- Their predictions are based on toys for children.
By the way, I once believed to have seen the safe Car driven by a Bot, but I soon found out that it was just a taxi driven by a sleepless driver.
The true smashing invention: A gene who can pre-translate the genetic code, predict any future stupidity in the unborn, and finally terminate the fetus. (One possible ad might sound like: "It takes *very* little to make a better world")
For most software conflicts, reinstalling the Mac OS is always the last resort. And everything turns out good in most cases.
Reinstalling Windows on a PC isn't actually the *last* resort. A friend of mine, thanks to the "dynamic duo" Internet Explorer & Outlook Express had to reinstall Win several times. Useless, since the problem was serious file corruption. Problem increased by the useless attempts in reinstalling everything. So he finally had to reformat the hard drive. And another unlucky friend had to open his PC a countless number of times because of hardware conflicts (video card sees not sound card; sound card changed; new sound card incompatible with CD-RW drive; then the OS sees not the modem, & so on & so on...) Both of them - lest I forget - were stopped at the BIOS when trying to reboot.
Second: I was trying to figure out a generally described scenario which at first seemed almost unbelievable. You see, too many people talk sententiously about Macintosh, at times exaggerating things they have *heard* and not even *seen*...
Third: I'm not defending Mac at any cost. My final sentence sounded so straight maybe because my experience with Macs and PCs led to opposite results compared to yours. That's it.
In my previous post there was less sarcasm than what you might have read. I just wanted to understand. And the fact that your G3s with the software you mentioned still crash - believe me - keeps me puzzled.
Best regards
Remark #428057 - IF progress = micro THEN
on
Is Pinball Dying?
·
· Score: 1
it's quite obvious that pinball is agonizing. Today everything which occupies too much room or does something which could be done in less space is considered old, unfashionable, "out", uncomfortable, annoying.
Today you can see technology in the palm of your hand. In 1945 a computer filled a place equivalent of a big New York loft. Now it stands on your desk, not bigger than a tv set. Now we have mobile phones with video games in them. The idea of MICRO is cool, comfortable, portable, economic, handy. Who wants pinballs? Too big, too heavy, not precise, hard to manipulate, too simple, etc. etc. Too human?
"I also think the other assertions are more the author's prejudicial opinion than any solid factual representation. We have several satellite offices where I work that have Macs and PCs -- the Mac people are *always* in need of some consultant to fix some INIT/CDEV snafu or some other MacOS lunacy. The PC machines have problems, but nothing that isn't simply solved or that can't wait for the semi-annual office tuneup visit."
I've worked, too, in a workplace with Mac and PCs. On the contrary Pcs users there were *often* in need, not of any consultant, but of WIZARDS, MAGICIANS, because their machines broke down. The reasons? Still unkown. System protection faults, maybe. Error code were always hexadecimal coordinates so long as to provoke headaches even to NASA. What should they do? Open up the chassis every time? No. Turn off the PC and then ON again. Sometimes worked, sometimes not. Reinstall the OS. Yes. 1, 10, 50 times in 2 weeks. Someone even thought about networking CD-ROM drives with Windows 98 permanently in it... What are those INIT/CDEV snafus? What are those Mac OS lunacies? Who networked the computers? Do all the Macs have the same system installed? Is the conflict local, on a single machine? What kind of breakdowns? What is being connected to those Macs? Examples, please. The fact is that I'll never believe that Macs (and Mac OS) have a weaker architecture than PCs (and Windows).
Just two or three things... "But now Apple need fear nothing from Windows, Inc., as the applications the Mac OS needs are made by Microsoft. And it is in Microsoft's best interest to sell as many copies of it's applications as possible, without concern for the operating system."
Let's don't exaggerate. Reading these lines it seems that Apple needs MS Office as humans need air to live. It's a bundle of applications, nothing more. Has it sold a lot? Well, even Spice Girls have sold a lot of records but they're not - for this - good musicians. There are a bunch of applications who can substitute, for ex., Word (Nisus Writer, Word Perfect, etc.) but "someone" told that Word is standard... Word is a famous word-processor. For this matter it's considered "good" or (incredible!) "well-written". Hmpf. And you can apply this to lots of MS products.
"Apple's hardware sales decline as people take advantage of cheap PC hardware, then increase again as the platform gains momentum and former Intel users upgrade to Apple hardware. In any case, Apple can do without it's hardware entirely, as it makes more money as an operating system vendor than it ever did as a hardware manufacturer."
This is far, very far to be proved. I want to see this scenario happen in early 2001. I want to see the new hardware Apple will build. I want to see the implementation of new technologies. And above all I want to see the prices of the new Apple machines. Apple has always build solid hardware (apart from some few unlucky models), and, most of all, won't do the same mistakes done by "the richest man in the world"...
If I can drive my Ferrari, why buy a Honda with a compatible Ferrari engine? You have to consider the performance resulting from the unity of hardware and "native" software. To me the word "compatibility" has always sounded like a synonym of "compromise".
The article, reaching its ends, says: "If more do turn up, it suggests water isn't as rare in the Solar System as previously thought. And if water did actually exist elsewhere before it did on Earth, it could have played a key role in the evolution of life on this planet."
Who said that? "In the evolution of life" as WE mean IT. There are some necessities, I think, to guarantee "life" in a planet surface's environment. In my humble opinion these scientists are still making the old mistake that brings me back to the time when man believed the Earth was flat. They're still earth-centric in considering this discovery.
- Requiring Microsoft to license Windows to PC makers under uniform prices and terms according to a schedule accessible to the government and those PC makers;
Comment: "PC makers: always ask the fiscal ticket when you go to Bill's shop"
- Barring Microsoft from interfering with the way PC makers set up start-up screens, the Windows desktop, preferences, and Internet connection wizards;
Comment: "The popular rock group DOORS in fact had problems with their startup screen. Bill shouted to Jim - 'Windows is the name, Windows! Windows! Got it?' "
- Requiring the company to disclose technical information about its operating systems to independent hardware and software companies so that those companies can design products that are compatible with Windows;
Comment: "I don't want their tech info. I can write programs running perfectly without MS and without windows. No bugs allowed."
- Prohibiting Microsoft from degrading the performance of "middleware" made by other companies. Middleware is software that operates between an operating system and another type of software application;
Comment: "Tech Support On-line? Hey, my email management program is, uhm, in some way *degraded* in performance by, uhm, the operating system called, uhm, windows. Any advice? Hm? Huh-huh, so I'd better to uninstall... ah the OS itself, uhm, hey thanks!"
- And restricting the company from binding middleware products, such as a Web browser, to its Windows operating system unless access to that middleware can be removed by PC makers or end-users.
Comment: "Look mama! I got a new PC with Internet Explorer!! Windows? No, at the shop they told me that Microsoft told them "EITHER Windows OR Internet Explorer" They have been very clear. But I can remove IE and buy Windows. And when I want IE again I can uninstall Windows, get it back to the shop..."
Final comment: "MS has split in two? So now there are TWO COMPANIES? OH MY GOD!! One was not enough?!?!"
That should be no obscure subject. Yesterday + the day before yest. I tried to post 5 comments for 38 times. THIRTY-EIGHT.
Now, for not to say off-topic, a little provocation: "The idea of cyberspace as culture (??) is a particularly bitter pill for many of the shapers of thought and opinion (??) -- educators, academics, journalists, writers, members of the clergy, the so-called intelligentsia (???) -- to stomach. In fact, Murray still has few colleagues supporting her contention that networked (?) computing (?) is re-shaping (????) culture in diverse (?????) and highly (????????) creative (????????????) ways."
Imagine that the media didn't inform us about the Utah incident. What would have been the real effect of the insults of that boy? Not really dangerous. On the same level as if he just shouted his anger at school and/or in the surroundings. Freedom of speech, in internet and among human beings, is ruled by a certain amount of common sense. In this story, in this whole mess, there isn't. There's prevarication, malversation, and a sick measure unit in judging the boy's behaviour.
An example: Who knows if I insult my neighbours? Maybe other people in the same building. Few consequences in any way: the spreading of my insults has the limit of passing the word on. Without appropriate links, insulting on-line has much the same limit. In my humble opinion.
I reflected on the direction computers are leading us to. I would like to quote an excerpt from Steven Levy's book on Macintosh history, which better explains my reflections:
"...I sometimes question whether [productivity] is an illusion. As it turns out, this question has been bedeviling economists as well. A few years ago Gary Loveman, a professor at MIT [...], attempted to measure the productivity gains that came with the billions of dollars' worth of information technology purchased by American industry. Similar studies measuring the benefits of research and development had conclusively demonstrated that R&D was a solid investment, and that there was no reason to suspect that computer technology would be a different story. But when Loveman ran all the numbers, totaled the investments in information technology and then compared them to the productivity totals of the industries, he was startled, if not astonished by the results. 'There was no positive effect,' he said. 'There may even have been a negative effect.' This gap between accepted reality (computers make us more productive) and the quantifiable result (they don't), has come to be known as the Productivity Paradox. A true puzzler: if computers enable us to get so much work done, in a much shorter period of time... why can't we measure it? Where did the productivity go? [...] Still, I think the paradox is a useful tool to assess the hours we spend focusing on our tools instead of using them. [...] [Trying to discover the source of my computer troubles] was a process in which I had never engaged back in the bad old days when I toiled on a typewriter. In a certain sense, those days were not bad at all. I never spent a whole morning installing a new ribbon. Nor did I subscribe to 'Remington World' and 'IBM Selectric User'. I did not attend the Smith-Corona Expo twice a year. I did not scan the stores for the proper cables to affix to my typewriter, or purchase books that instructed me how to get more use from my Liquid Paper..."
This long quote is useful to understand that there still is the need to get finally rid of false needs before asking ourselves what is the future of computer technology. Is it really a means to an end or is it becoming just an end and nothing more?
It seems clear to me that we're watching the growth of false needs. It's one of the engines of the market in relationship with the man of the street. I'm not saying anything new. What annoys me, though, is that now PRIVACY itself is being packed like a need, like a new product. The next step in dealing with privacy is selling it to its respective owners. I don't want to BUY something I already own. I don't want to be forced to copyright or TM my private life.
Oh my! I think it's pretty funny how the big, powerful, billion-dollar giant Mattel could be scared by something like thebarbies.com! Suppose this: 1. thebarbies.com has nothing to do with the ugly stupid doll made by Mattel. Consequence: people visiting the site & hoping to find the ugly stupid doll gets depressed and go away. Mattel damaged? I don't think so. 2. thebarbies.com is about the ugly stupid Mattel's doll. Consequence: the fame of the doll keeps spreading over the globe. Mattel damaged? Not really!! 3. thebarbies.com is a site created to sell copies of the ugly stupid Mattel's doll at lower prices. Consequence: this is illegal, I presume. Mattel could proceed. (But who created that site is not so silly as to do these kind of things which mean only troubles for them!)
I think that Mattel could spent its money in a better way, for example in creating better toys and prettier dolls.
Let's start from the basics: (With the help of Collins English Dictionary) ANONYMITY: the condition or fact of being anonymous. ANONYMOUS: 1. with no name known 2. given, written, etc. by one whose name is withheld or unknown 3. lacking in distinctive features. FREEDOM: 1. exemption from the control of some arbitrary power; independence 2. civil or political liberty [freedom of speech] 3. exemption from a specified obligation, discomfort, etc. 4. being able to act, move, use, etc. without hindrance 5. being free from the usual rules, conventions, etc. [...] PRIVACY: 1. withdrawal from public view; seclusion 2. secrecy 3. one's private life or personal affairs
And now I ask you: can the aforementioned terms conciliate, cooperate together (and) with the essence of the word INTERNET? How can we expect to remain hidden when we're (in Internet) potentially connected to _the world_?? The meeting of many "private life or personal affairs" on-line is still "private" or "withdrawn from public view"? If Internet is freedom, i.e. "exemption from a specified obligation", and is as "being able to act, move, use, etc. without hindrance", then why are there clinical cases of "internet-dependence"?? In the end, what do anonymity, privacy, freedom mean IN Internet? Or better, turning the question inside out, what does Internet itself make to anonymity, privacy and freedom? A world of pseudonyms?
Have a nice time, out there. Somerset (a pseudonym indicating obviously someone else)
Hi, folks! The fact of being controlled over the internet or not makes me a bit amused. Why? Because for the things I do in my quiet prototype day, anyone controlling me would be simply... wasting his time!
To be serious, as somebody has just written, anonymity is a myth. Freedom too. It seems that human beings have great fun in building their own cages. The objection now could be that even in a game you need rules. Can rules make the game better? Maybe. Anyway I keep in mind that nothing is good or bad in itself: it depends on the USE you make of it. So, what really makes me angry is not CONTROL, but INTERFERENCE: this is the worst consequence of a nasty sort of control. This is the great danger, because I can't control who's controlling me. My zen conclusion is: for control the cure is indifference, for interference there's one verb, "disconnect."
Greetings from Italy and excuse my delirium and the schizophrenic english;-)
Slashdot Mirror
- Their predictions are based on toys for children.
By the way, I once believed to have seen the safe Car driven by a Bot, but I soon found out that it was just a taxi driven by a sleepless driver.
The true smashing invention: A gene who can pre-translate the genetic code, predict any future stupidity in the unborn, and finally terminate the fetus. (One possible ad might sound like: "It takes *very* little to make a better world")
For most software conflicts, reinstalling the Mac OS is always the last resort. And everything turns out good in most cases.
Reinstalling Windows on a PC isn't actually the *last* resort. A friend of mine, thanks to the "dynamic duo" Internet Explorer & Outlook Express had to reinstall Win several times. Useless, since the problem was serious file corruption. Problem increased by the useless attempts in reinstalling everything. So he finally had to reformat the hard drive.
And another unlucky friend had to open his PC a countless number of times because of hardware conflicts (video card sees not sound card; sound card changed; new sound card incompatible with CD-RW drive; then the OS sees not the modem, & so on & so on...)
Both of them - lest I forget - were stopped at the BIOS when trying to reboot.
Regards
First: don't get offensive.
Second: I was trying to figure out a generally described scenario which at first seemed almost unbelievable. You see, too many people talk sententiously about Macintosh, at times exaggerating things they have *heard* and not even *seen*...
Third: I'm not defending Mac at any cost. My final sentence sounded so straight maybe because my experience with Macs and PCs led to opposite results compared to yours. That's it.
In my previous post there was less sarcasm than what you might have read. I just wanted to understand. And the fact that your G3s with the software you mentioned still crash - believe me - keeps me puzzled.
Best regards
it's quite obvious that pinball is agonizing. Today everything which occupies too much room or does something which could be done in less space is considered old, unfashionable, "out", uncomfortable, annoying.
Today you can see technology in the palm of your hand. In 1945 a computer filled a place equivalent of a big New York loft. Now it stands on your desk, not bigger than a tv set. Now we have mobile phones with video games in them. The idea of MICRO is cool, comfortable, portable, economic, handy.
Who wants pinballs? Too big, too heavy, not precise, hard to manipulate, too simple, etc. etc.
Too human?
"I also think the other assertions are more the author's prejudicial opinion than any solid factual representation. We have several satellite offices where I work that have Macs and PCs -- the Mac people are *always* in need of some consultant to fix some INIT/CDEV snafu or some other MacOS lunacy. The PC machines have problems, but nothing that isn't simply solved or that can't wait for the semi-annual office tuneup visit."
I've worked, too, in a workplace with Mac and PCs. On the contrary Pcs users there were *often* in need, not of any consultant, but of WIZARDS, MAGICIANS, because their machines broke down. The reasons? Still unkown. System protection faults, maybe. Error code were always hexadecimal coordinates so long as to provoke headaches even to NASA. What should they do? Open up the chassis every time? No. Turn off the PC and then ON again. Sometimes worked, sometimes not. Reinstall the OS. Yes. 1, 10, 50 times in 2 weeks. Someone even thought about networking CD-ROM drives with Windows 98 permanently in it...
What are those INIT/CDEV snafus? What are those Mac OS lunacies? Who networked the computers? Do all the Macs have the same system installed? Is the conflict local, on a single machine? What kind of breakdowns? What is being connected to those Macs? Examples, please.
The fact is that I'll never believe that Macs (and Mac OS) have a weaker architecture than PCs (and Windows).
Greetings
Just two or three things...
"But now Apple need fear nothing from Windows, Inc., as the applications the Mac OS needs are made by Microsoft. And it is in Microsoft's best interest to sell as many copies of it's applications as possible, without concern for the operating system."
Let's don't exaggerate. Reading these lines it seems that Apple needs MS Office as humans need air to live. It's a bundle of applications, nothing more. Has it sold a lot? Well, even Spice Girls have sold a lot of records but they're not - for this - good musicians. There are a bunch of applications who can substitute, for ex., Word (Nisus Writer, Word Perfect, etc.) but "someone" told that Word is standard... Word is a famous word-processor. For this matter it's considered "good" or (incredible!) "well-written". Hmpf.
And you can apply this to lots of MS products.
"Apple's hardware sales decline as people take advantage of cheap PC hardware, then increase again as the platform gains momentum and former Intel users upgrade to Apple hardware. In any case, Apple can do without it's hardware entirely, as it makes more money as an operating system vendor than it ever did as a hardware manufacturer."
This is far, very far to be proved. I want to see this scenario happen in early 2001. I want to see the new hardware Apple will build. I want to see the implementation of new technologies. And above all I want to see the prices of the new Apple machines. Apple has always build solid hardware (apart from some few unlucky models), and, most of all, won't do the same mistakes done by "the richest man in the world"...
If I can drive my Ferrari, why buy a Honda with a compatible Ferrari engine? You have to consider the performance resulting from the unity of hardware and "native" software. To me the word "compatibility" has always sounded like a synonym of "compromise".
(To be continued)
Regards.
These scientists are no pioneers in their discovery.
a ily/aug99/water27.htm
Read THIS, it's dated AUGUST 1999!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/d
The article, reaching its ends, says:
"If more do turn up, it suggests water isn't as rare in the Solar System as previously thought. And if water did actually exist elsewhere before it did on Earth, it could have played a key role in the evolution of life on this planet."
Who said that?
"In the evolution of life" as WE mean IT. There are some necessities, I think, to guarantee "life" in a planet surface's environment. In my humble opinion these scientists are still making the old mistake that brings me back to the time when man believed the Earth was flat. They're still earth-centric in considering this discovery.
See you.
The provisions include:
- Requiring Microsoft to license Windows to PC makers under uniform prices and terms according to a schedule accessible to the government and those PC makers;
Comment: "PC makers: always ask the fiscal ticket when you go to Bill's shop"
- Barring Microsoft from interfering with the way PC makers set up start-up screens, the Windows desktop, preferences, and Internet connection wizards;
Comment: "The popular rock group DOORS in fact had problems with their startup screen. Bill shouted to Jim - 'Windows is the name, Windows! Windows! Got it?' "
- Requiring the company to disclose technical information about its operating systems to independent hardware and software companies so that those companies can design products that are compatible with Windows;
Comment: "I don't want their tech info. I can write programs running perfectly without MS and without windows. No bugs allowed."
- Prohibiting Microsoft from degrading the performance of "middleware" made by other companies. Middleware is software that operates between an operating system and another type of software application;
Comment: "Tech Support On-line? Hey, my email management program is, uhm, in some way *degraded* in performance by, uhm, the operating system called, uhm, windows. Any advice? Hm? Huh-huh, so I'd better to uninstall... ah the OS itself, uhm, hey thanks!"
- And restricting the company from binding middleware products, such as a Web browser, to its Windows operating system unless access to that middleware can be removed by PC makers or end-users.
Comment: "Look mama! I got a new PC with Internet Explorer!! Windows? No, at the shop they told me that Microsoft told them "EITHER Windows OR Internet Explorer" They have been very clear. But I can remove IE and buy Windows. And when I want IE again I can uninstall Windows, get it back to the shop..."
Final comment: "MS has split in two? So now there are TWO COMPANIES? OH MY GOD!! One was not enough?!?!"
Greetings.
That should be no obscure subject. Yesterday + the day before yest. I tried to post 5 comments for 38 times. THIRTY-EIGHT.
Now, for not to say off-topic, a little provocation:
"The idea of cyberspace as culture (??) is a particularly bitter pill for many of the shapers of thought and opinion (??) -- educators, academics, journalists, writers, members of the clergy, the so-called intelligentsia (???) -- to stomach. In fact, Murray still has few colleagues supporting her contention that networked (?) computing (?) is re-shaping (????) culture in diverse (?????) and highly (????????) creative (????????????) ways."
Angry greetings.
To better people - we make laws - why is this?
First come people. People serve to existing business.
The betterment of business makes laws for the betterment of society. The sad truth.
Imagine that the media didn't inform us about the Utah incident. What would have been the real effect of the insults of that boy? Not really dangerous. On the same level as if he just shouted his anger at school and/or in the surroundings.
Freedom of speech, in internet and among human beings, is ruled by a certain amount of common sense. In this story, in this whole mess, there isn't. There's prevarication, malversation, and a sick measure unit in judging the boy's behaviour.
An example: Who knows if I insult my neighbours? Maybe other people in the same building. Few consequences in any way: the spreading of my insults has the limit of passing the word on. Without appropriate links, insulting on-line has much the same limit. In my humble opinion.
Greetings
I reflected on the direction computers are leading us to. I would like to quote an excerpt from Steven Levy's book on Macintosh history, which better explains my reflections:
"...I sometimes question whether [productivity] is an illusion.
As it turns out, this question has been bedeviling economists as well. A few years ago Gary Loveman, a professor at MIT [...], attempted to measure the productivity gains that came with the billions of dollars' worth of information technology purchased by American industry. Similar studies measuring the benefits of research and development had conclusively demonstrated that R&D was a solid investment, and that there was no reason to suspect that computer technology would be a different story. But when Loveman ran all the numbers, totaled the investments in information technology and then compared them to the productivity totals of the industries, he was startled, if not astonished by the results. 'There was no positive effect,' he said. 'There may even have been a negative effect.'
This gap between accepted reality (computers make us more productive) and the quantifiable result (they don't), has come to be known as the Productivity Paradox. A true puzzler: if computers enable us to get so much work done, in a much shorter period of time... why can't we measure it? Where did the productivity go?
[...] Still, I think the paradox is a useful tool to assess the hours we spend focusing on our tools instead of using them. [...] [Trying to discover the source of my computer troubles] was a process in which I had never engaged back in the bad old days when I toiled on a typewriter. In a certain sense, those days were not bad at all. I never spent a whole morning installing a new ribbon. Nor did I subscribe to 'Remington World' and 'IBM Selectric User'. I did not attend the Smith-Corona Expo twice a year. I did not scan the stores for the proper cables to affix to my typewriter, or purchase books that instructed me how to get more use from my Liquid Paper..."
This long quote is useful to understand that there still is the need to get finally rid of false needs before asking ourselves what is the future of computer technology. Is it really a means to an end or is it becoming just an end and nothing more?
Greetings.
It seems clear to me that we're watching the growth of false needs. It's one of the engines of the market in relationship with the man of the street. I'm not saying anything new.
What annoys me, though, is that now PRIVACY itself is being packed like a need, like a new product. The next step in dealing with privacy is selling it to its respective owners. I don't want to BUY something I already own. I don't want to be forced to copyright or TM my private life.
The suspect: MS Office is the greatest well programmed, well built, best sold VIRUS.
;->
The possible mistake made: Having treated it like a solution.
The possible cure: See it like a virus, treat it like a virus.
(Please excuse this visionary low-tech post
Greetings
Next time send it as "plain old text" instead of "HTML formatted." More readable, I think.
Oh my!
I think it's pretty funny how the big, powerful, billion-dollar giant Mattel could be scared by something like thebarbies.com! Suppose this:
1. thebarbies.com has nothing to do with the ugly stupid doll made by Mattel. Consequence: people visiting the site & hoping to find the ugly stupid doll gets depressed and go away. Mattel damaged? I don't think so.
2. thebarbies.com is about the ugly stupid Mattel's doll. Consequence: the fame of the doll keeps spreading over the globe. Mattel damaged? Not really!!
3. thebarbies.com is a site created to sell copies of the ugly stupid Mattel's doll at lower prices. Consequence: this is illegal, I presume. Mattel could proceed. (But who created that site is not so silly as to do these kind of things which mean only troubles for them!)
I think that Mattel could spent its money in a better way, for example in creating better toys and prettier dolls.
Greetings.
...Because rubbing it makes a genius appear and he'll be pleasured to move the pointer wherever you want.
Handy, eh? (Or should I say "handless"?)
Let's start from the basics:
(With the help of Collins English Dictionary)
ANONYMITY: the condition or fact of being anonymous.
ANONYMOUS: 1. with no name known 2. given, written, etc. by one whose name is withheld or unknown 3. lacking in distinctive features.
FREEDOM: 1. exemption from the control of some arbitrary power; independence 2. civil or political liberty [freedom of speech] 3. exemption from a specified obligation, discomfort, etc. 4. being able to act, move, use, etc. without hindrance 5. being free from the usual rules, conventions, etc. [...]
PRIVACY: 1. withdrawal from public view; seclusion 2. secrecy 3. one's private life or personal affairs
And now I ask you: can the aforementioned terms conciliate, cooperate together (and) with the essence of the word INTERNET? How can we expect to remain hidden when we're (in Internet) potentially connected to _the world_?? The meeting of many "private life or personal affairs" on-line is still "private" or "withdrawn from public view"? If Internet is freedom, i.e. "exemption from a specified obligation", and is as "being able to act, move, use, etc. without hindrance", then why are there clinical cases of "internet-dependence"??
In the end, what do anonymity, privacy, freedom mean IN Internet? Or better, turning the question inside out, what does Internet itself make to anonymity, privacy and freedom? A world of pseudonyms?
Have a nice time, out there.
Somerset (a pseudonym indicating obviously someone else)
Hi, folks!
;-)
The fact of being controlled over the internet or not makes me a bit amused. Why? Because for the things I do in my quiet prototype day, anyone controlling me would be simply... wasting his time!
To be serious, as somebody has just written, anonymity is a myth. Freedom too. It seems that human beings have great fun in building their own cages. The objection now could be that even in a game you need rules. Can rules make the game better? Maybe. Anyway I keep in mind that nothing is good or bad in itself: it depends on the USE you make of it. So, what really makes me angry is not CONTROL, but INTERFERENCE: this is the worst consequence of a nasty sort of control. This is the great danger, because I can't control who's controlling me. My zen conclusion is: for control the cure is indifference, for interference there's one verb, "disconnect."
Greetings from Italy and excuse my delirium and the schizophrenic english