And who the hell goes to CNN, ANCNews and MSNBC for intelligent discussion? The people who watch these channels to begin with are ignorant of any sound truth.
I'm no psychologist, but I think our definition of addiction needs improvement. An addiction is something that you use as a crutch. You can drink every night of the week because you enjoy it -- that does not make you an alcholic. You become an alcoholic when you can't socialize or be happy without it. You can be addicted to anything, frankly -- some things are harmless and some things are bad for you -- but anything can become a crutch. If you play video games to procrastinate, then you're an addict. If you play video games because you love them, you've found something you love.
Neilsen succombs to one of the most obvious mistakes that most so-called information architects and usability experts succomb to: all web sites are not equal. There are brochureware sites and application driven sites. There are ecommerce sites and art gallery sites. There are sites that entertain with cartoons and there are community sites.
And yet, it is rare that any one of these usability experts admits that their black and white "rules" don't necessarily apply to everything on the web. The web is more than just an "information delivery mechanism" (although I'll grant it's mostly that). It can also be a valuable entertainment medium.
I don't mind Neilsen's suggestions -- it's his arrogance and refusal to see a bigger picture that is annoying.
Ban flash? C'mon. Get a life and let other people have their own fun.
Re:Not really focused for techies
on
Homepage Usability
·
· Score: 2, Funny
This however makes it perfect for Marketing people who make a big deal out of lots of pretty pictures and gratuitous animation.
Unfortunately -- despite all the pretty pictures in this particular book -- marketing people don't read.
Not to say I told you so, but Mac OS X abides by this. phhhhhhbt!
Don't use fiction to justify politics
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Fiction is fiction, and by itself, that's fine. What's really wrong with this picture is that Jon Katz is using ficiton to justify a point about how great popular culture is. If the story is false, then the point is moot.
But would such a system work? Even if it did, who would pay for it and maintain it?
Not the corporations, obviously. The fact that Katz calls these corporations "unaccountable entities" only obviates the problem at hand. The people who run these corporations are unaccountable -- by law!
An alternative system would have to paid for and built by those individuals who wanted it. (see next point)
And who will curb those corporations whose economic, lobbying and political power far outstrips any of those groups protesting their existence?
Who curbs corporations!? Am I missing the point, or is this too obvious? Consumers curb corporations -- who else? Educated consumers curb corporations extremely well -- just as they do governments (South Africa). The lobbying power of corporations only outstrips an ignorant populace -- not an educated one. In fact, the lobbying power of a corporation has never outstripped an educated public. The protests are absolutely critical in that they are waking people up to the problem at hand -- an education begins whens you realize that there is a problem. Only then can you solve it.
Why would citizens in the west pay to "reinvigorate" local communities elsewhere and create a new international system?
Terrorism and war. We have the money, and making sure that other parts of the world have freedom and economic stability means we have to worry less about someone attacking us -- not because we have something -- but because they have nothing. Only someone with nothing to lose lashes out at someone in violence.
Globalism thrives on the contributions of corporations who want to profit from it, not from the efforts of governments or civic groups advancing democratic ideals.
There are two ways globalism can happen -- only one of which is paid for by corporations. The second way that globalism thrives is through governments and civic groups advancing democratic ideals. Granted, no one is really doing that yet, but optimism isn't unwarranted.
This is really just in preparation for the distribution of Microsoft's voice recognition software. They can only get it to recognize about a thousand words so they're gradually manipulating the Theasaurus in Word. This "feature" is seen as an innovation by Microsoft since people will be able to "speak less".
Personally, I see this development as eventually resulting in blissfully dumb Windoze users who frolic about the Internet until grabbed by the Linux users who hide beneath the code.
The thing that gets me about any digital rights management scheme is the complete disregard for the other half of an obviously economic problem. *Lower prices* would get me to put up with just about any restriction. The RIAA and MIAA should learn from the software industry where horribly inflated prices have created insurmountable piracy. The perfect example of this is shareware. I always pay for shareware because it's rarely more than US$50. Software that costs $1000 a license is way off my demand curve. If an ebook cost a dollar or two (which when you subtract from a book the price of physical cost and overhead is about what they're worth) I will happily pay for copies -- and even pay for copies for friends.
There are two variables currently in digital media: convenience and cost. They are also inversely proportional. Make it inconvenient, and people will find a way to get it for free. Make it cheap and people will happily jump through a few hoops.
Discussions and decisions like this are always completed short-sighted. Advertising is not a fact at all, and as interstitial space disappears in ever-increasing and competing nonlinear mediums there will be no space for interstitial advertising. Product placement, sponsorships and contextual advertising will be all that's left.
Even billboards and signs are becoming digital, and without integrated entertainment, they will get lost in the noise (much the same way current banner ads on the web do).
(see www.bmwfilms.com)
Advertising as we know it is dying -- thank god -- because it doesn't work in nonlinear mediums.
Information wants to be free -- like stock quotes and phone numbers. Opinion editorials, novels and songs (in some cases code) are not information -- they are forms of human expression. They're protectable by copyright so that they can be made for sale (at the creator/author/musician's benefit). The facts of an article, the information contained within the expression will become free (and distorted) over time. The way in which that information is expressed is dependent on the one human who did it. That's worth money. $30 a year for good writing on Salon would be well worth it to me; just like owning an original Van Gogh and not a poster would be worth $15 million instead of ten bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
This however makes it perfect for Marketing people who make a big deal out of lots of pretty pictures and gratuitous animation.
Unfortunately -- despite all the pretty pictures in this particular book -- marketing people don't read.
Not to say I told you so, but Mac OS X abides by this. phhhhhhbt!
Fiction is fiction, and by itself, that's fine. What's really wrong with this picture is that Jon Katz is using ficiton to justify a point about how great popular culture is. If the story is false, then the point is moot.
But would such a system work? Even if it did, who would pay for it and maintain it?
Not the corporations, obviously. The fact that Katz calls these corporations "unaccountable entities" only obviates the problem at hand. The people who run these corporations are unaccountable -- by law!
An alternative system would have to paid for and built by those individuals who wanted it. (see next point)
And who will curb those corporations whose economic, lobbying and political power far outstrips any of those groups protesting their existence?
Who curbs corporations!? Am I missing the point, or is this too obvious? Consumers curb corporations -- who else? Educated consumers curb corporations extremely well -- just as they do governments (South Africa). The lobbying power of corporations only outstrips an ignorant populace -- not an educated one. In fact, the lobbying power of a corporation has never outstripped an educated public. The protests are absolutely critical in that they are waking people up to the problem at hand -- an education begins whens you realize that there is a problem. Only then can you solve it.
Why would citizens in the west pay to "reinvigorate" local communities elsewhere and create a new international system?
Terrorism and war. We have the money, and making sure that other parts of the world have freedom and economic stability means we have to worry less about someone attacking us -- not because we have something -- but because they have nothing. Only someone with nothing to lose lashes out at someone in violence.
Globalism thrives on the contributions of corporations who want to profit from it, not from the efforts of governments or civic groups advancing democratic ideals.
There are two ways globalism can happen -- only one of which is paid for by corporations. The second way that globalism thrives is through governments and civic groups advancing democratic ideals. Granted, no one is really doing that yet, but optimism isn't unwarranted.
This is really just in preparation for the distribution of Microsoft's voice recognition software. They can only get it to recognize about a thousand words so they're gradually manipulating the Theasaurus in Word. This "feature" is seen as an innovation by Microsoft since people will be able to "speak less".
Personally, I see this development as eventually resulting in blissfully dumb Windoze users who frolic about the Internet until grabbed by the Linux users who hide beneath the code.
Where is Dexter Linux!?
The thing that gets me about any digital rights management scheme is the complete disregard for the other half of an obviously economic problem. *Lower prices* would get me to put up with just about any restriction. The RIAA and MIAA should learn from the software industry where horribly inflated prices have created insurmountable piracy. The perfect example of this is shareware. I always pay for shareware because it's rarely more than US$50. Software that costs $1000 a license is way off my demand curve. If an ebook cost a dollar or two (which when you subtract from a book the price of physical cost and overhead is about what they're worth) I will happily pay for copies -- and even pay for copies for friends.
There are two variables currently in digital media: convenience and cost. They are also inversely proportional. Make it inconvenient, and people will find a way to get it for free. Make it cheap and people will happily jump through a few hoops.