Jesus christ! The original article was slashdotted so I posted the full text. I thought it might be a novelty for/. readers to actually, you know, read TFA. I didn't notice it had already been posted, although I did check.
I don't endorse the article; it was mostly fluff. The fact that it managed to load for me, albeit terribly slowly, made me think it might be a public service to provide it in-line.
Karma whoring? I don't give a damn about karma. Don't project your petty concerns on me.
And now I'll leave you to continue pissing in your own sandbox.
As promised, LoopRumors is posting a round-up of all the rumors we expect to become a reality at this year's Macworld Expo. Please take into consideration that the following article is purely speculation, and nothing is concrete until Steve Jobs says it is. This is our best hypothesis as to what we might expect at Macworld based on the information we've been given. If you have any comments or questions regarding this round-up, or the Macworld keynote, you may address them here. So here's what we have:
iTV: In an uncharacteristic move, Steve Jobs previewed this new digital lifestyle device and gave us a release timeframe of 'early 2007.' iTV will stream movies, pictures and more from your Mac or PC to your television wirelessly. We expect to see the 'hidden features' of iTV spelled out, and a release date announced, if not immediate availability at the keynote. Apple has said it will not use the name iTV for the product, so we can expect a new moniker for the media device.
Leopard: Steve Jobs has been touting Apple's next generation operating system, Leopard, for quite some time. He promised to hold back on unveiling some 'Top Secret' features so Microsoft wouldn't be able to copy them prior to their Vista release. We initially thought Steve might surprise the crowd with an early release of the new OS at Macworld, but that seems to be more unlikely as the time draws near. New information targets a release date of Saturday, March 24th, exactly 6 years to the day of the initial OS X release.
Mobile OS X: LoopRumors told you first that Apple is developing a mobile, 'lite' version of its OS to be used in smaller devices. It's possible this OS may make its debut at Macworld. Some of Leopard's hidden features may have tie-ins to this mobile OS. One possible 'Top Secret' feature of Leopard may be the ability to sync with the scaled down version of itself.
New Macs: After all, this is Macworld. We expect Apple to introduce new Macs at the Expo. Signs point to new Mac Pros, with Core 2 Quad processors by Intel. Apple's flagship models have been lagging since there is no native Intel version of Adobe's creative Suite software available yet.
New Displays: Apple recently discontinued its iSight camera which enables iChat video conferencing for computers without built-in displays. Since updating to Intel processors, all of its computers with the exception of the Mac Pros have included built-in iSight cameras. Information suggests that Apple will include iSight cameras in its new displays which are expected to be unveiled at Macworld. Some reports have expected the new displays to come in sizes up to 50-inches. The new displays are said be even thinner, with a lighter design and have more mobility.
Partnerships: We've heard a lot of rumblings about Apple making partnerships with other companies such as Google and Disney. Expect more partnerships, possibly a collaboration with Google. Also, we expect more movie studios to make their films available on iTunes. Apple has worked very hard to ensure its iTunes Store stays up-to-date and offers a wide variety of media. Currently, only Disney movies are available for download on iTunes, but we expect that to change in the very near future. This won't happen over night, but the information we gathered suggests Apple will offer new films from other movie studios with the launch of iTV.
One more thing...
iPhone? Notice the question mark. We are skeptical about this one. So much speculation about an Apple Phone has been made all over the internet and television, that we are going to remain conservative on this one. So-called authorities in the tech business have claimed unabashedly, that Apple will deliver a new iPhone at Macworld. At this point, the possibility of an iPhone at Macworld may be more wishful thinking than actual concrete evidence. We do believe that Apple is developing an iPhone, and there is information to support that. But Apple is not going to release a product until it is ready. All eyes are on Apple t
Prominent right-wing bloggers - including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang and Free Republic -- are pushing the argument that President Bush's warrantless domestic spying program isn't news because the Clinton administration did the same thing.
The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:
During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon...all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
That's flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:
I'm here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency...
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.
Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.
Why not ask Harris Polls, or Nielsen, or the Census
or Health departments, or the Linux survey project, about the value of metrics that describe behavior or characteristics en masse?
anonymous && aggregate != random, dig?
Let's try to clarify the separate issues
on
Clever Girl Bess
·
· Score: 1
A few points, written by someone who HAS seen
aggregate traffic data from a number of sources,
including the data in question:
Content filtering and the collection of web traffic data are orthogonal; their relationship
is based on the fact that most content filtering
mechanisms rely on proxy servers, which log requests.
Arguing against the sale of aggregate traffic
data by pointing out the flaws in content filtering techniques doesn't make sense.
There are many, many more users subject to
traffic logging who are not subject to content
filtering.
Traffic data in aggregate is not terribly
threatening to privacy: we're talking about data
in the form URL, hit count like this:
dir.yahoo.com/Sports 102134
Note that search path (GET request name-value pairs) are stripped off. And also please note, Mr. Katz, that this "vague" information is more valuable than "Little Timmy in Tacoma looked at used Camaros at Yahoo last Thursday."
As an aside, as far as I know N2H2 is the only content filtering company that relies on humans, not keywords, to decide which sites to block. For this reason, sites about, say, breast cancer, are not blocked. This is certainly a "less evil" approach, and my understanding is that it was taken on ethical grounds by N2H2.
It's very difficult to analyze web traffic; most sites either lie or remain mute about it; Content distributors don't publicize their traffic either. Dismissing any mechanism that yields such information, as long as it doesn't impose
on privacy rights, is silly. Marketing and advertising aside, as software professionals, don't we want to understand what users do, or should we prefer to think of the web and its usage as an amorphous cloud with "lots of users and lots of stuff"?
I'm not in favor of content filtering, but let's try to deal with these issues separately: Web Filtering, Web Proxying, Web Metrics.
Blurring these issues makes for easy griping but difficult solutions.
Isn't it funny how we all jump on neophytes and
techie-wannabees when they dare venture into technological disciplines, but mostly don't bat
an eye when the jump is in the other direction
(into, say, culture studies)?
Part I of the Katz "gaming" series was annoying, but Part II is infuriating. Why? Because Katz is using a forum that purports to be a dialogue, and yet he evidently paid no attention at all to the comments on his first misbegotten article.
His article looks like culture studies and smells like culture studies, but really is just a tepid assertion in search of evidence.
I'm reposting a post from last Thursday which I think is still relevant but was buried under normal thresholds because I posted it as an anonymous coward:
This smacks of Alvin Toffler's Future Schlock and the implication that we somehow inhabit a privileged place in history such that the pace of cultural change is just too much for us.
One can find similar quotes from Roman commentators. I bet there are cave drawings somewhere attempting to convey the same thing.
I'm wary of such claims. I'm wary of the claim that gaming has become our "ascendant culture." More ascendant than, let's see... consumer capitalism? Electronically-mediated communication? Mass media? The way that our notions of self are linked to the consumer choices we make? I don't think so -- gaming is just more of the same.
And, by the way, if adults "can't grasp" these cultural and technological advances, and are no longer passing along their "traditions and wisdom," should we assume these games are being designed by the "adolescents" who play them? Again, I don't think so. In fact, one could just as easily say that games are, for a portion of an emergent subculture, precisely the way that stories are passed along: stories about building culture, stories about economic systems, detective stories, warfare. How is this any different, at least in the cultural sense if not the experience, of a previous generation weaned simply on television?
Games are cool. Games point the way to a more interactive relationship with technologies, certainly. Games may be a significant way of, well, indoctrinating people, especially the young, into new technological forms. But such forms, especially the rush into the virtual, have been fully embraced by capitalism as the newest and most effective way to both publicize itself and intercede in people's daily lives. Is this a bad thing? I don't necessarily think so. But the notion that gaming is a counter-cultural or revolutionary act when it exists along the same socio-cultural axis as emerging and increasingly dominant forms (seen a dot.com billboard or TV ad recently? How many U.S. armed forces recruitment ads show cool, gamelike displays?) is too simplistic a take on our culture. And is, I think, a little too self-congratulatory. Like it or not, gamers aren't revolutionaries but are culturally complicitious in a different way.
You're right, Jon, that "gaming has evolved far beyond play" and that "few people have bothered to study what this might mean." Unfortunately you haven't augmented their number.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus christ! The original article was slashdotted so I posted the full text. I thought it might be a novelty for /. readers to actually, you know, read TFA. I didn't notice it had already been posted, although I did check.
I don't endorse the article; it was mostly fluff. The fact that it managed to load for me, albeit terribly slowly, made me think it might be a public service to provide it in-line.
Karma whoring? I don't give a damn about karma. Don't project your petty concerns on me.
And now I'll leave you to continue pissing in your own sandbox.
As promised, LoopRumors is posting a round-up of all the rumors we expect to become a reality at this year's Macworld Expo. Please take into consideration that the following article is purely speculation, and nothing is concrete until Steve Jobs says it is. This is our best hypothesis as to what we might expect at Macworld based on the information we've been given. If you have any comments or questions regarding this round-up, or the Macworld keynote, you may address them here. So here's what we have:
iTV:
In an uncharacteristic move, Steve Jobs previewed this new digital lifestyle device and gave us a release timeframe of 'early 2007.' iTV will stream movies, pictures and more from your Mac or PC to your television wirelessly. We expect to see the 'hidden features' of iTV spelled out, and a release date announced, if not immediate availability at the keynote. Apple has said it will not use the name iTV for the product, so we can expect a new moniker for the media device.
Leopard:
Steve Jobs has been touting Apple's next generation operating system, Leopard, for quite some time. He promised to hold back on unveiling some 'Top Secret' features so Microsoft wouldn't be able to copy them prior to their Vista release. We initially thought Steve might surprise the crowd with an early release of the new OS at Macworld, but that seems to be more unlikely as the time draws near. New information targets a release date of Saturday, March 24th, exactly 6 years to the day of the initial OS X release.
Mobile OS X:
LoopRumors told you first that Apple is developing a mobile, 'lite' version of its OS to be used in smaller devices. It's possible this OS may make its debut at Macworld. Some of Leopard's hidden features may have tie-ins to this mobile OS. One possible 'Top Secret' feature of Leopard may be the ability to sync with the scaled down version of itself.
New Macs:
After all, this is Macworld. We expect Apple to introduce new Macs at the Expo. Signs point to new Mac Pros, with Core 2 Quad processors by Intel. Apple's flagship models have been lagging since there is no native Intel version of Adobe's creative Suite software available yet.
New Displays:
Apple recently discontinued its iSight camera which enables iChat video conferencing for computers without built-in displays. Since updating to Intel processors, all of its computers with the exception of the Mac Pros have included built-in iSight cameras. Information suggests that Apple will include iSight cameras in its new displays which are expected to be unveiled at Macworld. Some reports have expected the new displays to come in sizes up to 50-inches. The new displays are said be even thinner, with a lighter design and have more mobility.
Partnerships:
We've heard a lot of rumblings about Apple making partnerships with other companies such as Google and Disney. Expect more partnerships, possibly a collaboration with Google. Also, we expect more movie studios to make their films available on iTunes. Apple has worked very hard to ensure its iTunes Store stays up-to-date and offers a wide variety of media. Currently, only Disney movies are available for download on iTunes, but we expect that to change in the very near future. This won't happen over night, but the information we gathered suggests Apple will offer new films from other movie studios with the launch of iTV.
One more thing...
iPhone?
Notice the question mark. We are skeptical about this one. So much speculation about an Apple Phone has been made all over the internet and television, that we are going to remain conservative on this one. So-called authorities in the tech business have claimed unabashedly, that Apple will deliver a new iPhone at Macworld. At this point, the possibility of an iPhone at Macworld may be more wishful thinking than actual concrete evidence. We do believe that Apple is developing an iPhone, and there is information to support that. But Apple is not going to release a product until it is ready. All eyes are on Apple t
from http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-m
anonymous && aggregate != random, dig?
- Content filtering and the collection of web traffic data are orthogonal; their relationship
is based on the fact that most content filtering
mechanisms rely on proxy servers, which log requests.
- Arguing against the sale of aggregate traffic
data by pointing out the flaws in content filtering techniques doesn't make sense.
- There are many, many more users subject to
traffic logging who are not subject to content
filtering.
- Traffic data in aggregate is not terribly
threatening to privacy: we're talking about data
in the form URL, hit count like this:
dir.yahoo.com/Sports 102134
Note that search path (GET request name-value pairs) are stripped off. And also please note, Mr. Katz, that this "vague" information is more valuable than "Little Timmy in Tacoma looked at used Camaros at Yahoo last Thursday."
- As an aside, as far as I know N2H2 is the only content filtering company that relies on humans, not keywords, to decide which sites to block. For this reason, sites about, say, breast cancer, are not blocked. This is certainly a "less evil" approach, and my understanding is that it was taken on ethical grounds by N2H2.
- It's very difficult to analyze web traffic; most sites either lie or remain mute about it; Content distributors don't publicize their traffic either. Dismissing any mechanism that yields such information, as long as it doesn't impose
on privacy rights, is silly. Marketing and advertising aside, as software professionals, don't we want to understand what users do, or should we prefer to think of the web and its usage as an amorphous cloud with "lots of users and lots of stuff"?
I'm not in favor of content filtering, but let's try to deal with these issues separately: Web Filtering, Web Proxying, Web Metrics. Blurring these issues makes for easy griping but difficult solutions.Part I of the Katz "gaming" series was annoying, but Part II is infuriating. Why? Because Katz is using a forum that purports to be a dialogue, and yet he evidently paid no attention at all to the comments on his first misbegotten article.
His article looks like culture studies and smells like culture studies, but really is just a tepid assertion in search of evidence.
I'm reposting a post from last Thursday which I think is still relevant but was buried under normal thresholds because I posted it as an anonymous coward:
This smacks of Alvin Toffler's Future Schlock and the implication that we somehow inhabit a privileged place in history such that the pace of cultural change is just too much for us.
One can find similar quotes from Roman commentators. I bet there are cave drawings somewhere attempting to convey the same thing.
I'm wary of such claims. I'm wary of the claim that gaming has become our "ascendant culture." More ascendant than, let's see... consumer capitalism? Electronically-mediated communication? Mass media? The way that our notions of self are linked to the consumer choices we make? I don't think so -- gaming is just more of the same.
And, by the way, if adults "can't grasp" these cultural and technological advances, and are no longer passing along their "traditions and wisdom," should we assume these games are being designed by the "adolescents" who play them? Again, I don't think so. In fact, one could just as easily say that games are, for a portion of an emergent subculture, precisely the way that stories are passed along: stories about building culture, stories about economic systems, detective stories, warfare. How is this any different, at least in the cultural sense if not the experience, of a previous generation weaned simply on television?
Games are cool. Games point the way to a more interactive relationship with technologies, certainly. Games may be a significant way of, well, indoctrinating people, especially the young, into new technological forms. But such forms, especially the rush into the virtual, have been fully embraced by capitalism as the newest and most effective way to both publicize itself and intercede in people's daily lives. Is this a bad thing? I don't necessarily think so. But the notion that gaming is a counter-cultural or revolutionary act when it exists along the same socio-cultural axis as emerging and increasingly dominant forms (seen a dot.com billboard or TV ad recently? How many U.S. armed forces recruitment ads show cool, gamelike displays?) is too simplistic a take on our culture. And is, I think, a little too self-congratulatory. Like it or not, gamers aren't revolutionaries but are culturally complicitious in a different way.
You're right, Jon, that "gaming has evolved far beyond play" and that "few people have bothered to study what this might mean." Unfortunately you haven't augmented their number.