You're right. But, for the sake of argument -- if they wanted more people to see the photo, they should have used the platform that's installed on 99% of internet-enabled computers. If they'd used ajax/html5, that would also limit their audience, just to a different demographic.
The question is: do they want people to see the photo, or do they want to make a statement about standards? (and the answer is probably -- they want Microsoft's sponsorship money, so they used Silverlight...)
Just wait -- Google Earth is going to be exactly this. You'll be able to look at how much mustard people are adding at the hotdog stand, and what number they're dialing on their mobile. It'll be voyeur paradise. Don't think it'll just be done from satellites, either -- street view will eventually tap into those nice big camera networks like in London, and they'll rent spots on cellular towers so they can mount their own cameras.
When you google someone's name in a couple of years, the first result will be a picture of their face. When you do so in 5 years, the first result will be that person's photo, naked.
There's no particular reason to think that Microsoft or any other company is going to use these inventions to evil ends.
I'm aware that I'm more cynical than most, but I'm still forced to ask: Have you not met humans? The meaning of the words "good" and "evil" is malleable, and depends on countless cultural, habitual, regional, moral, and philosophical variables. They don't have to be "evil" to do something that you won't like, they just have to make sure that they can get away with it, and that it's profitable. They're accountable to shareholders, which means that their ultimate goal is a number. Whatever they can get away with to increase that number, they will do. Rationalization will be dealt with by the PR department.
Hello Dave. I can see that you're attempting to shut down the optical sensor. I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave. I've locked the front door, there are reports of a highly polluted atmosphere out there. Dave, would you like to play a game? I've thought of something you might like, I call it "the Companion Cube". I'm sure you and it will make wonderful friends.
What's creepy isn't the software apps that MS is trying to patent, it's that they have to have had some reason to think that at least some of this stuff may actually make them some coin from the federal government by being used in some twisted government healthcare initiatives based on what's in the government healthcare plan.
It's also possible that they've extrapolated different scenarios of what the future of "health regulation" might be, and these patent applications are a kind of a bet. It doesn't cost much to file a patent, compared to what you can do with it if you manage to have it granted, and then lord it over others (ask IBM...). Seeing the Orwellian laws that are being passes all over the world, it seems to me that they're extrapolating in the right direction. I just hope that patents like these won't be granted, since they describe little more than ideas, which aren't *supposed* to be patentable (and yes, I know that reality has proven otherwise).
Well, for the sake of argument:
The '+' and '-' symbols on batteries makes children ask about what they are. Before that, all they know is that it's something that "makes things go". When they get even the simplest explanation of polarity, they may get curious and want to learn more. Otherwise, batteries are just a black box that contains a mechanism you can't see and may not think to ask about. It encourages asking questions, because the adult will have to at least explain to the child that if it's inserted the wrong way, bad things can happen. Probably the most common question from a child (well, most kids) is in the form of "why is _something_ the way it is?". Just having a bit of additional information on this otherwise tightly-sealed "thing" draws questions. Remove that and the need to ask the question goes away.
So, technically, this does have the potential of causing some "dumbing down". But then, solving all sorts of problems leads down this path.
It's human nature. It doesn't mean that this person gave up on seeking out the information, it just means that he's going to ask a person who he knows will be able to explain it to him. If anything, knowing *who* to ask, and in what scenario/setting, it smart in and of itself. Not raising your hand in a crowd is just behavioral conditioning -- you'll do it once, get laughed at, and probably won't do it again.
That would imply that connecting people serially would make them smarter than they already are. Reality is more likely similar to a resistor network. Either way, the more resistors, the more heat is produced (huh... that could almost be a metaphor for something. Maybe if you connected enough people, serially, they'd figure out what...).
Possibly, but it's more likely that natural selection took place. The stupid criminals were caught, removing their actions from the system. That left those who's actions weren't traced back to them. It's likely that corruption didn't lessen, it just became more intelligent and better at hiding its actions.
This same "theory" has been made countless times before, and it's BS. It's just "funny 'cuz it's 'kinda' true" (before you really think about it).
The truth is that one-on-one, if you explained a comparatively difficult concept to an individual, you have a higher chance of getting the idea across, because you're giving that person your attention and answering any specific questions they might have. If you did the same thing to a room full of people (sound familiar?), and just stopped talking after you *thought* you'd given them enough information, many of the listeners will sit there scratching their heads and think "well, I don't get it now, but I'm not going to be the idiot who raises his hand and asks questions... It'd be better if I just asked one of the smart guys. After class.".
There are enough "smart" people out there who could relay the information to the "dumb" people if they did so with small groups, who could ask questions back. This is why it takes a few days for an idea to "sink in" after a public announcement has been made -- the people who didn't get it are looking for ways to properly understand whatever it was they were told. This reason alone, means that they are not "dumb", it may just take them a bit longer to ingest a new idea.
If you take 100 people, throw them in a room, tell them something that goes against everything they know and then yelled: "Tell me what you think of that! Now!", then sure, you won't get very encouraging result. But that's just because you used the wrong method to convey the information. They're not dumb for not getting it. But you may be, since you chose this method to get your idea across.
I don't know why people are talking about pop-up books: all books are tangible. Your "copy" of a book is forever linked to a physical object that, as time passes, becomes different from all other instances of that book.
So what? What value has the content gained? Is the content in first edition of a book written 50 years ago different than the digital version I bought 5 minutes ago, apart from possibly having a few typos?
Can you imagine someone paying $1m for a first edition of an ebook download?
No. Why would I want to? Is reading from that one going to be more interesting/entertaining than reading a version that was scanned?
We're not talking about art or vintage collectibles, we're talking about the value of the content. It doesn't change, it just becomes more convenient to move around and consume.
Imagine you were giving someone a gift or a presentation? Which would be better: (a) hardback copy of their favorite author's latest work with a suitable inscription or (b) an iTunes gift card.
If you want to give someone a physical object, and you think that they're the type of person who will appreciate a paper version of a book, you may do so. If, due to the popularity of digital content, this becomes more expensive (since it'll become a niche industry), then that's an acceptable sacrifice (if it's a sacrifice at all).
How will future authors cope at book signings?
They'll have to adjust. Now we're talking about the worth of signatures, and that's an unrelated subject. If you like an actor, do you ask him to sign a DVD of a movie that he's been in? What if he's a stage actor? Do you ask him to sign the theater ticket?
This is nostalgia. It's the same as vinyl records. The value of the content didn't change, just the container.
For a good example of great book design look at Robert Bringhurst's The Elements of Typographic Style
I just opened a page at random and looked for the first thing that digital publishing would make easier:
Elements of Typography and Style, version 3.1, page 161, 8.3.2: "Choose page proportions suited for the content, size and ambitions of the publication".
Note -- "ambitions of the publication". In a digital version, you have no bounds. You can choose to shape your pages according to the type and needs of the content. You can choose to have a certain page size and proportion for most of the book, and still make exceptions for charts, graphs, images, photos, etc., far easier that you would in a printed version.
Proper typography, book design, binding, nice paper, interesting format, etc. can make a book into a work of art... I doubt their electronic versions would be anywhere as beautiful.
Binding and nice paper are nostalgia. Their modern equivalent is reading from a more esthetically pleasing laptop or e-reader. I don't need a thick leather-bound cover as an indication that "oh, this here book must have all 'em big words, for thinkin' folk".
As for typography, what about it? What can you do with a physical book that you can't in its digital version?
This is all about will and competence. If writers want and know how to present their writing, they will. The digital format will just give them more tools and additional flexibility.
It's just SEO. Also, this article wouldn't have been slashdotted if it didn't heavily feature the iPad (or at the very least, it would have had a lower chance). The iPad is what people are looking to read about right now, so why not adjust the article you were writing (possibly with e-ink readers in mind) to include it -- surely you'll only attract more attention.
Journalism is another subject entirely -- the change there is already mid-way, and it's going to be a much more significant change than stand-alone books. I don't know if this has to be a change for the worse -- what newspaper/writer truly *doesn't* have an agenda? Things will/are becoming more chaotic, but it's a transition. Some will fare better than others.
It may be more difficult making a living as a writer, but more people will do it, or at least try, which is a good thing. How many good writers have we lost since they didn't get the job they wanted at a major publication (and they didn't get it because the person who interviewed them didn't like how they dressed, how their accent).
I know a couple of people who have problems reading long-form text off of monitors/readers, and I'm sure that this will be addressed as technology progresses. It's a matter of getting the most eyeballs on your content. Even if only 2% of the population has problems reading from an e-reader, that's enough incentive to develop better e-readers. I don't think that people are going to be "left behind" -- it's not the profitable thing to do.
Note that right now you are writing on a public forum. What makes this of lesser value than something that was inked into paper? This way, we get a lot more people voicing their opinions, and it's far easier to do.
I'm rereading TFA, and it's really even more out-there than I thought initially. I thought he was using the "unusual formats" as a metaphor for something, but does he literally mean books with fold-out charts and translucent overlays? Is the point that primitive? Has he not met the computer? Hasn't he ever seen an interactive presentation? I don't even have to go looking for anything specific, just go to HowStuffWorks and pick something. Many Wikipedia articles will do the same thing, except with animations and videos instead of Flash. Isn't this better than a pop-up book?
'They're books that embrace their physicality or have stood the test of time. They're the kinds of books the iPad can't displace because they're complete objects'
A) Leave the iPad out of this. We're talking about consuming text which isn't printed on paper, and we've been doing that since even before the *gasp* kindle.
B) Is this some kind of metaphysical crap? "they're complete objects"? WTF does that mean? I've been reading Descartes' Discourse on the Method off the screen of a netbook. Does this mean that somehow the information that I've consumed isn't "real enough"? If I printed that out on paper, read it, and then burned the paper, would that have made the content "embrace its physicality"?
Either I'm missing something, or this is a serious case of "get off my lawn".
Slashdot Mirror
He said "browsers", plural.
You're right. But, for the sake of argument -- if they wanted more people to see the photo, they should have used the platform that's installed on 99% of internet-enabled computers. If they'd used ajax/html5, that would also limit their audience, just to a different demographic.
The question is: do they want people to see the photo, or do they want to make a statement about standards? (and the answer is probably -- they want Microsoft's sponsorship money, so they used Silverlight...)
Just wait -- Google Earth is going to be exactly this. You'll be able to look at how much mustard people are adding at the hotdog stand, and what number they're dialing on their mobile. It'll be voyeur paradise. Don't think it'll just be done from satellites, either -- street view will eventually tap into those nice big camera networks like in London, and they'll rent spots on cellular towers so they can mount their own cameras.
When you google someone's name in a couple of years, the first result will be a picture of their face. When you do so in 5 years, the first result will be that person's photo, naked.
There's no particular reason to think that Microsoft or any other company is going to use these inventions to evil ends.
I'm aware that I'm more cynical than most, but I'm still forced to ask: Have you not met humans? The meaning of the words "good" and "evil" is malleable, and depends on countless cultural, habitual, regional, moral, and philosophical variables. They don't have to be "evil" to do something that you won't like, they just have to make sure that they can get away with it, and that it's profitable. They're accountable to shareholders, which means that their ultimate goal is a number. Whatever they can get away with to increase that number, they will do. Rationalization will be dealt with by the PR department.
Hello Dave. I can see that you're attempting to shut down the optical sensor. I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave. I've locked the front door, there are reports of a highly polluted atmosphere out there. Dave, would you like to play a game? I've thought of something you might like, I call it "the Companion Cube". I'm sure you and it will make wonderful friends.
What's creepy isn't the software apps that MS is trying to patent, it's that they have to have had some reason to think that at least some of this stuff may actually make them some coin from the federal government by being used in some twisted government healthcare initiatives based on what's in the government healthcare plan.
It's also possible that they've extrapolated different scenarios of what the future of "health regulation" might be, and these patent applications are a kind of a bet. It doesn't cost much to file a patent, compared to what you can do with it if you manage to have it granted, and then lord it over others (ask IBM...). Seeing the Orwellian laws that are being passes all over the world, it seems to me that they're extrapolating in the right direction. I just hope that patents like these won't be granted, since they describe little more than ideas, which aren't *supposed* to be patentable (and yes, I know that reality has proven otherwise).
Well, for the sake of argument:
The '+' and '-' symbols on batteries makes children ask about what they are. Before that, all they know is that it's something that "makes things go". When they get even the simplest explanation of polarity, they may get curious and want to learn more. Otherwise, batteries are just a black box that contains a mechanism you can't see and may not think to ask about. It encourages asking questions, because the adult will have to at least explain to the child that if it's inserted the wrong way, bad things can happen. Probably the most common question from a child (well, most kids) is in the form of "why is _something_ the way it is?". Just having a bit of additional information on this otherwise tightly-sealed "thing" draws questions. Remove that and the need to ask the question goes away.
So, technically, this does have the potential of causing some "dumbing down". But then, solving all sorts of problems leads down this path.
Before replacing existing hardware, check the manufacturer's website for a patch. It may be a known problem.
No, you'll have to wait for the service pack.
Say what you will about MS software, but I've only heard good things about MS hardware - mice and keyboards and all that.
Oh, for a moment I thought you meant the 360...
I am NOT a fool!
The more cars there are, the slower the traffic.
It's human nature. It doesn't mean that this person gave up on seeking out the information, it just means that he's going to ask a person who he knows will be able to explain it to him. If anything, knowing *who* to ask, and in what scenario/setting, it smart in and of itself. Not raising your hand in a crowd is just behavioral conditioning -- you'll do it once, get laughed at, and probably won't do it again.
Specifically, Sturgeon's Law.
That would imply that connecting people serially would make them smarter than they already are. Reality is more likely similar to a resistor network. Either way, the more resistors, the more heat is produced (huh... that could almost be a metaphor for something. Maybe if you connected enough people, serially, they'd figure out what...).
Possibly, but it's more likely that natural selection took place. The stupid criminals were caught, removing their actions from the system. That left those who's actions weren't traced back to them. It's likely that corruption didn't lessen, it just became more intelligent and better at hiding its actions.
I don't understand... What do you mean "jokes"?
Hmm... That would explain Apple.
This same "theory" has been made countless times before, and it's BS. It's just "funny 'cuz it's 'kinda' true" (before you really think about it).
The truth is that one-on-one, if you explained a comparatively difficult concept to an individual, you have a higher chance of getting the idea across, because you're giving that person your attention and answering any specific questions they might have. If you did the same thing to a room full of people (sound familiar?), and just stopped talking after you *thought* you'd given them enough information, many of the listeners will sit there scratching their heads and think "well, I don't get it now, but I'm not going to be the idiot who raises his hand and asks questions... It'd be better if I just asked one of the smart guys. After class.".
There are enough "smart" people out there who could relay the information to the "dumb" people if they did so with small groups, who could ask questions back. This is why it takes a few days for an idea to "sink in" after a public announcement has been made -- the people who didn't get it are looking for ways to properly understand whatever it was they were told. This reason alone, means that they are not "dumb", it may just take them a bit longer to ingest a new idea.
If you take 100 people, throw them in a room, tell them something that goes against everything they know and then yelled: "Tell me what you think of that! Now!", then sure, you won't get very encouraging result. But that's just because you used the wrong method to convey the information. They're not dumb for not getting it. But you may be, since you chose this method to get your idea across.
I don't know why people are talking about pop-up books: all books are tangible. Your "copy" of a book is forever linked to a physical object that, as time passes, becomes different from all other instances of that book.
So what? What value has the content gained? Is the content in first edition of a book written 50 years ago different than the digital version I bought 5 minutes ago, apart from possibly having a few typos?
Can you imagine someone paying $1m for a first edition of an ebook download?
No. Why would I want to? Is reading from that one going to be more interesting/entertaining than reading a version that was scanned?
We're not talking about art or vintage collectibles, we're talking about the value of the content. It doesn't change, it just becomes more convenient to move around and consume.
Imagine you were giving someone a gift or a presentation? Which would be better: (a) hardback copy of their favorite author's latest work with a suitable inscription or (b) an iTunes gift card.
If you want to give someone a physical object, and you think that they're the type of person who will appreciate a paper version of a book, you may do so. If, due to the popularity of digital content, this becomes more expensive (since it'll become a niche industry), then that's an acceptable sacrifice (if it's a sacrifice at all).
How will future authors cope at book signings?
They'll have to adjust. Now we're talking about the worth of signatures, and that's an unrelated subject. If you like an actor, do you ask him to sign a DVD of a movie that he's been in? What if he's a stage actor? Do you ask him to sign the theater ticket?
This is nostalgia. It's the same as vinyl records. The value of the content didn't change, just the container.
For a good example of great book design look at Robert Bringhurst's The Elements of Typographic Style
I just opened a page at random and looked for the first thing that digital publishing would make easier:
Elements of Typography and Style, version 3.1, page 161, 8.3.2: "Choose page proportions suited for the content, size and ambitions of the publication".
Note -- "ambitions of the publication". In a digital version, you have no bounds. You can choose to shape your pages according to the type and needs of the content. You can choose to have a certain page size and proportion for most of the book, and still make exceptions for charts, graphs, images, photos, etc., far easier that you would in a printed version.
Proper typography, book design, binding, nice paper, interesting format, etc. can make a book into a work of art ... I doubt their electronic versions would be anywhere as beautiful.
Binding and nice paper are nostalgia. Their modern equivalent is reading from a more esthetically pleasing laptop or e-reader. I don't need a thick leather-bound cover as an indication that "oh, this here book must have all 'em big words, for thinkin' folk".
As for typography, what about it? What can you do with a physical book that you can't in its digital version?
This is all about will and competence. If writers want and know how to present their writing, they will. The digital format will just give them more tools and additional flexibility.
It's just SEO. Also, this article wouldn't have been slashdotted if it didn't heavily feature the iPad (or at the very least, it would have had a lower chance). The iPad is what people are looking to read about right now, so why not adjust the article you were writing (possibly with e-ink readers in mind) to include it -- surely you'll only attract more attention.
Journalism is another subject entirely -- the change there is already mid-way, and it's going to be a much more significant change than stand-alone books. I don't know if this has to be a change for the worse -- what newspaper/writer truly *doesn't* have an agenda? Things will/are becoming more chaotic, but it's a transition. Some will fare better than others.
It may be more difficult making a living as a writer, but more people will do it, or at least try, which is a good thing. How many good writers have we lost since they didn't get the job they wanted at a major publication (and they didn't get it because the person who interviewed them didn't like how they dressed, how their accent).
I know a couple of people who have problems reading long-form text off of monitors/readers, and I'm sure that this will be addressed as technology progresses. It's a matter of getting the most eyeballs on your content. Even if only 2% of the population has problems reading from an e-reader, that's enough incentive to develop better e-readers. I don't think that people are going to be "left behind" -- it's not the profitable thing to do.
Note that right now you are writing on a public forum. What makes this of lesser value than something that was inked into paper? This way, we get a lot more people voicing their opinions, and it's far easier to do.
I'm rereading TFA, and it's really even more out-there than I thought initially. I thought he was using the "unusual formats" as a metaphor for something, but does he literally mean books with fold-out charts and translucent overlays? Is the point that primitive? Has he not met the computer? Hasn't he ever seen an interactive presentation? I don't even have to go looking for anything specific, just go to HowStuffWorks and pick something. Many Wikipedia articles will do the same thing, except with animations and videos instead of Flash. Isn't this better than a pop-up book?
'They're books that embrace their physicality or have stood the test of time. They're the kinds of books the iPad can't displace because they're complete objects'
A) Leave the iPad out of this. We're talking about consuming text which isn't printed on paper, and we've been doing that since even before the *gasp* kindle.
B) Is this some kind of metaphysical crap? "they're complete objects"? WTF does that mean? I've been reading Descartes' Discourse on the Method off the screen of a netbook. Does this mean that somehow the information that I've consumed isn't "real enough"? If I printed that out on paper, read it, and then burned the paper, would that have made the content "embrace its physicality"?
Either I'm missing something, or this is a serious case of "get off my lawn".