There is another way to look at this: They're optimizing. Reporters often have shorthand text (or at least had, when they needed to use a pen), it's a faster way to log information. If all you really need to do is relay the information that you'll be at the park, then this isn't that tragic. As for spell checkers, I find that over time they improve my spelling (I know there's a big debate over this particular thing, I'm just pointing out that there's more than one outcome).
So what if they're not as fast/accurate with a pen as you were at their age? Do/will they need to be?
The one thing I hope they don't drop is books. Hell, even audiobooks. They get plenty of chance to just parse words when they're online, but what they're probably less used to is consuming large, contiguous streams of information.
I think his point was that they won't reach the "build" part at all. There are so many things to do/consume/interact-with, that they'll just follow a thread of "virtual actions"(corny phrase, I know), and won't feel the need to experience much in real life. This isn't an unreasonable theory, IMO.
Print 0:38 - I'm surprised this number even exists. I assume the majority of it is beneficial in some ways -- exposure to articulating an idea in writing, if nothing else.
I'd bet it's only there because of schoolwork. I also don't think it reflects anything -- you can find plenty of well-written material online, in almost any genre.
This would have been funny 4, or even 3 years ago. But these days? When are you at any point *not* within hand's reach of an internet connection?
I even keep a netbook by my bed in case something comes up I'd like to check *while trying to fall asleep*...
I actually *am* surprised -- by the time they spend in front of a TV. The "kids" I know think TVs are a relic -- the idea of making an appointment with your media seems absurd to them.
Most people have more than one way to get online these days, just like there is an increasing amount of computers in each household. If the router's down, the kid will know to use the nearest smartphone.
Getting an iPhone is like walking into a cool, refreshing pond, which just happens to be full of leeches. You'll be comfortable as long as your body can generate blood fast enough.
Before the Android/Schmidt/NexusOne business, Jobs would probably hate having an MS logo anywhere on the iPhone far more than losing some cash to Google. Now though, it's like you said -- they're seriously being aggressive about pretty much everything that Apple was aiming for from the moment they released the iPhone. Things like Chrome OS seem like vaporware now, but if some new netbook/tablet form factor takes off, Google is ready with their code. Their different "vectors of attack" include both MS *and* Apple, they're not blind to the usability angle that Apple has, and they're trying to "steal as much thunder" as they can in any area in which (they think) they can compete.
Have you looked over the hacks that Google Analytics uses? You think that click tracking is an issue? They make the browser effectively "watch you back" with that stuff. If you go over the source, you'll see a nice sliding scale of technology: The first options are always basic HTML, often with deprecated tags, for old/slow machines. As you progress upwards, more and more layers of interface interaction are added, along with huge amounts of data collection. After browsing through enough of their page sources, I'm starting to think that the privacy nuts aren't as nuts as I used to think.
If you want to try this yourself, download Firebug, and add a bunch of monitoring add-ons to it. You'll be amazed at how "chatty" google pages are.
Ditto. Whenever I hear (usually reported somewhere) that google is pushing something, or they've added new features/options, I'm surprised even though I used it almost exclusively. This goes for youtube and google news as well. They'll occasionally throw something on one of the front pages, even though most users that are even moderately experienced will dispense with those entry/landing pages as soon as they figure out how. The same goes for Wikipedia -- if I want to find something, I'll just prefix the search term with "wikipedia", I won't actually go to wikipedia.org. I didn't know where *was* a beta interface until someone mentioned it to me (though to be fair, there's a small "try beta" link on every wikipedia page now).
These days when you say "RPG" people think WoW. Yes, technically it's made things easier, and you can certainly find a lot more people to play with, but how many 11-year-olds will you find who want to play a text-based game, when they're *online*.
I think wisdom has to factor into this somehow. Intelligence will effect how fast he'll resolve the errors, but if he were *wiser* in the first place, he'd make less mistakes.
Also, if you roll 1 you caused a memory leak.
A troll appears on the discussion thread. He has not noticed you yet, but he's causing some damage to the surrounding environment. Remember that you'll need fire or acid to cause him permanent damage -- just modding him down won't work.
Few people born after 1990 will likely want to touch D&D, or any other pen-and-paper RPG. I kind of feel sorry for their imaginations. At some point the saturation of visual media will reach a point where practically everything is a close derivative of some other work the artist has seen, and you'll have very little artwork that's created simply by the mind of the designer. This has implications, IMHO, that reach further than just how people draw elves and orcs. D&D made us look up at the *ceiling* and try to imagine a creature, a place, a situation, and the interaction of things that we've never encountered. Kids seeing Avatar today will be, in some way, imagination-impaired.
(damn, I sound old)
That article links to this image (NSFW), which I'll now have printed, poster-sized, and paste on my apartment door. No one will ever knock on that door again, ever.
This reminds me of the Smiley Face trademark escapades. The posters for the Watchmen movie were different depending on the country. There was also an issue with Wal-Mart using it, apparently.
Copyright lawyers have to earn their salaries somehow, I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell is this "trolling"?? The last line in that post literally instructs you on how to see this for yourself. Nice modding.
There is another way to look at this: They're optimizing. Reporters often have shorthand text (or at least had, when they needed to use a pen), it's a faster way to log information. If all you really need to do is relay the information that you'll be at the park, then this isn't that tragic. As for spell checkers, I find that over time they improve my spelling (I know there's a big debate over this particular thing, I'm just pointing out that there's more than one outcome).
So what if they're not as fast/accurate with a pen as you were at their age? Do/will they need to be?
The one thing I hope they don't drop is books. Hell, even audiobooks. They get plenty of chance to just parse words when they're online, but what they're probably less used to is consuming large, contiguous streams of information.
Yes... If only /. readers were in charge, things would be different. Very, very different (I'll have nightmares tonight).
I think his point was that they won't reach the "build" part at all. There are so many things to do/consume/interact-with, that they'll just follow a thread of "virtual actions"(corny phrase, I know), and won't feel the need to experience much in real life. This isn't an unreasonable theory, IMO.
Print 0:38 - I'm surprised this number even exists. I assume the majority of it is beneficial in some ways -- exposure to articulating an idea in writing, if nothing else.
I'd bet it's only there because of schoolwork. I also don't think it reflects anything -- you can find plenty of well-written material online, in almost any genre.
This would have been funny 4, or even 3 years ago. But these days? When are you at any point *not* within hand's reach of an internet connection?
I even keep a netbook by my bed in case something comes up I'd like to check *while trying to fall asleep*...
I actually *am* surprised -- by the time they spend in front of a TV. The "kids" I know think TVs are a relic -- the idea of making an appointment with your media seems absurd to them.
Most people have more than one way to get online these days, just like there is an increasing amount of computers in each household. If the router's down, the kid will know to use the nearest smartphone.
Getting an iPhone is like walking into a cool, refreshing pond, which just happens to be full of leeches. You'll be comfortable as long as your body can generate blood fast enough.
There would be no buttons. No buttons at all.
I'd liken Microsoft to some kind of weird arms dealer in this scenario
That's too bad, I think they've cultivated their drug-dealer likeness almost to perfection. At any rate, the ATF should still keep an eye on them.
Which is a nice departure from their default strategy: throwing money bags at a problem until it's "solved".
At least they're responsible enough to distribute their own prophylactic lately.
Before the Android/Schmidt/NexusOne business, Jobs would probably hate having an MS logo anywhere on the iPhone far more than losing some cash to Google. Now though, it's like you said -- they're seriously being aggressive about pretty much everything that Apple was aiming for from the moment they released the iPhone. Things like Chrome OS seem like vaporware now, but if some new netbook/tablet form factor takes off, Google is ready with their code. Their different "vectors of attack" include both MS *and* Apple, they're not blind to the usability angle that Apple has, and they're trying to "steal as much thunder" as they can in any area in which (they think) they can compete.
Have you looked over the hacks that Google Analytics uses? You think that click tracking is an issue? They make the browser effectively "watch you back" with that stuff. If you go over the source, you'll see a nice sliding scale of technology: The first options are always basic HTML, often with deprecated tags, for old/slow machines. As you progress upwards, more and more layers of interface interaction are added, along with huge amounts of data collection. After browsing through enough of their page sources, I'm starting to think that the privacy nuts aren't as nuts as I used to think.
If you want to try this yourself, download Firebug, and add a bunch of monitoring add-ons to it. You'll be amazed at how "chatty" google pages are.
Ditto. Whenever I hear (usually reported somewhere) that google is pushing something, or they've added new features/options, I'm surprised even though I used it almost exclusively. This goes for youtube and google news as well. They'll occasionally throw something on one of the front pages, even though most users that are even moderately experienced will dispense with those entry/landing pages as soon as they figure out how. The same goes for Wikipedia -- if I want to find something, I'll just prefix the search term with "wikipedia", I won't actually go to wikipedia.org. I didn't know where *was* a beta interface until someone mentioned it to me (though to be fair, there's a small "try beta" link on every wikipedia page now).
These days when you say "RPG" people think WoW. Yes, technically it's made things easier, and you can certainly find a lot more people to play with, but how many 11-year-olds will you find who want to play a text-based game, when they're *online*.
I think wisdom has to factor into this somehow. Intelligence will effect how fast he'll resolve the errors, but if he were *wiser* in the first place, he'd make less mistakes.
Also, if you roll 1 you caused a memory leak.
I think it's a genetic thing. I mean, I don't see a kippah on him.
A troll appears on the discussion thread. He has not noticed you yet, but he's causing some damage to the surrounding environment. Remember that you'll need fire or acid to cause him permanent damage -- just modding him down won't work.
Few people born after 1990 will likely want to touch D&D, or any other pen-and-paper RPG. I kind of feel sorry for their imaginations. At some point the saturation of visual media will reach a point where practically everything is a close derivative of some other work the artist has seen, and you'll have very little artwork that's created simply by the mind of the designer. This has implications, IMHO, that reach further than just how people draw elves and orcs. D&D made us look up at the *ceiling* and try to imagine a creature, a place, a situation, and the interaction of things that we've never encountered. Kids seeing Avatar today will be, in some way, imagination-impaired.
(damn, I sound old)
That article links to this image (NSFW), which I'll now have printed, poster-sized, and paste on my apartment door. No one will ever knock on that door again, ever.
Answer: Lobbyists.
This reminds me of the Smiley Face trademark escapades. The posters for the Watchmen movie were different depending on the country. There was also an issue with Wal-Mart using it, apparently.
Copyright lawyers have to earn their salaries somehow, I suppose.
The fact that none of the current living "heirs" is a direct descendant of the author is further proof of how screwed up our system is.
IANAL, but can't an "estate" be sold just like a copyright or a trademark?