I think a lot of Mac users already feel alienated. Ever been to the Mac ghetto in Best Buy? Or CompUSA? Or any other electronics retailer? Mac users are shunned by most developers (not always because of the developers - Apple did it's share of shunning as well).
But with X, Mac users are seeing a resurgence in support, which is nice. Macs also, strangely, seem to be spearheading standards compliance in a variety of networked applications (Apple's proprietary stuff is still very proprietary, though).
On the other hand, AOL has always used Mac users as guinea pigs. AOL started out as a Mac program exclusively, and as time passed, support waned. Plenty of other companies followed suit: cut your teeth with great apps on a great system, then drop Mac support like a rabid weasel once you've made your money. Bastards.
Still, as a Mac user who has never used IE, I'm used to the alienation already. You can have my Mac when you pry the mouse from my cold, dead hand.
I chose to go, myself. I went to a state college and got a degree in Physics and Astonomy. I even went on to graduate school for a while. But I saw that within my major, what I really like doing was (a) teaching and (b) futzing around with computers from administration to programming to networking. So, I left graduate school and took a position to fulfill (b). Now, I have a job that fulfills both (I teach programming and help with site administration).
Were those years a waste? No. I learned a lot of valuable things. I took a lot of classes in undergraduate school on a variety of topics from socratic dialogue to Vietnam-era literature. It broadened my horizons and gave me the time to sort out what I really wanted to do. It also developed my thinking skills, which makes me more capable at turning my hand to a variety of things and better able to think my way around a problem.
So, I would say, unless funds are an issue (I went to college on scholarships and a little parent-ership and have no student loans to pay off - this is the best way: most of my friends are still paying off those loans), take the time to explore. Don't take all computer classes, take some botany, or acting, or geology, or even an introductory astronomy class (but be aware that math is involved). Take Shakespeare or art appreciation or greek literature. The ability to think is what college os for. I don't think anyone outside of medical or law school actually does what they go to college for. I know three people who hold psychology degrees: one's an accountant, one's a graphic designer and one is between careers (was in computers, is looking for something more intellectual, whatever that means). Also, remember that education is what you make of it. My state college was fine for what I wanted: a broad education in a variety of subjects. Most community colleges can fulfill this need. Don't spend more than you have (see above).
Real world experience is great. But 3 or 4 years of learning new ways to interpret that experience is invaluable.
Just remember Hans Gruber in Die Hard: "Benefits of a classical education."
Neither of those companies have to write memos about it. Or hold meetings, or conferences, or develop business plans to discuss the ROI of undermining Windows.
Both companies undermine Windows simply by offering a better product.
MS has memos like this because that's what MS Innovation is all about: PHB memos.
I think where I was headed (I need to stop posting before I am fully awake) was that this isn't just about one company anymore, it's about every software maker. They all can either be sneaky petes or honest johns. Most are somewhere in between of course, even my admittedly beloved Apple. But Apple and Open Source seem to take a "do no harm" point of view, whereas Microsoft, Real, Macromedia and others take a "what you don't know, we'll use against you" attitude.
So, yes, this is a case of false advertising, but I think it's a symptom of a larger attitude taken up by most commercial software companies these days.
Oh, and when I spoke of Netscape, I meant version 4.x. Above that, I use Mozilla. The new Netscape seems to be leaning towards the seedy side.
At the risk of attracting trolls, this sort of internet lack-of-awareness is exactly why I recommend and give Macs to my friends and relatives.
Plus, might I add, Mac OS X does it the better way: FTP, HTTP and SSH services are turned off by default. Nothing than can potentially allow someone in to your computer should be turned on by default. Nothing. And that's exactly what Flash 6 is doing: allowing access by default to your system. Netscape, while having access to cookies on by default at least also warns you by default (at least on Solaris, which is the default install I see every week - I have had them severely limited on my other machines for so long, I don't remember, because newer versions of Netscape also preserve preferences). This doesn't seem to even come with a small disclaimer. Perhaps buried in the EULA somewhere. But to me, this should be prominently displayed every time it is run, unless you tell it otherwise, or simply off by default.
Want it done right? Use a Mac. Or spend your life fixing holes in Windows. Or get savvy enough to use one of the less user friendly *n?xes.
Oh, and check all the preferences on everything you install all the time now, as well, it seems (although I don't remember AppleWorks calling the mothership when I install it). Bastard marketroids.
True, but IBM, Nintendo and Sony don't generally make crap products and then tell you it's gold. The three companies you mention built their reputations more on providing quality products at (usually) reasonable prices. Sure, there was always a latest and greatest that you could buy next year, but it was more, "Only if you really want it," rather than, "Guess what, the only way to fix your current problems is to give us more money." They made the newer versions have better features so you did want them, which is not the way MS does business.
The first Gameboy was pretty lame, but it didn't cause any Navy ships to go dead in the water. The early Walkmans were expensive, but didn't crash every third song. IBM . . . well, I guess I don't have a great example for IBM, but they are the only typewriter company still in business today. And why? Because the products aren't crap.
How dare you call me blind when you can make such a comparison with a straight face.
Comcast and Cox, while not actively raising their rates, are certainly providing lousy connectivity. Sure, their respective customer services are responsive, but when the response is always, "We're working to fix that," it gets a little tedious. There have been days that service has been essentially unavailable. If I can't get the bandwidth one day, it's gone, and I generally don't even have a rebate to show for it. This tends to make me want to do something like uncapping my modem to make up for it the next day.
I'm not saying it's the company's fault that I'd do something along these lines. They're just not providing much of a carrot for me not to do so. Reliable service is the carrot, cutting off my service is the stick, in this case. It'd be nice if more companies would use the carrot before the stick, but that would mean, I don't know, that they appreciate their customers or something weird like that.
Cox, at any rate, monitors their cox.community news groups closely, and will respond in that forum about issues and try to resolve them. I do feel like I am getting a response, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. For now.
Comcast's published news server rarely works at all, so I can't say the same for them. If there was a broadband option where I'm using Comcast, I'd have taken it long ago.
I found it extremely interesting that AOL has evidently given their blessing to iChat, making it the first external client to be offcially endorsed by AOL for operation on their network. Nice to see AOL sort of playing a little nice with a single other entity in IM space. I don't know if iChat will support any other systems however. If not, I'll be sticking with Fire.
I'm a Java programmer myself, and do a lot of work on my OS X iMac. It's a great environment to work in, and OS X supports Java well.
Issue: still only J2SDK 1.3 on OS X. Sun seems to like to support people that hate Java (MS) more than people who love it.
Note: the version of Swing for OS X is Aqua-fied, but still cross-platform, so you write your Swing components and they look OS X native on OS X and like any other Java Swing component anywhere else (try it with Jext to see what I'm talking about). This is because of Apple's great support of the Java platform. It's almost, but not quite, a native language. And did I mention fast?
Links: Java @ Apple with loads of other links. I find what I need 9 times out of 10. The tenth time, I go to the source.
Surely the networks violated my contract with them when they decided to run Small Wonder, Punky Brewster and Family Matters, and then had the unmitigated gall to cancel Futurama and Family Guy.
I'll watch your commercials when you fill the space between with something less insipid.
My real issue is primarily with any sort of non-science posing as scientific. As usual, the writers of the Simpsons hit the nail on the head: "God has no place within these walls [public school], just like facts have no place within organized religion." If we'd all just admit that, the world would be a happier place. There are certain things which religion is good for, and certain things which science is good for. But there is nothing for which both science and religion are good. People just need to separate religious truth from scientific fact (knowing full well that sometimes truth is not TRUTH and fact is not FACT, if you take my meaning).
True, the theories I mentioned replaced others. That (as you well know, I'm probably preaching to the choir here - pun intended) is the basis of science in general. I feel the media is certainly more at fault in the perception that scientists have this arrogant aura surronding them. They don't take the time to explain that what they are about to show is the best explanation we have this day, or week, or decade, or century. Those taught scientific reasoning know that already. The media just wants to get on with it so they can throw some more sensationalist garbage at us. If the theory is refuted the next day, the retraction will be on page 31 after the toaster sale at Penny's. Most scientists (though not all) are able to accept one theory which refutes or changes another one. Relativity took a good long while to be accepted, though. We understand, all of us, what we see around us based on our perceptions. If those fundamental perceptions are challenged, there is a natural resistance to the challenge. No scientist wants to give up a lifetime of work because some other scientist has debunked his theory. This may be where the perception of arrogance comes from. It's all the more evident because the basis of science is the constant challenge to accepted theory, and resistance to this process by a scientist makes them all look the more foolish. But it's not unique to science. How many people of faith shake their heads sadly at the fanatic? And how many color those same moderate people the same as the fanatic? No one has a monopoly on nut cases, and no field is immune from them either. What bothers me is the inability of the public (all the way up to many of our elected officials) to discern scientific reason from immutable dogma.
Well, it was an ad hominem argument, no doubt. It just still chaps my ass that they named an airport for the guy who fired all the air traffic controllers. It'd be like naming a women's health clinic after Clinton. But that's all way off topic.
Oh, and that should have been principle in my tirade before.
Astronomy and Physics myself. I've been dealing with Astrology proponents for years. Guess that makes me touchy. See? Even with a scientific background, I can be irrational.
(Remember that evolution and creationism are theories, not facts)
Thanks so much for lumping these both under the same heading of theory, Mr. Reagan.
Here's the difference: evolution is a scientific hypothesis developed to support observed evidence. Since no other hypothesis fits the observed data as well, it has been promoted to theory, but can still be supplanted by a better hypothesis or refuted by evidence which cannot be explained by current theory. Some other scientific theories you might be interested in are the theory of relativity, the universal law of gravitation, and the uncertainty principal.
Creationism is a dictated myth which observed evidence is forced to support. It cannot be refuted by any given evidence, as it is a matter of faith, and dictated to us from a single source which is assumed to be correct, and also cannot be supplanted. It is not subject to the scientific method, nor does it allow for the possibility of better explanations of observed data.
What this survey shows is not that people do not understand science, but that they cannot discern what is scientific from what is not. If something cannot be tested, or have the possibility of being refuted, then it is by nature unscientific. That doesn't make it wrong, or unbeliveable, or evil. It just means that science has nothing apropos to say on the matter. It is religion that has characterized science as evil, primarily because it encourages the individual to investigate, to think for one's self, to come to an independant conclusion, rather than accept dogmatic explanations of the nature of the universe. The case of Galileo comes to mind.
The public can't tell the difference. And religion isn't helping the public learn for themselves. As clearly evidenced by the quoted statement above. Science and faith are mutually exclusive. Science makes no assertions as to the validity of faith, or the place that faith has in society. Faith, on the other hand, feels threatened, and has lashed out at science. The result is that science education during the school week has faltered, while faith's impregnable Sunday fortress remains. I don't apply the scientific method to matters of faith. Those who do are weak believers: true faith needs no rational explanation.
Well, yes, I myself have some obsoleted hardware (Mac 512ke, Plus), and the 400k and 800k floppies to use with them.
I'm not able to run OS X on them, and that makes me sad (and in cases of early G3 Macs, made some people litigious).
Not jaded, just amorous of older tech (back when one gave way to another more naturally, rather than forcibly). I notice a lot of geekdom enjoys fidling with older tech stuff, and not just computers. I have a geek friend who prefers fountain pens and pocket watches (legit spring powered ones, too), I own, and drive regularly, a '48 Studebaker, and I know a few other technophiles with the same sort of fetish. Why? Who knows? Maybe we long for a simpler time? Maybe we recognize that just because something is old doesn't make it bad (AmigaOS for instance: old, yet elegant)? Maybe we're able to do this because our jobs give us the funds to throw at such things? That's off-topic, but perhaps interesting, someone should do a study.
Still, I think we can agree that paper manufacturers shouldn't be able to dictate what pen we can use, and road builders shouldn't tell me what car I can drive. That's why I say it's not okay to force me to listen and use content other than as I please within certain reasonable limits. There are still LPs and still casettes, but I get the strong feeling that if this DataPlay initiative flys, there won't be for much longer.
Re:Need to do more than complain
on
CFP 2002 Wrapup
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
So very sorry, I wasn't aware that playing DVDs on my Linux box or copying CDs to my computer's hard drive were cutting in to their revenue stream. I mean, really, I thought purchasing their CDs and DVDs was helping them make money, not the other way around.
And don't we already have laws in place crimializing file sharing? Copyright laws? Funny, if they can't adequately prosecute people under the existing laws, that's their own fault, not the law's.
Frankly, it's not their content they're protecting, it's their outmoded business model. Their content is already protected by a myriad of laws. Yes, they need to make money, and yes, the artists need to have their work protected. But the current run of laws which are ostensibly for the latter, are really for the former, and make no mistake.
Allowing me to play DVDs on my system of choice, or copying my CDs to my computer for my personal convenience, while not my right per se, is actually in the best interest of the companies currently trying to outlaw such things, because it makes me more likely to puchase more of their product.
Region encoding and broken audio formats aren't protecting the artist from illegal copying. A bit-wise copy of some media on to other media can't be stopped, it simply has to be caught, which takes money and effort which the MPAA and RIAA aren't prepared to put forth, because laws are cheaper and require less effort to purchase. In any case, these two methods are merely for the protection of a business model. A bad business model, some may argue. The business model is dying, and rather than coming up with something else, the business is alienating it's customers with draconian tactics. Ultimately, these tactics will cut into their revenue far more than copyright infringements will. Selling one copy to an infringer is better than not selling any to people who despise you.
Well, no, no one has XP on 5-1/4" disks. They have it on something better.
I have Excel on 3-1/4" disks, but I burned the images of all 13 disks onto a CD so that the legacy media copy can be used on my new computer-sans-floppy.
The point, I think, is this: sure, some technologies get obsoleted at some point, but that's mostly because they are replaced with something better or faster and, generally, there is an inexpensive way to convert your legacy stuff to the newer format.
Generally, new technologies are adopted because they accomplish some task in a way that makes sense to Joe Public. Boot CDs replace boot floppies because they're better at doing what they do (and can hold more info). However, making boot floppies is still viable in some cases, so the older technology is still available.
So, okay, USB was slow to catch on and took a little more prodding. Maybe the good-enough people were still happy. But I like USB much more than serial or parallel. Sure, I had to upgrade my systems, but I did have the option of purchasing USB-to-serial bridges to use my legacy stuff.
What the RIAA is doing here is telling Joe Public that their new way of doing things is better (arguably and out-and-out lie), while at the same time telling him that he can't (no option) do it the old way anymore.
Ah, that's just it: you're not wrong. You are, in fact, 100% correct, but only for you.
If you or anyone else wants his or her information out there, then more power to you. But if I don't want my information out there, I should have that ability as well. It should be up to me, and since it's up to me, it's my responisbility to do the legwork and make it so.
Making one's personal (or private) life public is a choice, and with all choices, there are pros and cons. It makes some things easier if more of your information is public, true, but it also means more junk mail, more spam, more phone calls asking if you want to switch to AT&T.
Keeping things private is harder, and requires a certain amount of vigilance, but results in less junk mail, less spam (at certain e-mail addresses anyway) and fewer phone calls interrupting at inopportune moments.
If someone wants to share, great. If you don't, great. But people need to be more personally aware about what each decision means.
So, really, you're not wrong, you just have a different opinion of what needs to be private in your life. Me, I'm inherently distrustful of my fellow humans, so I think very long and hard before I let them know I like, say, William Gibson better than John Grisham. What's gonna happen with that information? Will that label me a cracker? Or as a lawyer hater? Or what? Who's getting that information? I don't know, so I'm not going to tell you. If someone else also doesn't know, but they further do not care, and they want to share, then fine.
[jest]
Since, however, you want to be told where you're wrong, you're wrong about assuming everyone else lives life as you do. But everyone does that to some extent, so hey, we're all wrong. And we're all right.
[/jest]
It seems to me, more and more, that privacy must be taken, and not granted. So our government wants to protect our privacy? And yet they've foisted Carnivore on us? Well, there's some more of my tax dollars cancelling each other out.
It all comes down to whom do you trust with your private information, and what information you yourself deem to be private.
Individuals are going to have to decide this for themselves. Trusting the government or advertising drones or Microsoft to keep your information private implies rather a lot of trust. Have you met these people? Told them about that time in 4th grade where you experimented with the chronic? Who knows stuff like that? Your closest companions at best.
Privacy must be individually taken, kept and defended. It's not a gift to be handed down from on high. Each person must learn to defend their privacy on their own, and determine just what they consider private.
Hate spam? Find a way to fight it, and keep your e-mail to yourself (or at worst, make up a free one). Don't believe the registration cards. Use a fake name on your phone number, or keep it unlisted. Give no one your SSN unless they can provide proof of needing it. Make sure you know what constitutes real proof. Never say hello twice when answering your phone. Turn off cookies. Set up trusted host lists.
It's hard, yes. Joe Public won't know how to do it. OTOH, Joe Public may not care, or may not spend 10 hours a day cruising the net, or may never buy anything from anyone online.
Know the risks, take pains to minimize them, and stay vigilant. It's the only real way to keep your privacy.
I just don't seem to remember ever hearing a desire for both eye candy and strong underpinnings from a *nix-based OS before. Certainly, no one every claimed to want more eye candy in CDE.
Here's another A-1 reason why I can't with good conscience purchase CDs anymore:
At a recent Virgin Megastore Sale, they were advertising 2 DVDs for $20 (some good, some bad, I bought The Manchurian Candidate and WarGames) or 2 CDs for $25. Less data for more money? Older technology costing more than new? Come again?
That's price gouging, plain and simple (although price gouging usually only refers to necessities), and I won't tolerate it.
Well, nevermind the fact that I can only play those movies in North America . . . one crusade at a time . . .
. . . support for digital music downloads uses "misleading scare tactics" . ..
Ah, Ms. Rosen, you mean the same kind of scare tactics that you're using to paint everyone in favor of fair use as pirates? Not fun having your only weapon turned against you, is it?
This is not to say that some people aren't abusing the fair use policies.
If there was no RIAA, would musicians still get paid? If there was no RIAA, would musicians get paid for their talents instead? If there was no RIAA, would Britney Spears be a pop star or a porn star?
If there was no RIAA, would there still be music?
I love live Jazz, and will drop a Jackson in the jar before I leave. That's a CD. Straight to the artist(s). Sure, maybe not everyone is as generous, but the RIAA gets nothing. Sometimes the band will have a CD they put together themselves, no label, no contracts, just some time in a studio and some CD presses. They usually go for about $10. Sometimes I buy one. Sometimes I don't. Dunno how much a small run costs per disc, but it's got to be way more than a billion run of 'NCrap. That's the first reason we hate you, Rosen. Everything else is just gravy. And you're doing your best to drown us in gravy.
I'm not buying new discs just to spite you now. I've got plenty of music to listen to already. I can live without most music, and what I can't, I can borrow from my deluded disc-buying friends who still believe your crap. Of course, they're not calling me anymore, because I always deluge them with this same information.
But my father hates your tactics now as well. You and your copy-protected "CDs" that won't play on his Mac. He's never bought one, but he knows your kind of game, and he just stopped playing.
I can't be the only one who feels like this. Maybe we need the Infect Truth people to run ads about the dangers of RIAA along with the dangers of cigarettes.
Oh, and I applaud Gateway for beating Michael Dell to the punch to emulate Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
But with X, Mac users are seeing a resurgence in support, which is nice. Macs also, strangely, seem to be spearheading standards compliance in a variety of networked applications (Apple's proprietary stuff is still very proprietary, though).
On the other hand, AOL has always used Mac users as guinea pigs. AOL started out as a Mac program exclusively, and as time passed, support waned. Plenty of other companies followed suit: cut your teeth with great apps on a great system, then drop Mac support like a rabid weasel once you've made your money. Bastards.
Still, as a Mac user who has never used IE, I'm used to the alienation already. You can have my Mac when you pry the mouse from my cold, dead hand.
Were those years a waste? No. I learned a lot of valuable things. I took a lot of classes in undergraduate school on a variety of topics from socratic dialogue to Vietnam-era literature. It broadened my horizons and gave me the time to sort out what I really wanted to do. It also developed my thinking skills, which makes me more capable at turning my hand to a variety of things and better able to think my way around a problem.
So, I would say, unless funds are an issue (I went to college on scholarships and a little parent-ership and have no student loans to pay off - this is the best way: most of my friends are still paying off those loans), take the time to explore. Don't take all computer classes, take some botany, or acting, or geology, or even an introductory astronomy class (but be aware that math is involved). Take Shakespeare or art appreciation or greek literature. The ability to think is what college os for. I don't think anyone outside of medical or law school actually does what they go to college for. I know three people who hold psychology degrees: one's an accountant, one's a graphic designer and one is between careers (was in computers, is looking for something more intellectual, whatever that means). Also, remember that education is what you make of it. My state college was fine for what I wanted: a broad education in a variety of subjects. Most community colleges can fulfill this need. Don't spend more than you have (see above).
Real world experience is great. But 3 or 4 years of learning new ways to interpret that experience is invaluable.
Just remember Hans Gruber in Die Hard: "Benefits of a classical education."
Both companies undermine Windows simply by offering a better product.
MS has memos like this because that's what MS Innovation is all about: PHB memos.
I think where I was headed (I need to stop posting before I am fully awake) was that this isn't just about one company anymore, it's about every software maker. They all can either be sneaky petes or honest johns. Most are somewhere in between of course, even my admittedly beloved Apple. But Apple and Open Source seem to take a "do no harm" point of view, whereas Microsoft, Real, Macromedia and others take a "what you don't know, we'll use against you" attitude.
So, yes, this is a case of false advertising, but I think it's a symptom of a larger attitude taken up by most commercial software companies these days.
Oh, and when I spoke of Netscape, I meant version 4.x. Above that, I use Mozilla. The new Netscape seems to be leaning towards the seedy side.
Plus, might I add, Mac OS X does it the better way: FTP, HTTP and SSH services are turned off by default. Nothing than can potentially allow someone in to your computer should be turned on by default. Nothing. And that's exactly what Flash 6 is doing: allowing access by default to your system. Netscape, while having access to cookies on by default at least also warns you by default (at least on Solaris, which is the default install I see every week - I have had them severely limited on my other machines for so long, I don't remember, because newer versions of Netscape also preserve preferences). This doesn't seem to even come with a small disclaimer. Perhaps buried in the EULA somewhere. But to me, this should be prominently displayed every time it is run, unless you tell it otherwise, or simply off by default.
Want it done right? Use a Mac. Or spend your life fixing holes in Windows. Or get savvy enough to use one of the less user friendly *n?xes.
Oh, and check all the preferences on everything you install all the time now, as well, it seems (although I don't remember AppleWorks calling the mothership when I install it). Bastard marketroids.
The first Gameboy was pretty lame, but it didn't cause any Navy ships to go dead in the water. The early Walkmans were expensive, but didn't crash every third song. IBM . . . well, I guess I don't have a great example for IBM, but they are the only typewriter company still in business today. And why? Because the products aren't crap.
How dare you call me blind when you can make such a comparison with a straight face.
Don't tell Gates, he's got money to spend to find out what it is. And then where would Tux be?
And left open security holes, and been vulnerable to virii. But, but, fewer lines of code!
I'm not saying it's the company's fault that I'd do something along these lines. They're just not providing much of a carrot for me not to do so. Reliable service is the carrot, cutting off my service is the stick, in this case. It'd be nice if more companies would use the carrot before the stick, but that would mean, I don't know, that they appreciate their customers or something weird like that.
Cox, at any rate, monitors their cox.community news groups closely, and will respond in that forum about issues and try to resolve them. I do feel like I am getting a response, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. For now.
Comcast's published news server rarely works at all, so I can't say the same for them. If there was a broadband option where I'm using Comcast, I'd have taken it long ago.
I found it extremely interesting that AOL has evidently given their blessing to iChat, making it the first external client to be offcially endorsed by AOL for operation on their network. Nice to see AOL sort of playing a little nice with a single other entity in IM space. I don't know if iChat will support any other systems however. If not, I'll be sticking with Fire.
Issue: still only J2SDK 1.3 on OS X. Sun seems to like to support people that hate Java (MS) more than people who love it.
Note: the version of Swing for OS X is Aqua-fied, but still cross-platform, so you write your Swing components and they look OS X native on OS X and like any other Java Swing component anywhere else (try it with Jext to see what I'm talking about). This is because of Apple's great support of the Java platform. It's almost, but not quite, a native language. And did I mention fast?
Links: Java @ Apple with loads of other links. I find what I need 9 times out of 10. The tenth time, I go to the source.
I'll watch your commercials when you fill the space between with something less insipid.
My real issue is primarily with any sort of non-science posing as scientific. As usual, the writers of the Simpsons hit the nail on the head: "God has no place within these walls [public school], just like facts have no place within organized religion." If we'd all just admit that, the world would be a happier place. There are certain things which religion is good for, and certain things which science is good for. But there is nothing for which both science and religion are good. People just need to separate religious truth from scientific fact (knowing full well that sometimes truth is not TRUTH and fact is not FACT, if you take my meaning).
True, the theories I mentioned replaced others. That (as you well know, I'm probably preaching to the choir here - pun intended) is the basis of science in general. I feel the media is certainly more at fault in the perception that scientists have this arrogant aura surronding them. They don't take the time to explain that what they are about to show is the best explanation we have this day, or week, or decade, or century. Those taught scientific reasoning know that already. The media just wants to get on with it so they can throw some more sensationalist garbage at us. If the theory is refuted the next day, the retraction will be on page 31 after the toaster sale at Penny's. Most scientists (though not all) are able to accept one theory which refutes or changes another one. Relativity took a good long while to be accepted, though. We understand, all of us, what we see around us based on our perceptions. If those fundamental perceptions are challenged, there is a natural resistance to the challenge. No scientist wants to give up a lifetime of work because some other scientist has debunked his theory. This may be where the perception of arrogance comes from. It's all the more evident because the basis of science is the constant challenge to accepted theory, and resistance to this process by a scientist makes them all look the more foolish. But it's not unique to science. How many people of faith shake their heads sadly at the fanatic? And how many color those same moderate people the same as the fanatic? No one has a monopoly on nut cases, and no field is immune from them either. What bothers me is the inability of the public (all the way up to many of our elected officials) to discern scientific reason from immutable dogma.
Well, it was an ad hominem argument, no doubt. It just still chaps my ass that they named an airport for the guy who fired all the air traffic controllers. It'd be like naming a women's health clinic after Clinton. But that's all way off topic.
Oh, and that should have been principle in my tirade before.
Astronomy and Physics myself. I've been dealing with Astrology proponents for years. Guess that makes me touchy. See? Even with a scientific background, I can be irrational.
Thanks so much for lumping these both under the same heading of theory, Mr. Reagan.
Here's the difference: evolution is a scientific hypothesis developed to support observed evidence. Since no other hypothesis fits the observed data as well, it has been promoted to theory, but can still be supplanted by a better hypothesis or refuted by evidence which cannot be explained by current theory. Some other scientific theories you might be interested in are the theory of relativity, the universal law of gravitation, and the uncertainty principal.
Creationism is a dictated myth which observed evidence is forced to support. It cannot be refuted by any given evidence, as it is a matter of faith, and dictated to us from a single source which is assumed to be correct, and also cannot be supplanted. It is not subject to the scientific method, nor does it allow for the possibility of better explanations of observed data.
What this survey shows is not that people do not understand science, but that they cannot discern what is scientific from what is not. If something cannot be tested, or have the possibility of being refuted, then it is by nature unscientific. That doesn't make it wrong, or unbeliveable, or evil. It just means that science has nothing apropos to say on the matter. It is religion that has characterized science as evil, primarily because it encourages the individual to investigate, to think for one's self, to come to an independant conclusion, rather than accept dogmatic explanations of the nature of the universe. The case of Galileo comes to mind.
The public can't tell the difference. And religion isn't helping the public learn for themselves. As clearly evidenced by the quoted statement above. Science and faith are mutually exclusive. Science makes no assertions as to the validity of faith, or the place that faith has in society. Faith, on the other hand, feels threatened, and has lashed out at science. The result is that science education during the school week has faltered, while faith's impregnable Sunday fortress remains. I don't apply the scientific method to matters of faith. Those who do are weak believers: true faith needs no rational explanation.
Oh, just go listen to Particle Man.
But, hey, KMA, we have a DLP and most other people don't.
Not jaded, just amorous of older tech (back when one gave way to another more naturally, rather than forcibly). I notice a lot of geekdom enjoys fidling with older tech stuff, and not just computers. I have a geek friend who prefers fountain pens and pocket watches (legit spring powered ones, too), I own, and drive regularly, a '48 Studebaker, and I know a few other technophiles with the same sort of fetish. Why? Who knows? Maybe we long for a simpler time? Maybe we recognize that just because something is old doesn't make it bad (AmigaOS for instance: old, yet elegant)? Maybe we're able to do this because our jobs give us the funds to throw at such things? That's off-topic, but perhaps interesting, someone should do a study.
Still, I think we can agree that paper manufacturers shouldn't be able to dictate what pen we can use, and road builders shouldn't tell me what car I can drive. That's why I say it's not okay to force me to listen and use content other than as I please within certain reasonable limits. There are still LPs and still casettes, but I get the strong feeling that if this DataPlay initiative flys, there won't be for much longer.
And don't we already have laws in place crimializing file sharing? Copyright laws? Funny, if they can't adequately prosecute people under the existing laws, that's their own fault, not the law's.
Frankly, it's not their content they're protecting, it's their outmoded business model. Their content is already protected by a myriad of laws. Yes, they need to make money, and yes, the artists need to have their work protected. But the current run of laws which are ostensibly for the latter, are really for the former, and make no mistake.
Allowing me to play DVDs on my system of choice, or copying my CDs to my computer for my personal convenience, while not my right per se, is actually in the best interest of the companies currently trying to outlaw such things, because it makes me more likely to puchase more of their product.
Region encoding and broken audio formats aren't protecting the artist from illegal copying. A bit-wise copy of some media on to other media can't be stopped, it simply has to be caught, which takes money and effort which the MPAA and RIAA aren't prepared to put forth, because laws are cheaper and require less effort to purchase. In any case, these two methods are merely for the protection of a business model. A bad business model, some may argue. The business model is dying, and rather than coming up with something else, the business is alienating it's customers with draconian tactics. Ultimately, these tactics will cut into their revenue far more than copyright infringements will. Selling one copy to an infringer is better than not selling any to people who despise you.
I have Excel on 3-1/4" disks, but I burned the images of all 13 disks onto a CD so that the legacy media copy can be used on my new computer-sans-floppy.
The point, I think, is this: sure, some technologies get obsoleted at some point, but that's mostly because they are replaced with something better or faster and, generally, there is an inexpensive way to convert your legacy stuff to the newer format.
Generally, new technologies are adopted because they accomplish some task in a way that makes sense to Joe Public. Boot CDs replace boot floppies because they're better at doing what they do (and can hold more info). However, making boot floppies is still viable in some cases, so the older technology is still available.
So, okay, USB was slow to catch on and took a little more prodding. Maybe the good-enough people were still happy. But I like USB much more than serial or parallel. Sure, I had to upgrade my systems, but I did have the option of purchasing USB-to-serial bridges to use my legacy stuff.
What the RIAA is doing here is telling Joe Public that their new way of doing things is better (arguably and out-and-out lie), while at the same time telling him that he can't (no option) do it the old way anymore.
If you or anyone else wants his or her information out there, then more power to you. But if I don't want my information out there, I should have that ability as well. It should be up to me, and since it's up to me, it's my responisbility to do the legwork and make it so.
Making one's personal (or private) life public is a choice, and with all choices, there are pros and cons. It makes some things easier if more of your information is public, true, but it also means more junk mail, more spam, more phone calls asking if you want to switch to AT&T.
Keeping things private is harder, and requires a certain amount of vigilance, but results in less junk mail, less spam (at certain e-mail addresses anyway) and fewer phone calls interrupting at inopportune moments.
If someone wants to share, great. If you don't, great. But people need to be more personally aware about what each decision means.
So, really, you're not wrong, you just have a different opinion of what needs to be private in your life. Me, I'm inherently distrustful of my fellow humans, so I think very long and hard before I let them know I like, say, William Gibson better than John Grisham. What's gonna happen with that information? Will that label me a cracker? Or as a lawyer hater? Or what? Who's getting that information? I don't know, so I'm not going to tell you. If someone else also doesn't know, but they further do not care, and they want to share, then fine.
[jest]
Since, however, you want to be told where you're wrong, you're wrong about assuming everyone else lives life as you do. But everyone does that to some extent, so hey, we're all wrong. And we're all right.
[/jest]
It all comes down to whom do you trust with your private information, and what information you yourself deem to be private.
Individuals are going to have to decide this for themselves. Trusting the government or advertising drones or Microsoft to keep your information private implies rather a lot of trust. Have you met these people? Told them about that time in 4th grade where you experimented with the chronic? Who knows stuff like that? Your closest companions at best.
Privacy must be individually taken, kept and defended. It's not a gift to be handed down from on high. Each person must learn to defend their privacy on their own, and determine just what they consider private.
Hate spam? Find a way to fight it, and keep your e-mail to yourself (or at worst, make up a free one). Don't believe the registration cards. Use a fake name on your phone number, or keep it unlisted. Give no one your SSN unless they can provide proof of needing it. Make sure you know what constitutes real proof. Never say hello twice when answering your phone. Turn off cookies. Set up trusted host lists.
It's hard, yes. Joe Public won't know how to do it. OTOH, Joe Public may not care, or may not spend 10 hours a day cruising the net, or may never buy anything from anyone online.
Know the risks, take pains to minimize them, and stay vigilant. It's the only real way to keep your privacy.
Ask yourself if this is better or worse than optimizing for user experience rather than security, which is what MS does routinely.
Besides, IE on Mac? Please. It went in the bit bucket April 1, the day I got my iMac G4.
Alas, born too late again . . .
- Here's great new "invisible" stuff
- We want more "visible" stuff, too
I just don't seem to remember ever hearing a desire for both eye candy and strong underpinnings from a *nix-based OS before. Certainly, no one every claimed to want more eye candy in CDE.At a recent Virgin Megastore Sale, they were advertising 2 DVDs for $20 (some good, some bad, I bought The Manchurian Candidate and WarGames) or 2 CDs for $25. Less data for more money? Older technology costing more than new? Come again?
That's price gouging, plain and simple (although price gouging usually only refers to necessities), and I won't tolerate it.
Well, nevermind the fact that I can only play those movies in North America . . . one crusade at a time . . .
Ah, Ms. Rosen, you mean the same kind of scare tactics that you're using to paint everyone in favor of fair use as pirates? Not fun having your only weapon turned against you, is it?
This is not to say that some people aren't abusing the fair use policies.
If there was no RIAA, would musicians still get paid? If there was no RIAA, would musicians get paid for their talents instead? If there was no RIAA, would Britney Spears be a pop star or a porn star?
If there was no RIAA, would there still be music?
I love live Jazz, and will drop a Jackson in the jar before I leave. That's a CD. Straight to the artist(s). Sure, maybe not everyone is as generous, but the RIAA gets nothing. Sometimes the band will have a CD they put together themselves, no label, no contracts, just some time in a studio and some CD presses. They usually go for about $10. Sometimes I buy one. Sometimes I don't. Dunno how much a small run costs per disc, but it's got to be way more than a billion run of 'NCrap. That's the first reason we hate you, Rosen. Everything else is just gravy. And you're doing your best to drown us in gravy.
I'm not buying new discs just to spite you now. I've got plenty of music to listen to already. I can live without most music, and what I can't, I can borrow from my deluded disc-buying friends who still believe your crap. Of course, they're not calling me anymore, because I always deluge them with this same information.
But my father hates your tactics now as well. You and your copy-protected "CDs" that won't play on his Mac. He's never bought one, but he knows your kind of game, and he just stopped playing.
I can't be the only one who feels like this. Maybe we need the Infect Truth people to run ads about the dangers of RIAA along with the dangers of cigarettes.
Oh, and I applaud Gateway for beating Michael Dell to the punch to emulate Apple.