While I'd like to avoid it, can you suggest a substitute?
Users often ask me for a simple way to make a few web pages. Dreamweaver is obviously not the answer. What else can I give to the typical user but Frontpage?
The RIAA wants Congress to pass laws. Congresspeople want to get re-elected. If the public is unaware of the issue, then consider your elected official's options:
VOTE FOR RIAA:
o Gain RIAA support
o Lose no votes
VOTE AGAINST RIAA:
o RIAA supports your opponent in next election
o RIAA hinders you in D.C.
o Gain no votes for your principled stand
Seems to me that they are killing themselves with bad public relations...
Seems to me that the public doesn't know. I'm probably the only person I know that is even aware of what's going on. Go ask some random people, not people who read slashdot.
Ask them first what p2p is, what the implications of this bill are, and if they really care if their privacy is violated.
That latter objection is the one that has botched any number of theoretically sound online voting systems.
Voting systems were designed to randomize some votes to protect anonymity? Very interesting. Even if people trust it, though, I wonder about the constitutionality and politics of it. Could you imagine Florida 2000 with some votes intentionally randomized?
My objection to online voting was not so much anonymity as security. It would be worth huge amounts of money to some people (from foreign gov'ts, to politicians, to large companies) to rig an election. How do you secure every variation of computer that exists in America against that kind of attacker; think of the NSA (i.e. their foreign equivalents). But that's OT.
"Celestia is a free real-time space simulation that lets you experience our universe in three dimensions. Unlike most planetarium software, Celestia doesn't confine you to the surface of the Earth. You can travel throughout the solar system, to any of over 100,000 stars, or even beyond the galaxy. All travel in Celestia is seamless; the exponential zoom feature lets you explore space across a huge range of scales, from galaxy clusters down to spacecraft only a few meters across. A 'point-and-goto' interface makes it simple to navigate through the universe to the object you want to visit."
As another poster observes, if you don't trust them with the data, why trust them to randomize it?
My college stats professor 10 years ago explained a simpler trick that puts control in the respondant's hands. It went something like this:
With each question, the respondant flips a coin and looks at the second hand of a clock. Only the respondant can see the coin or the clock.
If the second hand is between 1-30 seconds, they answer per the coin (e.g. heads=yes). If it's between 31-60, they tell the truth.
The surveyor, knows very precisely the number of 'lies', can extract accurate data, and the respondant has confidence and control over their privacy. All without a transistor.
So you don't think of the frame as being an art form? Or else you wouldn't mind if ads got placed on, say, impressionist paintings in a museum gallery, covering up part of the paintings?
It depends on the painting;-). A good point and it depends on the show. I'd have no objection to sporting events or news with banner ads.
In fact, for movies, we could actually watch in letterbox! Only made-for-TV film would be a problem.
... if they reduce, significantly, normal ads. I can ignore the banner/pop-ups and keep watching. I'd prefer the shows were not interrupted for a minute or two. Think how much better sporting events would be (ever watch the World Cup with it's 'pop-up' ads?).
Think about it -- if the norm on TV was these banner ads, and then one day they said 'we're replacing the banner ads with 2 minute interruptions in the program', people would go bonkers. In fact, what if that became the norm on websites?
It's like George Clinton and Kraftwerk stuck in an elevator. - Derrick May
I'm probably not the best qualified, but since nobody else is contributing this:
According to the legend, Detroit Techno started when eclectic radio genius The ElectrifyingMojo started playing Kraftwerk in the early 80's. I used to listen to Mojo; he was late night on an urban station, and would play anything from James Brown to Prince to AC/DC, interview the B-52s, and give trippy inspirational sermons to the city's youth.
The story goes, the Belleville Three (Derrick May, JuanAtkins, and Kevin Saunderson (better known as part of Inner City)) heard Mojo and started making their own music, including Clear by Cybertron (Atkins), the 'first' techno record.
By the mid-80's my friends in northwest Detroit were playing house and techno on turntables in their basement. In the late-80's the Music Institute was the epicenter (just ask my cool friends). Since then there's been an explosion of techno and electronica talent in Detroit, most prominently Richie Hawtin (Plastikman) and the more experimental Carl Craig.
Unfortunately, if you had asked most Detroiters in the mid-90's -- apart from the small but loyal group who listened-- they wouldn't know what you were talking about. You couldn't find techno on the radio (Mojo was gone). The DJs were international stars, but they had plenty of privacy at home. In the late 90's, Carl Craig and a promoter put together the Detroit Electronic Music Fest (DEMF). Much to the surprise of many native Detroiters, over a million people came from all over the world to hear it. The vibe (and I don't use that word often) was incredible. It included a truly touching moment when Derrick May stepped on stage and finally got his due from his hometown; he started his set with "The Payback" by James Brown.
Now, most Detroiters are aware, and local popularity has exploded. The city is rich in very interesting music , and the very open-minded scene hasn't been overwhelmed with trendiness.
... Probably more than you wanted to know, but here's a few more links:
History Techno Rebels, an excellent history (I've heard) in book form, by Dan Sicko.
Meta Soul, an interesting site (in design and content) about electronic music, including a Detroit Techno section.
Today The 313 list, an active list with high signal-to-noise, full of techno geeks.
Record Time, the best place to find the latest from Detroit
The Metro Times, probably the best place for current news on Detroit music (click music at the top left).
You also may not realize how much music originates, even if it's not popularized, in Detroit: Motown, punk (Iggy Pop in the 60's), funk (George Clinton and Bootsy X), and techno.
If you're trying to just save gas money, then it's easy math.
If you're trying to protect the environment, you must consider more complicated factors. I rarely see the following mentioned (esp. C); what other considerations are there?
A) What pollution is output and what does each molecule do? How does 1 Kg CO2 compare to 1Kg methane? Locally? Globally?
(see the summaries at http://www.ipcc.ch/ for a good answer)
B) What pollution is output in the whole process or finding, extracting, refining, storing, transporting, burning and disposing of the fuel? What about the engine? For example, electric may burn clean in your car, but it shifts significant pollution to the power plant and the battery disposal yard.
C) Is the pollution you add to the environment stuff that would end up there anyway (e.g. fuel made from trees, corn, etc.) or stuff that would otherwise stay buried forever (petroleum, natural gas, etc.)?
If you care about human rights, poverty, etc. then you have even more to worry about: To whom am I giving money when I buy this fuel?
It's not that I haven't shared your frustration, but I've noticed everyone continues behaving the same and I think there's a rational explanation:
I think of it as a simple micro-economic question: Programming the VCR is worth 50 to them (50 of what, I don't know). Asking me to do it costs them 10 (and costs me 10). Doing it themselves costs them 100, so it's not worth it for them to do it themselves. If they learned it, their cost would decrease, but you can't learn everything -- and their cost of learning a new technology is much higher than yours.
Which leads to another micro-economic concept: Specialization. They spend their time and effort learning about (e.g.) cooking and doing it; I spend mine on technology. We help each other out. It's much better than me cooking mediocre food and them struggling with their VCR. Also, they learn *new* recipes much faster and I learn new tech much faster.
if you have authority over these people, you can easily make them figure it out.
If only I had more authority... Yes! the world should be ruled by all-powerful -- but benevolent -- geeks. Selected by their/. karma. Mod me up, and I will put a Palm in every hand.;-)
I'd guess that most people reading this, including me, know more about info tech than 99% of the population. It's easy for us to say that anyone who doesn't figure computers out is just not making an effort and respond with a 'RTFM'.
But why don't we look at some fields that perhaps are not part of our aptitude. How much time and effort have you spent learning about,
- a recipe?
- fashion and clothing?
- fine art?
- your elected representatives (quick, name the ones in the State capital... Wash DC?... local judges?...)
- giving your girl/boyfriend a mind-blowing orgasm?
Now, you may say, 'but these things aren't important to me; I don't have time for them.' And then you'll understand why all the 'lusers' don't RTFM.
If they can get songs of nearly equal sound quality to a CD, why buy the CD?
I'm not sure I have a great answer to that question, but here's a thought: How long would it take to duplicate a CD? * Find out the song list of the CD * Download good quality copies via p2p of every song (many p2p files are incomplete or poorly recorded. You'd need an hour+ to verify the quality of all the songs). * Burn the CD * Find the lyrics * Find some 'artwork' * Layout the packaging * Print the packaging
Not everyone will care enough to follow all those steps, or pay $15 for the convenience of having someone else do it, but you get the idea.
this is the most important part, it is the ARTIST that must allow or disallow their work to be distributed in a certain manner.
I'm not sure I agree. Most important is, how much harm is being done (if any), by who and to whom?. I don't see good answers to any of these questions. * If no significant harm is done, it's a problem of principle (yes, the owners of the music probably deserve some control), but not a big deal. I've seen nothing reliably connected CD sales to p2p. * If you can't say who is harming them, demonizing and punishing all of p2p technology and its users is not an acceptable alternative. I buy CDs; why should I suffer? * If you can't say who is hurt by p2p, then you can't just assume it's everyone who ever cut a song. As I said, Britney Spears probably suffers; artists not on the radio (small or non-pop genres) probably benefit.
Finally, the marketplace is sending a clear signal to the CD industry: Your product is obsolete; we don't want it anymore; we want p2p. The industry is trying to legislate away this reality, but it's almost ridiculous to watch American courts and Congress forcing consumers to use inferior products, all to subsidize a dead industry. Any economist can tell you what the outcome will be. Figuring out how to make a profit isn't my problem, it's the music industry's.
My point is, 99% of end users are going to accept the root authority they're given, having absolutely no idea what a 'root authority' is. How many users even switch web browsers, something better understood than root authorities? How many even change their home page from msn.com?
And in case any end user gets the idea they want to change root authorities, it's easy to discourage them: * Make the procedure obscure and difficult (like removing IE) * Display 'cautionary' messages; e.g. 'Microsoft can only guarantee Microsoft-approved root authorities as trusted and compatible with Microsoft software. Are you sure you want to continue?'
Ultimately this puts an incredible amount of control back to the users.
Only expert users. And only for now -- three words for you: Embrace, extend, extinguish. Wanna hug?
It's clear to *me*, but my point is, most end users will never understand what it means. Most end users (and I deal with a lot every day) don't use 'right-click', and can't describe the difference between RAM and their hard drive.
Let's look at the example messages:
Big red box. Flashing colors. "THIS CODE COMES FROM AN UNTRUSTED SOURCE. THERE IS NO DIGITAL SIGNATURE THAT CAN BE VERIFIED. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU RUN THIS PROGRAM IN A UNTRUSTED MODE TO CONFIRM THAT IT DOES NO HARM TO YOUR SYSTEM. CONTINUE RUNNING THIS PROGRAM AS UNTRUSTED?" (yes/no/help).
That works for me, but end users will see:
Big red box. Flashing colors. "THIS blah COMES FROM AN blahblah. THERE IS NO blahblah THAT CAN BE blah. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU RUN THIS PROGRAM IN A blahblah TO CONFIRM THAT IT DOES NO HARM TO YOUR SYSTEM. CONTINUE RUNNING THIS PROGRAM AS blah?" (yes/no/help).
Or if I substituted words in Chinese for the technical terms, how would you answer? Red, flashing, "untrusted" and "harm" they'll understand. Continue? No way. My other point is, it's not hard to manipulate those who don't understand. If you presented the same messages using green, and the words 'trusted' and 'safe', you'd get a different answer.
Out of curiosity... ever sees someone use UL certification for political reasons? Use the standards to promote their idea or make life hard for a competitor?
John makes music for a living. His record company rips him off with a crappy contract, but it's better than starving or having to work at a regular job full time so he couldn't focus on his music.
But Bob down the street doesn't care to pay for John's music, even though he enjoys it, so he downloads it off a p2p network. Then he "shares" it with everyone else on p2p networks, so they can do likewise.
I wonder if the people who write this stuff ever use P2P?
To continue: Then Hank, Mary, Jane, and a few hundred others download the song, enjoy John's music , and then buy his CD. This is the only way, of course, that they'd ever hear John -- They'd never even see his name otherwise, they wouldn't pay $15 for a CD from someone they never heard or heard of, and John is very unlikely to get radio play
Now, if John performs music outside the mainstream -- say, free jazz -- this is pretty much his only hope to get his name out.
It's a free distribution system -- it should put music distribution companies out of business; that's how the economy works: Computers put typewriter manufacturers out of business. They have no special right to make money or maintain the industry in the state to which they're accustomed.
They do have a right to their copyrights. But they need to specifically identify who has done them what amount of harm, not just attack p2p in general. I'd guess Britney Spears has lost some sales; I very much doubt 'John' has.
It doesn't benefit MS to be the media police, and that's not what MS wants.
Hmmm... why do you say that? It seem obvious to me that controlling media would be very profitable. Palladium puts enourmous power in Microsoft's hands. Being a highly competitive business with a long track record, why would you think they won't use it?
It will give Microsoft enourmous control over what goes on a users computer. If you have to turn something off -- and how hard will that be? How many switches, registry entries, etc. will it take to disable IE -I mean, Palladium? -- to use other software or media, how many users will make the effort? When the warning appears, 'Windows is not compatible with DR-DOS' -oops, I mean 'Changing this setting will allow wierdo open source hackers to track your children online', what will users do?
It is also worth noting that MS does not see Palladium as Windows only.
But 95% of computers run Windows. How does this diminish the problem?
" NO NO NO NO NO. Really. This is important. MS is not the final authority. The USER is, because the USER decides who will be a trusted authority. "
Just like the user decides which web browser to use.
Walk to the nearest downtown, pick the first person you see wearing a red shirt (to randomize selection), and try to explain encryption, security, and trusted authority to them.
Can people make a decision about something they don't understand?
I'm sure nobody will stop you from saying "under God" if you want. The point is, the government has no business coercing people to say it who don't want to.
OTOH, the point someone made about currency is interesting. Maybe we should change it to, "In Greenspan We Trust", or more perhaps more accurately "On Friedman We Rely" or "From Soros We Beg Mercifulness", or "We Sure Don't Trust Those Guys at Andersen Anymore".
Slashdot Mirror
Why is dreamweaver not the answer?
Too much time and effort to learn for the typical user. I'm using Mozilla now, but I haven't tried Composer yet. I'll give it a try.
While I'd like to avoid it, can you suggest a substitute?
Users often ask me for a simple way to make a few web pages. Dreamweaver is obviously not the answer. What else can I give to the typical user but Frontpage?
it doesn't matter from a PR point of view.
The RIAA wants Congress to pass laws. Congresspeople want to get re-elected. If the public is unaware of the issue, then consider your elected official's options:
VOTE FOR RIAA:
o Gain RIAA support
o Lose no votes
VOTE AGAINST RIAA:
o RIAA supports your opponent in next election
o RIAA hinders you in D.C.
o Gain no votes for your principled stand
Seems to me that they are killing themselves with bad public relations...
Seems to me that the public doesn't know. I'm probably the only person I know that is even aware of what's going on. Go ask some random people, not people who read slashdot.
Ask them first what p2p is, what the implications of this bill are, and if they really care if their privacy is violated.
I support the EFF, but this posting lacks content. The classified ads are diluting /.
/ 28/143820 6&mode=thread&tid=127
First, "Wanna Work for Dave Taylor & American McGee?"
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07
Now this.
That latter objection is the one that has botched any number of theoretically sound online voting systems.
Voting systems were designed to randomize some votes to protect anonymity? Very interesting. Even if people trust it, though, I wonder about the constitutionality and politics of it. Could you imagine Florida 2000 with some votes intentionally randomized?
My objection to online voting was not so much anonymity as security. It would be worth huge amounts of money to some people (from foreign gov'ts, to politicians, to large companies) to rig an election. How do you secure every variation of computer that exists in America against that kind of attacker; think of the NSA (i.e. their foreign equivalents). But that's OT.
So why does NASA need so many billions just for a simple space probe to Mars?
Because Celestia is in metric.
Dialing by saying a name is nothing new -- many cell phones do it. All the ones I've had did it poorly. Is this any better?
Dialing by saying numbers is something I wish my cell phone had. It should be very simple to implement, and very useful.
This has some cool features. From the website:
"Celestia is a free real-time space simulation that lets you experience our universe in three dimensions. Unlike most planetarium software, Celestia doesn't confine you to the surface of the Earth. You can travel throughout the solar system, to any of over 100,000 stars, or even beyond the galaxy. All travel in Celestia is seamless; the exponential zoom feature lets you explore space across a huge range of scales, from galaxy clusters down to spacecraft only a few meters across. A 'point-and-goto' interface makes it simple to navigate through the universe to the object you want to visit."
As another poster observes, if you don't trust them with the data, why trust them to randomize it?
My college stats professor 10 years ago explained a simpler trick that puts control in the respondant's hands. It went something like this:
With each question, the respondant flips a coin and looks at the second hand of a clock. Only the respondant can see the coin or the clock.
If the second hand is between 1-30 seconds, they answer per the coin (e.g. heads=yes). If it's between 31-60, they tell the truth.
The surveyor, knows very precisely the number of 'lies', can extract accurate data, and the respondant has confidence and control over their privacy. All without a transistor.
So you don't think of the frame as being an art form?
;-). A good point and it depends on the show. I'd have no objection to sporting events or news with banner ads.
Or else you wouldn't mind if ads got placed on, say,
impressionist paintings in a museum gallery, covering up part of the paintings?
It depends on the painting
In fact, for movies, we could actually watch in letterbox! Only made-for-TV film would be a problem.
... if they reduce, significantly, normal ads. I can ignore the banner/pop-ups and keep watching. I'd prefer the shows were not interrupted for a minute or two. Think how much better sporting events would be (ever watch the World Cup with it's 'pop-up' ads?).
Think about it -- if the norm on TV was these banner ads, and then one day they said 'we're replacing the banner ads with 2 minute interruptions in the program', people would go bonkers. In fact, what if that became the norm on websites?
I much prefer the banners.
It's like George Clinton and Kraftwerk stuck in an elevator. - Derrick May
I'm probably not the best qualified, but since nobody else is contributing this:
According to the legend, Detroit Techno started when eclectic radio genius The Electrifying Mojo started playing Kraftwerk in the early 80's. I used to listen to Mojo; he was late night on an urban station, and would play anything from James Brown to Prince to AC/DC, interview the B-52s, and give trippy inspirational sermons to the city's youth.
The story goes, the Belleville Three (Derrick May, Juan Atkins, and Kevin Saunderson (better known as part of Inner City)) heard Mojo and started making their own music, including Clear by Cybertron (Atkins), the 'first' techno record.
By the mid-80's my friends in northwest Detroit were playing house and techno on turntables in their basement. In the late-80's the Music Institute was the epicenter (just ask my cool friends). Since then there's been an explosion of techno and electronica talent in Detroit, most prominently Richie Hawtin (Plastikman) and the more experimental Carl Craig.
Unfortunately, if you had asked most Detroiters in the mid-90's -- apart from the small but loyal group who listened-- they wouldn't know what you were talking about. You couldn't find techno on the radio (Mojo was gone). The DJs were international stars, but they had plenty of privacy at home. In the late 90's, Carl Craig and a promoter put together the Detroit Electronic Music Fest (DEMF). Much to the surprise of many native Detroiters, over a million people came from all over the world to hear it. The vibe (and I don't use that word often) was incredible. It included a truly touching moment when Derrick May stepped on stage and finally got his due from his hometown; he started his set with "The Payback" by James Brown.
Now, most Detroiters are aware, and local popularity has exploded. The city is rich in very interesting music , and the very open-minded scene hasn't been overwhelmed with trendiness.
History
Techno Rebels, an excellent history (I've heard) in book form, by Dan Sicko.
Someone's thesis that is a history of Techno.
Meta Soul, an interesting site (in design and content) about electronic music, including a Detroit Techno section.
Today
The 313 list, an active list with high signal-to-noise, full of techno geeks.
Record Time, the best place to find the latest from Detroit
The Metro Times, probably the best place for current news on Detroit music (click music at the top left).
You also may not realize how much music originates, even if it's not popularized, in Detroit: Motown, punk (Iggy Pop in the 60's), funk (George Clinton and Bootsy X), and techno.
Have you ever booted Windows or MacOS and noticed what's packaged with it? What's on the desktop? You think they selected those companies on merit?
If you're trying to just save gas money, then it's easy math.
If you're trying to protect the environment, you must consider more complicated factors. I rarely see the following mentioned (esp. C); what other considerations are there?
A) What pollution is output and what does each molecule do? How does 1 Kg CO2 compare to 1Kg methane? Locally? Globally? (see the summaries at http://www.ipcc.ch/ for a good answer)
B) What pollution is output in the whole process or finding, extracting, refining, storing, transporting, burning and disposing of the fuel? What about the engine? For example, electric may burn clean in your car, but it shifts significant pollution to the power plant and the battery disposal yard.
C) Is the pollution you add to the environment stuff that would end up there anyway (e.g. fuel made from trees, corn, etc.) or stuff that would otherwise stay buried forever (petroleum, natural gas, etc.)?
If you care about human rights, poverty, etc. then you have even more to worry about: To whom am I giving money when I buy this fuel?
It's not that I haven't shared your frustration, but I've noticed everyone continues behaving the same and I think there's a rational explanation:
... Yes! the world should be ruled by all-powerful -- but benevolent -- geeks. Selected by their /. karma. Mod me up, and I will put a Palm in every hand. ;-)
I think of it as a simple micro-economic question: Programming the VCR is worth 50 to them (50 of what, I don't know). Asking me to do it costs them 10 (and costs me 10). Doing it themselves costs them 100, so it's not worth it for them to do it themselves. If they learned it, their cost would decrease, but you can't learn everything -- and their cost of learning a new technology is much higher than yours.
Which leads to another micro-economic concept: Specialization. They spend their time and effort learning about (e.g.) cooking and doing it; I spend mine on technology. We help each other out. It's much better than me cooking mediocre food and them struggling with their VCR. Also, they learn *new* recipes much faster and I learn new tech much faster.
if you have authority over these people, you can easily make them figure it out.
If only I had more authority
I'd guess that most people reading this, including me, know more about info tech than 99% of the population. It's easy for us to say that anyone who doesn't figure computers out is just not making an effort and respond with a 'RTFM'.
... Wash DC? ... local judges? ...)
But why don't we look at some fields that perhaps are not part of our aptitude. How much time and effort have you spent learning about,
- a recipe?
- fashion and clothing?
- fine art?
- your elected representatives (quick, name the ones in the State capital
- giving your girl/boyfriend a mind-blowing orgasm?
Now, you may say, 'but these things aren't important to me; I don't have time for them.' And then you'll understand why all the 'lusers' don't RTFM.
If they can get songs of nearly equal sound quality to a CD, why buy the CD?
I'm not sure I have a great answer to that question, but here's a thought: How long would it take to duplicate a CD?
* Find out the song list of the CD
* Download good quality copies via p2p of every song (many p2p files are incomplete or poorly recorded. You'd need an hour+ to verify the quality of all the songs).
* Burn the CD
* Find the lyrics
* Find some 'artwork'
* Layout the packaging
* Print the packaging
Not everyone will care enough to follow all those steps, or pay $15 for the convenience of having someone else do it, but you get the idea.
this is the most important part, it is the ARTIST that must allow or disallow their work to be distributed in a certain manner.
I'm not sure I agree. Most important is, how much harm is being done (if any), by who and to whom?. I don't see good answers to any of these questions.
* If no significant harm is done, it's a problem of principle (yes, the owners of the music probably deserve some control), but not a big deal. I've seen nothing reliably connected CD sales to p2p.
* If you can't say who is harming them, demonizing and punishing all of p2p technology and its users is not an acceptable alternative. I buy CDs; why should I suffer?
* If you can't say who is hurt by p2p, then you can't just assume it's everyone who ever cut a song. As I said, Britney Spears probably suffers; artists not on the radio (small or non-pop genres) probably benefit.
Finally, the marketplace is sending a clear signal to the CD industry: Your product is obsolete; we don't want it anymore; we want p2p. The industry is trying to legislate away this reality, but it's almost ridiculous to watch American courts and Congress forcing consumers to use inferior products, all to subsidize a dead industry. Any economist can tell you what the outcome will be. Figuring out how to make a profit isn't my problem, it's the music industry's.
The root authorities you select ...
My point is, 99% of end users are going to accept the root authority they're given, having absolutely no idea what a 'root authority' is. How many users even switch web browsers, something better understood than root authorities? How many even change their home page from msn.com?
And in case any end user gets the idea they want to change root authorities, it's easy to discourage them:
* Make the procedure obscure and difficult (like removing IE)
* Display 'cautionary' messages; e.g. 'Microsoft can only guarantee Microsoft-approved root authorities as trusted and compatible with Microsoft software. Are you sure you want to continue?'
Ultimately this puts an incredible amount of control back to the users.
Only expert users. And only for now -- three words for you: Embrace, extend, extinguish. Wanna hug?
It's clear to *me*, but my point is, most end users will never understand what it means. Most end users (and I deal with a lot every day) don't use 'right-click', and can't describe the difference between RAM and their hard drive.
Let's look at the example messages:
Big red box. Flashing colors. "THIS CODE COMES FROM AN UNTRUSTED SOURCE. THERE IS NO DIGITAL SIGNATURE THAT CAN BE VERIFIED. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU RUN THIS PROGRAM IN A UNTRUSTED MODE TO CONFIRM THAT IT DOES NO HARM TO YOUR SYSTEM. CONTINUE RUNNING THIS PROGRAM AS UNTRUSTED?" (yes/no/help).
That works for me, but end users will see:
Big red box. Flashing colors. "THIS blah COMES FROM AN blah blah. THERE IS NO blah blah THAT CAN BE blah. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU RUN THIS PROGRAM IN A blah blah TO CONFIRM THAT IT DOES NO HARM TO YOUR SYSTEM. CONTINUE RUNNING THIS PROGRAM AS blah?" (yes/no/help).
Or if I substituted words in Chinese for the technical terms, how would you answer? Red, flashing, "untrusted" and "harm" they'll understand. Continue? No way. My other point is, it's not hard to manipulate those who don't understand. If you presented the same messages using green, and the words 'trusted' and 'safe', you'd get a different answer.
Out of curiosity ... ever sees someone use UL certification for political reasons? Use the standards to promote their idea or make life hard for a competitor?
I'm curious how another industry works.
John makes music for a living. His record company rips him off with a crappy contract, but it's better than starving or having to work at a regular job full time so he couldn't focus on his music.
But Bob down the street doesn't care to pay for John's music, even though he enjoys it, so he downloads it off a p2p network. Then he "shares" it with everyone else on p2p networks, so they can do likewise.
I wonder if the people who write this stuff ever use P2P?
To continue: Then Hank, Mary, Jane, and a few hundred others download the song, enjoy John's music , and then buy his CD. This is the only way, of course, that they'd ever hear John -- They'd never even see his name otherwise, they wouldn't pay $15 for a CD from someone they never heard or heard of, and John is very unlikely to get radio play
Now, if John performs music outside the mainstream -- say, free jazz -- this is pretty much his only hope to get his name out.
It's a free distribution system -- it should put music distribution companies out of business; that's how the economy works: Computers put typewriter manufacturers out of business. They have no special right to make money or maintain the industry in the state to which they're accustomed.
They do have a right to their copyrights. But they need to specifically identify who has done them what amount of harm, not just attack p2p in general. I'd guess Britney Spears has lost some sales; I very much doubt 'John' has.
It doesn't benefit MS to be the media police, and that's not what MS wants.
Hmmm... why do you say that? It seem obvious to me that controlling media would be very profitable. Palladium puts enourmous power in Microsoft's hands. Being a highly competitive business with a long track record, why would you think they won't use it?
It will give Microsoft enourmous control over what goes on a users computer. If you have to turn something off -- and how hard will that be? How many switches, registry entries, etc. will it take to disable IE -I mean, Palladium? -- to use other software or media, how many users will make the effort? When the warning appears, 'Windows is not compatible with DR-DOS' -oops, I mean 'Changing this setting will allow wierdo open source hackers to track your children online', what will users do?
It is also worth noting that MS does not see Palladium as Windows only.
But 95% of computers run Windows. How does this diminish the problem?
" NO NO NO NO NO. Really. This is important. MS is not the final authority. The USER is, because the USER decides who will be a trusted authority. "
Just like the user decides which web browser to use.
Walk to the nearest downtown, pick the first person you see wearing a red shirt (to randomize selection), and try to explain encryption, security, and trusted authority to them.
Can people make a decision about something they don't understand?
I'm sure nobody will stop you from saying "under God" if you want. The point is, the government has no business coercing people to say it who don't want to.
OTOH, the point someone made about currency is interesting. Maybe we should change it to, "In Greenspan We Trust", or more perhaps more accurately "On Friedman We Rely" or "From Soros We Beg Mercifulness", or "We Sure Don't Trust Those Guys at Andersen Anymore".