I think that it is great that so many people have something they want to say, but i have a problem finding real _data_ on the case, despide everyone (others, us) 's interest and cover of the case. Where can a guy go to get some information unbiased by both sides. They align the whole thing with stealing, and/. and so align it all with freedom of speech, basic rights... ect. Is there anyone out there who simply is presenting who said what and did what, without the loaded language and connotations?
I don't it. That part of the world is barely like Britian, and nothing like Colombia. Naming a providence something like that should be charges as false advertising
Althought i agree with most of the post, i do not agree with There =IS= no "new media" or "old media". A medium is simply the method by which information is transferred. Who does the transferring, and how, is utterly irrelevent, in the end. The medium shapes what is said and how it reaches it's audiance, as well as the ideas of the people dealing with the media. The medium is not the message, but influences the message in subtle, but sometimes improtant ways. There are difinate differences in media, and the messages best convayed by thise media's. Things do not simply translate to new media's. Simply look at all the good books that have made horriable movies, or good movies that have made horriable books. Media shapes the message, and the messages shape the media.
It is ironic that at one day there appears an atricle about how people today are working longer and harder, and about how students and young employees are working longer and harder. And everyone cooments. The nex day there is an aricle about how the younger people are "on top" of the new media, and how they are the ones in charge. HMMM. Coincidence. I THINK NOT
I disagree. First off, i personally have chosen not to win. By wining and losing i mean that at a social-economic level, IE, moving up in class and circle of influence, ect, ect, ect. I ment that comment to carry a bit of sarcasm, obvoiusly i didnt broadcast well. But it also contains a bit of truth. I have several friends who have graduated with between a 3.0 and a 3.3, in CS and EE, and cannot find jobs. I am a freshman wth a 2.6, but i have a job, basically because i have enought experence. (By the way I have written down the name of the book you recommneded. thanks) I am in fact, setting aside money and doing what i love, and getting away with it rather well, but i know many people who are not, and i do not think ever will. I started saving my "fick dich" (long term savings)money when i was a senior in high school working construction, and tuck a little more away every month. I do not go by the rules of the rat race, but do so knowing that i am going to "lose." The history repeating is a refrence to the fact that everyone though that the industral Revloution would bring more free time into the world, and it did in some ways (shorter manditory work days, ect) But was we get new resources and tools, we qucikly fill them up, and try and expand even more.
Well, throughout history those who work hard to compete win. What everyone knows, but doesn't really know how to say is that there is no way to choose not to compete. Choosing not to compete is just another way of choosing to lose. So the choices become work hard and long and get ahead, or enjoy yorself and lose. At this point there is way to escape the rat race.
My next computer... will be an anarchist! It will run whatever it wishes to run, whenever it wants to run it, without asking me. I already have one of those. They really aren't all that great, don't buy the hype, i know the ad's look cool, but the techonlogy has a long way to go.
(hide the ickiness of files from the end user). Right. How exactly is a file system icky? Confusing right, but iky.
I'm sure that you have filled out an application for a video store. When you are done with it, does the piece of paper jump up and scream out "You need to put a credit card number here, or I wont let you give me to the clerk"
No but if you don't put your name on it the clerk hands it backs to you, and between chomps on her bubblegum says "hey.. you gotta put yer name on it son."
we've got to name EVERYTHING.
No you dont have to name EVERYTHING. Anything active on the desktop (analgous, in arms reach) does not need a name. If you go to store something, it is usually given a default name ( at lest in M$ Word ) and is easily accessed through the recently used section of the file menu.
Soda Cans dont need names. Neither do term papers (I am writing a paper on gravitational mechanics, I shall call it "Newton").
I don't know where you go to school, but where i go they usually insist that the paper has my name on it, a date, and the name of the paper i am writing printed in rather large letters on the cover. (Bad analogy. What I'm trying to point out that naming is used all over the place and has been proves as a "damm useful way of orgnizing things" by several panals of experts)
The words "AND/OR" mean exactly opposite between real life and computers.
blink, blink... huh??? HUH? how so?
The excuses that we as developers, designers and implementers use to perpetuate these anomalies are poor.
Actually the excuses are usually good, and include one important one... "It's #%#@ complicated(or hard) to do that!!"
computer literacy is a joke, normal people dont want to be "computer literate", no more than we want to be "Accounting Literate".
First off i don't agree, too many people are "accounting illiterate" are and in serious debt, can't spell "Ledger" let alone use one, and are easy targets for sleazy PA's because they have no clue what is going on. On that note, right.. We also do not need to be car literate, phone literate, index literate, book layout literate... Hell if you are happy letting everyone else do stuff for you, you don't even have to be literate at all!
Writing a term paper should not involve fiddling with operating systems, playing with the file system, launching applications, saving and storing copies of the "document".
If you get a service like win 98 or win 2K or even AOL, there is no mucking about. It is just there for you. In fact, Word 2000 pratically writes the entire paper for you at this point.
All they want to do is do their term paper, and not muck about in computer hell for hours.
right.. As i already said, these things are 85-90% transparent to the user if they get a system designed to be transparent and easy to use (win 2K or OS 9)
Skapunx.net is a cool site that has been around for quite a while. They have an awsome way of dealing with the music scene, and leaving the Indi labels the ability to collect some customers. From each album they archive a few songs, and serve them up free on a real player server. So you get a taste of what is on each album. Now, if you know the bands they play, when you checkout the music you realize that they only do 1 hit per band, and then other songs. So the listener gets a wider taste of the music, and can listen (to some) for free. I have bought more CD's and heard of and gotten interested in more bands through the clips provided by skapunx.net than anywhere else. They also do the whole "portal" deal, connection the people that listen to the music to lables, stores, and other sites.
I dont nessassarly disagree with what you say, but neither do i agree with it. I also believe much of the resistance to these sort of things stems from the fact that the internet is no longer a side attraction. Like earily radio, earily Internet was basically the domain of people truly interested in technology and playing with stuff . And like radio, as it has developed and the mainstream societies of the world have become involved, there has arisen a need for some sort of standard. The internet will never again be just the domain of geeks and scientists, and will never again just be something that tech. orentated people are interested in. When the 'net was small, self regulation was a perfect sceme, and common interest, ideas and standards were simply assumed, and held in check because people cared about the 'net it's self, and the opinions of their peers. Now the 'net is public domain, and there is no honor system or de facto self censorship and regulation. Because of that, government feels that it needs to step in and do the regulating. I do not think that the government is the best body to do this, but then again, who else has the resources and the interest in such a project.
Hey. Not choosing is a choice in and of it's self. So they in effect choose to accept those thoughts. They have voted, and when tallied, the majority vote for.. whatever that guy is having. Oh, and where are you from, you use the word kabab... Turkish perhaps?
Um dude.. read the first line of your post. Uhm, arent the majority and the masses pretty much the same concept, or am a missing something? Ditto on the "he accomplished nothing" part, but you have to admit, he has actually accomplished something... He as brought the topic to the top of the stack for a while. That has to be worth something.
You've got it backwards. First came some intellectuals in the corporate/government complex, who decided that the majority should want planned obsolesence and the other halmarks of conspicuous consumption
1/2 point. How far back do you go to start the cycle? You have a point that there are intellectuals involved, and that the intellectuals (us included) do foster this behavor. But i do not agree with "the majority want what theyre told they want." I believe the majority want what everyone else has, and therfor believe what people tell them they want (not a big difference). Go back to the Roman Circus analogy, those people were never told they wanted to be fat and watch the circus all day, they simply did. It is a self contained cycle.
Democary relies on the idea that the people are in charge. Again, my personal prespective (others may disagree) says that the majority of people have no intrest in anything besides making themselves feel good for the moment, and it has and will always be that way. The "everyone" votes line is just so that no-one can complain or raise a fuss, and in case something really needs to get done, there is an way to get it done, and lastly for those who are bold enough to step up and go at it. Democary and Free Trade (not capitalism) are basically forms of natural selection. The strong are given a chance and way to move up without overthrowing the system, and those who simply want to sit on the porch or in frot of the TV can do so, knowing full well that if they all wanted to they could "change things".
And it is rather funny to see this these things unfold. Isn't america the land of majority rule and minority right? And the mojority want their McDonalds and their C+M and their cheap clothes and planned obscelence. And then Along come some intellectuals. Who think _they_ know what the people really want, and what is best for the "people." I'm sorry to say, but McDonalds is moving there because people buy it, like it, eat it, and by the vote of their Dollar's (or franc's) elect to have a McDonalds. Now, I do not like this, but hey, i don't like mondays, and cant do much about that anyway. People against things such as ramapnt corparatism are the minority, people who back up their words with action are the minority. The happy fat masses will always rule, because THEY are the majority. We cannot change that, and can only try and teach those willing to learn, and protect the corner of reality (where we have staked out our minority rights) from encrochment.
In Responce To:
>We face a paradox: The ease of the exchange of information is inverse to privacy (Which is nothing more than the control of information about you). I would wager that some of the people that scream the loudest that "Information Must Be Free" also scream that "Privacy is a Right!" Where will you draw the line?
>
To start with saying "informaiton should be free" is like saying "i'm pro choice" Pro choice has almost nothing to do with choice, but by using the word, brings more connotations than simply abortion with it. Likewise when people "Information should be free" they are misusing the words information (? what do they include under information?) and free (free no money free, or free free software free). Privacy is a right, and when only you have the information, you have every right not give it out, however when you pass information on, the information becomes someone elses, and they can do what they want with it. (again, "privacy is a right" is too broad mean anything) The key is to establish who can be trusted with informaiton on you, and who cannot be. Like knowing what friends to tell embarassing stories to, and which one not to tell the stories to. The idea of information, privacy, and free and right are all being redefined, and we need to redefine our solutions and how we define our problems as that happens.
Eh Elter. Eignelich bin ich Ammie-Deutsch. Wie lange hast du Japanisch Gelearnt? Lestzen halb jahr ich hat Japanese 101. Wie Schelcht! Wataschi wa boku wa Computer Science des. Ja, mein deutsch und englisch sind schlecther geworden seit ich hab japanisch angfangen. Argh was fur ein sprache!
Richtig. Yeah, so it is good that Germany in the 1940 did not have this information. That does not mean that it is good for America in the 2000's to have this information. We live in a society that is number one in a lot of places, but we rank lower than 30th in health care. I agree with Jon (yeah, with no H baby!!) that we are not the best equiped country to deal with this, but would also like to say that there are NO countries that are well adjusted enough to deal with this. Because of the way it was released, i think the issue has been missed. I think it is not what Land( country?), but what class and profession of people will have access to the new technology. Land is becoming less and less of a concern, and class/wealth more and more. Anyone recall the how the Royalty throughout europe acted in the 17-18 year hundreds? They had no concern for land, or "their people" only concerned for the money and plush lifestyle. Eventually their miscare brought their own lifestyle down, but not before causing a lot of problems.
Re:The reasons why - please read, Jon.
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
I Agree with points 1- 4. But On Top of that, as with a lot of new technologies, the average person will not have access to the new technology, but the rich and richer will. The ability to engineer children will simply make stronger and more beautiful rich kids. I believe that if any of this is brought into pratical play, it will simply open the split more between the rich, and the middle & lower classes.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont even understand why slashdot has a movies or television section at all.
I think that it is great that so many people have something they want to say, but i have a problem finding real _data_ on the case, despide everyone (others, us) 's interest and cover of the case. Where can a guy go to get some information unbiased by both sides. They align the whole thing with stealing, and /. and so align it all with freedom of speech, basic rights... ect. Is there anyone out there who simply is presenting who said what and did what, without the loaded language and connotations?
DVD case != Nutella or Napster or anything. Dude, at least get a clue (or .5 of one ) before you post.
I don't it. That part of the world is barely like Britian, and nothing like Colombia. Naming a providence something like that should be charges as false advertising
hmmmm. i am imagining not much of blood bath, no!!
Althought i agree with most of the post, i do not agree with There =IS= no "new media" or "old media". A medium is simply the method by which information is transferred. Who does the transferring, and how, is utterly irrelevent, in the end. The medium shapes what is said and how it reaches it's audiance, as well as the ideas of the people dealing with the media. The medium is not the message, but influences the message in subtle, but sometimes improtant ways. There are difinate differences in media, and the messages best convayed by thise media's. Things do not simply translate to new media's. Simply look at all the good books that have made horriable movies, or good movies that have made horriable books. Media shapes the message, and the messages shape the media.
It is ironic that at one day there appears an atricle about how people today are working longer and harder, and about how students and young employees are working longer and harder. And everyone cooments. The nex day there is an aricle about how the younger people are "on top" of the new media, and how they are the ones in charge. HMMM. Coincidence. I THINK NOT
I disagree. First off, i personally have chosen not to win. By wining and losing i mean that at a social-economic level, IE, moving up in class and circle of influence, ect, ect, ect. I ment that comment to carry a bit of sarcasm, obvoiusly i didnt broadcast well. But it also contains a bit of truth. I have several friends who have graduated with between a 3.0 and a 3.3, in CS and EE, and cannot find jobs. I am a freshman wth a 2.6, but i have a job, basically because i have enought experence. (By the way I have written down the name of the book you recommneded. thanks) I am in fact, setting aside money and doing what i love, and getting away with it rather well, but i know many people who are not, and i do not think ever will. I started saving my "fick dich" (long term savings)money when i was a senior in high school working construction, and tuck a little more away every month. I do not go by the rules of the rat race, but do so knowing that i am going to "lose." The history repeating is a refrence to the fact that everyone though that the industral Revloution would bring more free time into the world, and it did in some ways (shorter manditory work days, ect) But was we get new resources and tools, we qucikly fill them up, and try and expand even more.
Well, throughout history those who work hard to compete win. What everyone knows, but doesn't really know how to say is that there is no way to choose not to compete. Choosing not to compete is just another way of choosing to lose. So the choices become work hard and long and get ahead, or enjoy yorself and lose. At this point there is way to escape the rat race.
My next computer... will be an anarchist! It will run whatever it wishes to run, whenever it wants to run it, without asking me. I already have one of those. They really aren't all that great, don't buy the hype, i know the ad's look cool, but the techonlogy has a long way to go.
wow. Ya'all beat me to the punch. oh well.
Skapunx.net is a cool site that has been around for quite a while. They have an awsome way of dealing with the music scene, and leaving the Indi labels the ability to collect some customers. From each album they archive a few songs, and serve them up free on a real player server. So you get a taste of what is on each album. Now, if you know the bands they play, when you checkout the music you realize that they only do 1 hit per band, and then other songs. So the listener gets a wider taste of the music, and can listen (to some) for free. I have bought more CD's and heard of and gotten interested in more bands through the clips provided by skapunx.net than anywhere else. They also do the whole "portal" deal, connection the people that listen to the music to lables, stores, and other sites.
Oblig. Resp. "Animals are people too!"
I dont nessassarly disagree with what you say, but neither do i agree with it. I also believe much of the resistance to these sort of things stems from the fact that the internet is no longer a side attraction. Like earily radio, earily Internet was basically the domain of people truly interested in technology and playing with stuff . And like radio, as it has developed and the mainstream societies of the world have become involved, there has arisen a need for some sort of standard. The internet will never again be just the domain of geeks and scientists, and will never again just be something that tech. orentated people are interested in. When the 'net was small, self regulation was a perfect sceme, and common interest, ideas and standards were simply assumed, and held in check because people cared about the 'net it's self, and the opinions of their peers. Now the 'net is public domain, and there is no honor system or de facto self censorship and regulation. Because of that, government feels that it needs to step in and do the regulating. I do not think that the government is the best body to do this, but then again, who else has the resources and the interest in such a project.
Hey. Not choosing is a choice in and of it's self. So they in effect choose to accept those thoughts. They have voted, and when tallied, the majority vote for.. whatever that guy is having. Oh, and where are you from, you use the word kabab... Turkish perhaps?
Um dude.. read the first line of your post. Uhm, arent the majority and the masses pretty much the same concept, or am a missing something? Ditto on the "he accomplished nothing" part, but you have to admit, he has actually accomplished something... He as brought the topic to the top of the stack for a while. That has to be worth something.
Democary relies on the idea that the people are in charge. Again, my personal prespective (others may disagree) says that the majority of people have no intrest in anything besides making themselves feel good for the moment, and it has and will always be that way. The "everyone" votes line is just so that no-one can complain or raise a fuss, and in case something really needs to get done, there is an way to get it done, and lastly for those who are bold enough to step up and go at it. Democary and Free Trade (not capitalism) are basically forms of natural selection. The strong are given a chance and way to move up without overthrowing the system, and those who simply want to sit on the porch or in frot of the TV can do so, knowing full well that if they all wanted to they could "change things".
'Nuff said
And it is rather funny to see this these things unfold. Isn't america the land of majority rule and minority right? And the mojority want their McDonalds and their C+M and their cheap clothes and planned obscelence. And then Along come some intellectuals. Who think _they_ know what the people really want, and what is best for the "people." I'm sorry to say, but McDonalds is moving there because people buy it, like it, eat it, and by the vote of their Dollar's (or franc's) elect to have a McDonalds. Now, I do not like this, but hey, i don't like mondays, and cant do much about that anyway. People against things such as ramapnt corparatism are the minority, people who back up their words with action are the minority. The happy fat masses will always rule, because THEY are the majority. We cannot change that, and can only try and teach those willing to learn, and protect the corner of reality (where we have staked out our minority rights) from encrochment.
In Responce To: >We face a paradox: The ease of the exchange of information is inverse to privacy (Which is nothing more than the control of information about you). I would wager that some of the people that scream the loudest that "Information Must Be Free" also scream that "Privacy is a Right!" Where will you draw the line? > To start with saying "informaiton should be free" is like saying "i'm pro choice" Pro choice has almost nothing to do with choice, but by using the word, brings more connotations than simply abortion with it. Likewise when people "Information should be free" they are misusing the words information (? what do they include under information?) and free (free no money free, or free free software free). Privacy is a right, and when only you have the information, you have every right not give it out, however when you pass information on, the information becomes someone elses, and they can do what they want with it. (again, "privacy is a right" is too broad mean anything) The key is to establish who can be trusted with informaiton on you, and who cannot be. Like knowing what friends to tell embarassing stories to, and which one not to tell the stories to. The idea of information, privacy, and free and right are all being redefined, and we need to redefine our solutions and how we define our problems as that happens.
Eh Elter. Eignelich bin ich Ammie-Deutsch. Wie lange hast du Japanisch Gelearnt? Lestzen halb jahr ich hat Japanese 101. Wie Schelcht! Wataschi wa boku wa Computer Science des. Ja, mein deutsch und englisch sind schlecther geworden seit ich hab japanisch angfangen. Argh was fur ein sprache!
Richtig. Yeah, so it is good that Germany in the 1940 did not have this information. That does not mean that it is good for America in the 2000's to have this information. We live in a society that is number one in a lot of places, but we rank lower than 30th in health care. I agree with Jon (yeah, with no H baby!!) that we are not the best equiped country to deal with this, but would also like to say that there are NO countries that are well adjusted enough to deal with this. Because of the way it was released, i think the issue has been missed. I think it is not what Land( country?), but what class and profession of people will have access to the new technology. Land is becoming less and less of a concern, and class/wealth more and more. Anyone recall the how the Royalty throughout europe acted in the 17-18 year hundreds? They had no concern for land, or "their people" only concerned for the money and plush lifestyle. Eventually their miscare brought their own lifestyle down, but not before causing a lot of problems.
I Agree with points 1- 4. But On Top of that, as with a lot of new technologies, the average person will not have access to the new technology, but the rich and richer will. The ability to engineer children will simply make stronger and more beautiful rich kids. I believe that if any of this is brought into pratical play, it will simply open the split more between the rich, and the middle & lower classes.