete tie-ins have to do with D3, HL2 or H2?
that's exactly what I mean. The writer is using two completely different lenses that may or maay not overlap (and in this case, they don't). It's problematic. "As well" doesn't fully address the problem. If the ones listed are so highly anticipated, then that does not help the previous point about movies and (retired or not) atheletes.
This is especailly apparent in the last two paragraphs.
One version of globalization allows for different cultures to encounter each other, share, and learn while remaining relatively unchanged. Another version turns us all into consumers and forces Western culture on us all, so we are easier to market to and make money from.
It's also funny when the author contradicts himself, such as in the intro:
In the West, consumers look for games with ties to blockbuster movies such as Harry Potter or professional athletes such as John Madden.
The type of game makes a difference as well. "Doom 3," "Half-Life 2," and "Halo 2" are three of the most anticipated upcoming games among Western audiences.
Last I checked, there are no Doom, Half-Life, or Halo movies or athelete tie-ins. And John Madden is way retired.
Mine went out once. You can't engage the clutch anymore!
Insert snarky remark about oppressing the auto industry here.
These are all real issues, and since he doesn't address them it's a big problem for his interview. It's very easy to talke about games, but there are a lot of games and to treat them all the same is extremely problematic. There are non-computer games (lots), computer games, violent computer games, multiplayer... etc. I am so sick of people conflating computer games and violent computer games, you get this script kiddies here who think anyone who dares to question the violence in computer games is attacking everything including Myst.
His article really isn't news either. It's been well known for a long time that all smart species play and learn from games. Human babies? Love to play! Primates? Play! Lions? The same! Kittens and puppies? They play all the time! It's a form of learning.
It's also been known for some time that stories are an important part of human history. Before we had writing, everything was an oral history, essentially, a story. Storytelling is a vital and ingrained part of the human experience. The Odyssey? Beowulf? Stories! (That makes four problems.)
My mom also ran over her laptop once, an Apple Powerbook 145 - luckily it was in its bag with a bunch of books, so the Volvo station wagon didn't totally kill it. It was squished, the floppy door was smaller, but it turned on! The screen had a bunch of blotches in it. Reminds me of the time I found a dead spider that had set up shop in the mouse buttons of a PB100, but that's another story.
Let me make a few comments, since Rob happens to be my uncle. He's got a PhD from MIT's Media Lab, and, among other things, used to work at NeXT, so trust me he knows what he's doing. Most comments here question scalability and security, so I'll address those. As some have pointed out, it's a MESH, so the nodes only see other, nearby nodes. The Ember nodes are inexpensive devices (I have a swag version on my fridge downstairs, it's small), if there is a bottleneck you add another one. These devices, as I understand it, are aimed at firms trying to do LAN-type of things where laying cable or fiber is expensive. However, a lot of such places already are wired for power, which was questioned by one poster.
As for security, again, under the scenarios I am familiar with, these devices are local and low-power, so you'd have to be onsite to snoop. But, the Ember nodes are flexible, low-level devices, so you run what you want over them. I don't see why that wouldn't enclude any type of encryption.
Granted, I don't work for Ember (IANAEE), but that's my understanding of it.
Actually, the poster already has excellent karma but didn't read the AOL article since he doesn't care - but Gecko, that's different. If I was trolling, which I wasn't (since when does anyone get their articles accepted? Like I expected it? Not!), then what are you doing? And it is more important anyways, which doesn't have anything to do with me. Have a little class yourself!
The NYTimes is not exactly correct about the Kasparov/Deep Blue match. The IBM programmers studied Kasparov's playing style intensely, and programmed Deep Blue to not just play chess but more specifically play and beat Kasparov, which is a slightly different thing from "playing chess." (Granted the machine could still beat almost anyone, but maybe not other masters with a different playing style.) Kasparov, on the other hand, was not allowed to study how Deep Blue might play at all. I also recall that Kasparov became a bit unhinged early on. So yes, Deep Blue did beat Kasparov, but the problem for it was not just "play chess" it was "beat Kasparov."
One problem with Slashdotters is they don't know a lot about a lot of things... Like the French worked on such a thing from 1969 up to 1987! Bruno Latour, a French sociologist of technology, wrote about it in a book called "Aramis." You can read about it at Amazon. The reviews even say it was like packet switching. Unfortunately the reviewer doesn't understand the book, and says incorrectly that the project was "squashed by the French government." I had to read it for my doctoral exams... This is an idea that doesn't work, but since so few people know about technological failures and the basics seems easy enough, it keeps coming back. It's framed as "no one has done it, it must be cool!" instead of "no one that I know of has succeeded with this, perhaps they've all failed!" It is not the first of its kind at all, the author of the article has no idea what he's talking about.
Jobs understand what Katz doesn't, unless Katz is just trying to rile up some responses. Apple cannot compete with Dell, IBM, Gateway, Compaq, etc., in making beige boxes. It's a brutal market, and one that Apple isn't in - Apple does a mainstream OS and boxes. IBM couldn't do it with OS/2, but Apple is still chugging along.
What peeves me is that whenever one of the PC makers releases a new piece of hardware, it's all about the specs. When Apple releases something, it's held to a much higher standard. Apple brought the GUI, the floppy, easy networking, design, USB, etc., to the mass market, and now has brought Unix to the masses as well (and it's partially open sourced).
Katz, if you want to feed the monopoly that keeps you down, fine.