I have to stronly disagree. Yes, students absolutely need to be able to experiment, but they also need to learn and understand boundries and limits. In fact, you could turn it into a great lesson, explaining to the students why security has to be implemented in the first place. Just because something is deemed "public" doesn't give the user license to have unlimited, unrestricted use.
OK, I know that Star Trek was just a TV show (and movies) but the concepts shown were often meant to demonstrate "what could be" technologically. But why do LCARS developers insist on incorporating all the supeerfluous Star Trek branding stuff when they could better focus on designing a user interface that was truely useful and productive?
After looking at the Flash demo, I think it's an interesting concept. I've seen the LCARS concept tried on the PalmOS, and on the PC, but I think they always miss the point. LCARS implementations are always filled with Star Trek logos and references. Why? And they're always filled with lots of meaningless, superfluous eye candy that simply serves no purpose other than to closely imitate a Star Trek screen. (For example, the upper right section with the flashing numbers.) Yes, it looks cool, but what's the point? Are LCARS designs supposed to make us roleplay Star Trek, or are they supposed to leverage concepts to provide a more productive and useful user interface?
One of Firefox's insanely amazing features is its portability capabilities. With an app like FirefoxPortable, I can maintain a single, portable browser environment on a USB Thumb Drive that lets me tailor my browser experience to MY liking, and have it wherever I go--something IE simply cannot do. And by using an extension like Google Browser Sync, I can maintain many of my user preferences and bookmarks across multiple browsers at work and at home, again giving me a predictable, consistent browsing experience.
Internet Explorer is so tied to a single Windows installation that it makes such portability impossible. In fact, I'd say that the whole influx of the customizable portal stems from IE's inherent lack of portability features. Firefox is not the end-all-be-all answer, but it offers many user-tailorable functions and features that IE will never have.
I'm simply waiting for someone to create a truely portable, secure online working environment that moves with you from browser to browser, has rich features and capabilities, isn't a bandwidh hog, and doesn't cost an arm and a let. THAT will be the next "killer app"...
On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight
So does this not imply a scout's obedience to governing laws, including copyright laws? Isn't providing this kind of merit badge redundant by simply reinforcing what the scout already promises? As I recall, the merit badges I earned for my Eagle Scout rank were meant to be skill-related...
I'd mod the parent up if I had moderator points. This is so true. It's not the fact that employees surf the Web at work, but that some employees abuse it. Providing an environment that promotes good will between employee and employer goes a long way to improve everyone's satisfaction and productivity. It's just when it is abused that it becomes problematic. And again, that's when HR should be involved....
I absolutely agree. Letting any department manager have access could present a huge privacy problem. Leave it up to HR, and have the managers go through porper channels.
Yes, it is the company's equipment, but with the flurry of crazy litigation and legislation, it's better for all parties if there is a defined, followed policy.
We all don't have online access, so an offline solution is VERY useful. Obviously, it's just a dated snapshot, but it's certainly more useful than having nothing. I have an LG phone by Verizon (provided by work, so I have no choice as to model) and Web browsing is a MAJOR headache--it's simply not worth the hassle. Having an offline Wikipedia resource could be most invaluable. And besides, do we REALLY need to have the absolutely current, most recently updated version? No! It IS possible to live with Wikipedia data that's several weeks/months old and still have a reliable resource....
Which predecessors? Windows 95/98/ME? Because as far as I'm concerned Windows XP Pro was a step back, coming from an NT4/2000 background.
It's a matter of perspective. Windows 95/98/ME were pretty much standard for most office workstations. Yes, NT4/2000 were used in many, but they were primarily reserved for server-side installations due to their higher cost.
And that Windows XP Pro's roots are in Windows NT4/2000, not Windows 95/98/ME is the very reason that Windows XP Pro was a step forward on the workstation side, not backward. Server 2003 was the obvious extension of NT4/2000 for the server side, not Windows XP Pro.
The only new thing about XP was activation.
Again, compared to NT4/2000, probably close to the truth, but for Windows 95/98/ME, it was far richer in features, easier to manage, and most importabntly, much more stable.
Maybe I am in the minority, but I have had huge success with Windows XP Pro in installation, management, troubleshooting, and day-to-day operation. If you have installed Windows XP regularly enough to really understand its quirks, shortcomings, and nuances, the reality is that you can have a viable, stable system up and running in literally minutes. Create an unattended install disk, and on a newer PC, you can be online and productive in a very short time.
It's so easy to disparage Windows XP and Microsoft, but compared to its predecessors, Windows XP Pro really has matured into a decent product. The other night, I helped troubleshoot one of my wife's work computers running Windows 98, and I was frustrated by the lack or "mispalcement" of utilities, settings, and system tools that are always and predictably available in Windows XP Pro.
This is certainly not to say that it is without faults, security and vulnerability being the biggest issue. Microsoft should forget about the whiz-bang Vista approach, and re-write Windows XP Pro from the ground up. THAT would sell.
My only real complaint with Microsoft and Windows XP Pro is that they have never provided cost-effective licensing for home users to legally maintain multiple computers. WIndows XP Pro is really the way to go, but at its original $300+ price, it was far out of the reach of most home users. I bit the bullet and purchased multiple copies, but if Microsoft had provided a more cost-friendly option, I would have promoted it and recommended it much much more.
I remember the conspiricay theorists claiming that President Clinton would declare a state of national emergency because of Y2k, suspending the elections for national security reasons. Of course, it didn't happen, but it's obviously a party-non-specific trend...
While I understand your point, Isn't really about the fact that this is a garbage-in, garbage-out situation. PowerPoint just has the potential to make the garbage look prettier.
Detractors say that the kids are wasting too much time online browsing dangerous sites, instant messaging friends and posting to Myspace.
OK, so why do the kids need access to these kinds of sites in school? What is wrong with the school limiting access to specific sites? For example, wouldn't it be better suited if the teacher, based on the curriculum, to provide a "starter set" of sites for the kids to work with? Then when the kids get home, they can go wherever they want. Yes, the Internet holds lots of information, some of which is actually relevent to students, but it seems that the technology is getting in the way of teaching for technology sake. Provide the kids with a controlled environment to learn, and then let those who want to expand their knowledge do it on their own time.
Speed is not the only criteria to judge usability. The HUGE advantage of Google's apps (or any online app for that matter) is their availability wherever you have a Web connection. This makes standalone versions unnecessary. Of course, it's also its biggest fault: If you are offline, you have no access to your data. So I think the most useful design would be to provide full online access with standalone, offline "companion" versions that would either completely or selectively sync online data, providing full usability while offline. And to me, the importent component of this is to make the standalone applications truely standalone and portable--No Java, no Registery writing, no writing in your Documents and Settings directory. Take a clue from the Portable Apps world, and you'll have an excellent solution.
Wow, I actually didn't realize that/. had a profile setting to turn off signatures. I've been wondering why I haven't seen mine in a long, long time. I included the "extra" signature, because I didn't realize it was off.
I'm sorry if my inclusion of my Tips site in my "note-really-a signature-signature" put you off.
For me, the key is to load "portable" versions of apps instead of "installable" versions. The point is not only to eliminate the need to install, but more importantly, not to leave traces of your apps behind. It's security and a courtesy. Two excellent sources are:
...and anti-virus scanners are not 100% effective. Given the continual cat-and-mouse game played by the white hats and the black hats, short of removing a PC completely from a network, there's little to completely, 100% guarantee security.
That said, many of the software personal firewalls ARE actually quite good. The people using them just need to understand the potential ramifications. Education of basic Internet security combined with good Web browsing and file handling practices can go a whole lot farther than blindly relying on a single product.
You bring up some good points, but converged deviced aren't always the best solution. In my case, work provides my phone, so I have no choice in what phone they provide, and what they do provide is just a basic phone...nothing more. If I want PDA functionality, I have to provide my own. Yes, I now have to carry two devices, but the benefit is that the PDA is mine, how I implement it is my decision, as is what data goes on it. And if I change jobs, it goes with me.
Obviously, everyone's situation is different. Just don't write off standalone PDA's, because there is still a need for them.
I'm not going to recommend any specific PDA, but I do have this bit of advice: Don't let the technology cloud your need to remain organized. It's so easy to get sucked into the features and capabilities that you often forget the real reason to have a PDA. I wrote an article about simplifying my PDA use wherein I describe how I "stepped back" to using a Palm Z22 instead of the latest and greatest whiz-bang PDA. You see, for me, I was so easily distracted by the "stuff of the PDA" that I found that I was spending more time tweaking, playing, and hacking my PDA than actually using it productively.
After a few months, in retrospect, I am now craving a higher resolution screen and more memory, but the surprising reality is that my Palm Z22 really works, and really works well...for me. And that's the key. Find what works for you and stick with it.
So regardless of what you choose, try to keep the perspective of simplicity.
...200 pound women walking around in chainmail bikinis......Hoards of dorks excited about RPG games......Being excited about being one of those dorks...
We really had lots of fun. Haven't been back in probably 20 years...
I agree to an extent, but then there is also the thorny issue of "one time use" utility type of products. For example, when I ripped my CD's to mp3's, I used a 30 day trial shareware program. I ripped all 200 or so over the course of a week or two.
Technically, I was completely in my rights to use the software as I did.
In reality, I was violating the spirit of the purpose of the shareware feature of the program.
So then, the question is tis: If you had additional CD's to rip now that you are passed the trial expiration period, would you pay for the application, or would you try to "do what it takes" to use the trial again?
...because you get full use of the application. This is important if you are doing serious evaluation. And let's be realistic--if you are seriously evaluating a program, you should be able to effectively do so within the time limits as long as the time limits are reasonable. And if you really need to run over the time limit, Try contacting the company and ask them to extend it. Many (but not all) companies are more than willing to work with you if you are serious about evaluating their program.
I think we can all admit that we have, at one time or another, used a less-than-legal copy of software. Many times, it's a one-shot "need", but in many cases, it's to evaluate a program that's otherwise crippled. And for me, there are many, MANY times when the ability to have unrestricted use led to purchases.
Using a decent encoder is certainly the method of choice, but another solution, though not overly elegant, is let the DVD authoring app save an oversize file set (if it will let you--Ulead Video Studio will) and then use an app like CloneDVD2 to compress file set into a 4.7GB file set. Not sure how the quality will be, but apps like CloneDVD are designed to create decent compressed DVD's from dual layer source disks, and the results with...er...commercial DVD's has been excellent....
Slashdot Mirror
So much for allowing my remote-access computer at home to auto-boot....
I have to stronly disagree. Yes, students absolutely need to be able to experiment, but they also need to learn and understand boundries and limits. In fact, you could turn it into a great lesson, explaining to the students why security has to be implemented in the first place. Just because something is deemed "public" doesn't give the user license to have unlimited, unrestricted use.
OK, I know that Star Trek was just a TV show (and movies) but the concepts shown were often meant to demonstrate "what could be" technologically. But why do LCARS developers insist on incorporating all the supeerfluous Star Trek branding stuff when they could better focus on designing a user interface that was truely useful and productive?
After looking at the Flash demo, I think it's an interesting concept. I've seen the LCARS concept tried on the PalmOS, and on the PC, but I think they always miss the point. LCARS implementations are always filled with Star Trek logos and references. Why? And they're always filled with lots of meaningless, superfluous eye candy that simply serves no purpose other than to closely imitate a Star Trek screen. (For example, the upper right section with the flashing numbers.) Yes, it looks cool, but what's the point? Are LCARS designs supposed to make us roleplay Star Trek, or are they supposed to leverage concepts to provide a more productive and useful user interface?
One of Firefox's insanely amazing features is its portability capabilities. With an app like FirefoxPortable, I can maintain a single, portable browser environment on a USB Thumb Drive that lets me tailor my browser experience to MY liking, and have it wherever I go--something IE simply cannot do. And by using an extension like Google Browser Sync, I can maintain many of my user preferences and bookmarks across multiple browsers at work and at home, again giving me a predictable, consistent browsing experience.
Internet Explorer is so tied to a single Windows installation that it makes such portability impossible. In fact, I'd say that the whole influx of the customizable portal stems from IE's inherent lack of portability features. Firefox is not the end-all-be-all answer, but it offers many user-tailorable functions and features that IE will never have.
I'm simply waiting for someone to create a truely portable, secure online working environment that moves with you from browser to browser, has rich features and capabilities, isn't a bandwidh hog, and doesn't cost an arm and a let. THAT will be the next "killer app"...
The Scout oath states (emphasis added)...
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight
So does this not imply a scout's obedience to governing laws, including copyright laws? Isn't providing this kind of merit badge redundant by simply reinforcing what the scout already promises? As I recall, the merit badges I earned for my Eagle Scout rank were meant to be skill-related...
I'd mod the parent up if I had moderator points. This is so true. It's not the fact that employees surf the Web at work, but that some employees abuse it. Providing an environment that promotes good will between employee and employer goes a long way to improve everyone's satisfaction and productivity. It's just when it is abused that it becomes problematic. And again, that's when HR should be involved....
I absolutely agree. Letting any department manager have access could present a huge privacy problem. Leave it up to HR, and have the managers go through porper channels.
Yes, it is the company's equipment, but with the flurry of crazy litigation and legislation, it's better for all parties if there is a defined, followed policy.
We all don't have online access, so an offline solution is VERY useful. Obviously, it's just a dated snapshot, but it's certainly more useful than having nothing. I have an LG phone by Verizon (provided by work, so I have no choice as to model) and Web browsing is a MAJOR headache--it's simply not worth the hassle. Having an offline Wikipedia resource could be most invaluable. And besides, do we REALLY need to have the absolutely current, most recently updated version? No! It IS possible to live with Wikipedia data that's several weeks/months old and still have a reliable resource....
And that Windows XP Pro's roots are in Windows NT4/2000, not Windows 95/98/ME is the very reason that Windows XP Pro was a step forward on the workstation side, not backward. Server 2003 was the obvious extension of NT4/2000 for the server side, not Windows XP Pro.
Again, compared to NT4/2000, probably close to the truth, but for Windows 95/98/ME, it was far richer in features, easier to manage, and most importabntly, much more stable.
Maybe I am in the minority, but I have had huge success with Windows XP Pro in installation, management, troubleshooting, and day-to-day operation. If you have installed Windows XP regularly enough to really understand its quirks, shortcomings, and nuances, the reality is that you can have a viable, stable system up and running in literally minutes. Create an unattended install disk, and on a newer PC, you can be online and productive in a very short time.
It's so easy to disparage Windows XP and Microsoft, but compared to its predecessors, Windows XP Pro really has matured into a decent product. The other night, I helped troubleshoot one of my wife's work computers running Windows 98, and I was frustrated by the lack or "mispalcement" of utilities, settings, and system tools that are always and predictably available in Windows XP Pro.
This is certainly not to say that it is without faults, security and vulnerability being the biggest issue. Microsoft should forget about the whiz-bang Vista approach, and re-write Windows XP Pro from the ground up. THAT would sell.
My only real complaint with Microsoft and Windows XP Pro is that they have never provided cost-effective licensing for home users to legally maintain multiple computers. WIndows XP Pro is really the way to go, but at its original $300+ price, it was far out of the reach of most home users. I bit the bullet and purchased multiple copies, but if Microsoft had provided a more cost-friendly option, I would have promoted it and recommended it much much more.
I remember the conspiricay theorists claiming that President Clinton would declare a state of national emergency because of Y2k, suspending the elections for national security reasons. Of course, it didn't happen, but it's obviously a party-non-specific trend...
While I understand your point, Isn't really about the fact that this is a garbage-in, garbage-out situation. PowerPoint just has the potential to make the garbage look prettier.
Speed is not the only criteria to judge usability. The HUGE advantage of Google's apps (or any online app for that matter) is their availability wherever you have a Web connection. This makes standalone versions unnecessary. Of course, it's also its biggest fault: If you are offline, you have no access to your data. So I think the most useful design would be to provide full online access with standalone, offline "companion" versions that would either completely or selectively sync online data, providing full usability while offline. And to me, the importent component of this is to make the standalone applications truely standalone and portable--No Java, no Registery writing, no writing in your Documents and Settings directory. Take a clue from the Portable Apps world, and you'll have an excellent solution.
Wow, I actually didn't realize that /. had a profile setting to turn off signatures. I've been wondering why I haven't seen mine in a long, long time. I included the "extra" signature, because I didn't realize it was off.
I'm sorry if my inclusion of my Tips site in my "note-really-a signature-signature" put you off.
-Jim
For me, the key is to load "portable" versions of apps instead of "installable" versions. The point is not only to eliminate the need to install, but more importantly, not to leave traces of your apps behind. It's security and a courtesy. Two excellent sources are:
PortableApps.com
PortableFreeware.com
-Jim Barr
http://jimstips.com/
...and anti-virus scanners are not 100% effective. Given the continual cat-and-mouse game played by the white hats and the black hats, short of removing a PC completely from a network, there's little to completely, 100% guarantee security.
That said, many of the software personal firewalls ARE actually quite good. The people using them just need to understand the potential ramifications. Education of basic Internet security combined with good Web browsing and file handling practices can go a whole lot farther than blindly relying on a single product.
-Jim Barr
http://jimstips.com/
You bring up some good points, but converged deviced aren't always the best solution. In my case, work provides my phone, so I have no choice in what phone they provide, and what they do provide is just a basic phone...nothing more. If I want PDA functionality, I have to provide my own. Yes, I now have to carry two devices, but the benefit is that the PDA is mine, how I implement it is my decision, as is what data goes on it. And if I change jobs, it goes with me.
Obviously, everyone's situation is different. Just don't write off standalone PDA's, because there is still a need for them.
-Jim
http://jimstips.com/
I'm not going to recommend any specific PDA, but I do have this bit of advice: Don't let the technology cloud your need to remain organized. It's so easy to get sucked into the features and capabilities that you often forget the real reason to have a PDA. I wrote an article about simplifying my PDA use wherein I describe how I "stepped back" to using a Palm Z22 instead of the latest and greatest whiz-bang PDA. You see, for me, I was so easily distracted by the "stuff of the PDA" that I found that I was spending more time tweaking, playing, and hacking my PDA than actually using it productively.
After a few months, in retrospect, I am now craving a higher resolution screen and more memory, but the surprising reality is that my Palm Z22 really works, and really works well...for me. And that's the key. Find what works for you and stick with it.
So regardless of what you choose, try to keep the perspective of simplicity.
-Jim
http://jimstips.com/
...Cold Fusion, right?
...200 pound women walking around in chainmail bikinis... ...Hoards of dorks excited about RPG games... ...Being excited about being one of those dorks...
We really had lots of fun. Haven't been back in probably 20 years...
So then, the question is tis: If you had additional CD's to rip now that you are passed the trial expiration period, would you pay for the application, or would you try to "do what it takes" to use the trial again?
-Jim
http://jimstips.com/
...because you get full use of the application. This is important if you are doing serious evaluation. And let's be realistic--if you are seriously evaluating a program, you should be able to effectively do so within the time limits as long as the time limits are reasonable. And if you really need to run over the time limit, Try contacting the company and ask them to extend it. Many (but not all) companies are more than willing to work with you if you are serious about evaluating their program.
I think we can all admit that we have, at one time or another, used a less-than-legal copy of software. Many times, it's a one-shot "need", but in many cases, it's to evaluate a program that's otherwise crippled. And for me, there are many, MANY times when the ability to have unrestricted use led to purchases.
-Jim
http://jimstips.com/
We do NOT hang around just to show off our low slashdot id's...er wait...oh never mind.
Using a decent encoder is certainly the method of choice, but another solution, though not overly elegant, is let the DVD authoring app save an oversize file set (if it will let you--Ulead Video Studio will) and then use an app like CloneDVD2 to compress file set into a 4.7GB file set. Not sure how the quality will be, but apps like CloneDVD are designed to create decent compressed DVD's from dual layer source disks, and the results with...er...commercial DVD's has been excellent....
-Jim
http://jimstips.com/