I've never really contemplated using an online backup service. I suppose I'm far too casual a user to be the "target" for such things, but I've found optical media to be sufficient, taking into account that I often end up regenerating the discs every so often. Although it's more convenient, I still think it's a gamble on whether their backups on their servers are going to be as long-term reliable as my discs in hand, or stored somewhere local and reliable. Add to that the relatively slow thoroughput of any online connection versus physical media, and I'm just content to go with the "multiple CDs, squirreled about" method.
As for security, if you have a subset of information on your computer that has to be secure, you could use some manner of file encryption on it before you send it up. I'm no expert, but I've been quite happy with the simplicity and security of TrueCrypt (on Windows) of late.
Proprietary formats are always a gamble. For that matter, any format is a gamble. Who's to say the open standard of the month won't get laughed out by the "de facto" standard by the time you want to restore those years-old backups. I suppose the best bet is to save in the simplest format that still preserves the usability information, and keep the software as backed-up and on-hand as the data.
It being tax time in the US, I've had experience with an online-tax-prep service. I've also dealt with some online business-scheduling software (Fusionary IMS, similar to Basecamp). Being on Slashdot, I've taken a look at some of the Online Word Processors from a few days ago, as well. My prediction: things like online tax-prep, relationship management, or project management will prosper, while things like the online "Office App Replacements" will continue to endlessly struggle for relevance.
The office-app replacements are the proverbial "cure for which there is no disease". There is little reason that a composition program needs the network to function better, and certainly not enough reason to justify the hurdles involved in presenting these programs online. For something like tax-prep, it makes perfect sense to offer a "use" payment plan. The software is, by its nature, only ever used once a year, and the functionality needed (basic fill-in) is no real stretch for the Web. Something like customer-management is a task that is there to benefit the outside world, so having it tied into the network is an obvious choice. Something like internal project-management software depends more upon internal communication, but with the widespread connectedness of the Web, it makes sense to use the already-existing network to present the function, and get the peripheral benefit of being to check in on the road.
It's their space. If you don't like it, get your own damn space. It's censorship, yes, but the right to censor on your own property is simply another facet of the right to free speech.
The photos you took of your children growing up won't be viewable on modern equipment. JPEG? (Okay, I'll admit that I ought to convert the NEFs for storage one of these days.)
None of the recordings of the band you played in when you were younger will be listenable. CDDA? MP3?
Business letters written just a few years ago won't be readable. Okay, I'll give you DOC.
Open standards (or at least easily-licensed enough standards to be on a par with open) are nearly ubiquitous, and widely supported for both reading and writing. With the fact that these formats are open and digital (allowing lossless medium-to-medium copy), anyone who puts forth even a minimal effort to, say, drop all the CD-ROM backups onto whatever nails shut CD-ROM's coffin, there's no reason why most of today's content can't live on far into the future.
Aside from the.DOC format, an anomoly, and formats for new and growing technologies, like digital video, things are only getting better in regard to open standardization. I predict that once Internet video has been around for a few years, it will also develop "Lowest-common-denominator" standards just like its predecessors.
Actually, I have a funny situation on my line-- the other way around. My answering machine message is a short, succinct "WE'RE NOT HERE! -- (beep)". So, I come home to a number of messages consisting of
You mention verbal retaliation... perhaps an example?
I just ask because my my idea has always been that the verbal aspects of bullying (and of ostracization in general, be it bullying, types of "...ism") were more of a us-vs-them solidification or a demonstration of power than any actual war of the wits. A childish, dumb, or inane taunt works even better than an insightful, shredding critique, because everyone involved knows that the laughs an abysimally stupid taunt gets are not out of respect to the joke (since it was such an obviously undeserving joke), but more an act of solidarity and support for the person (and against the victim). The fact that the bully can make a dumb remark and get respect for it flaunts the position of power. (Well, there's that, and the fact that the rock-dumb variety of smashy-smashy meatheads tend to congregate together, so that might actually be high-class comedy in some circles.)
I might agree that confronting a bully with the fleeting nature of their "power", and reminding them that their days on top are few and numbered until they reach the "real" civilized world might be a way to fight back verbally, but with that particular futureless-wreck variety of bully... will the message get through with enough effect?
It would work reasonably as well in reverse: Allow the person's posts, but forward them to a moderator. If the moderator determines them to be spam, that poster gets the boot (along with all their posts). Add in some intelligent "Find Similar" logic, and you'd have y'erself a good start at a forum anti-spam system.
I think "well" is assumed. That's like saying "everyone knows how to play football" because they can stand on a field and get tackled.
Basis is not the same thing, but it's definitely not moot. Take a person who can't draw a good "basis", and compare it to someone who can, all other skills aside. I think you would find that the person without the drawing skills would suffer many of the detriments mentioned in the article.
Not really. Sharpening a quill pen is tangental to the actual act of creation. The ability to draw, however, gives a fuller and more tangible understanding of visual principles, as well as allowing a freer thought process, unbounded by the perfectionism and limitations (inherent, skill, and percieved) of the software. Drawing skill, even only to the level that you can accurately represent an idea on paper, will always be fundamentally important to anyone wishing to undertake serious design or artistic work.
Even in the age of CSS and Photoshop, every website I design starts on paper. The computer has a limited number of shape tools, and will consistantly reply "you can't do this" (or at least roadblock you with multiple steps or slow multiple-step processes to implementation). You end up stuck in the process, not the big-picture idea. When you're sketching a design, however, the ideas can flow freely, without getting stuck in how a certain shape is made with bezier curves, or how to code a certain columnar CSS layout. What's more, you can pump out a whole lot more ideas in the time that it would take to make a digital version. Then, once the idea's safely on paper, then you can worry about the implementation.
I've seen work by folks overenamored with the computer. It tends to look, like the article says, uninspired, self-stylistic, and influenced more by twiddling with the software in-process than by any process of design.
I would be willing to give some ground regarding digital "painters" who work (often using tablets) with the digital "brush" tools. That process is not as far removed from actual painting... it's just a different medium with the advantage of "Undo".
Arial and Helvetica are quite different in form. The only real similarity was that Arial was designed to be interchangable with Helvetica in that it had the same character widths and flowed similarily when placed into a document. (At least, this is what I read on some history or another.)
Then, on the other end, there's the computer-literate folk who do have a firewall installed, then complain becuase they have to click "Allow" on everything, without looking, leaving their computer just as vulnerable as before, with the exception that the hax0rs have to wait a couple seconds for that first "Allow" to come through.
Or the person could have the dignity and drive to be a professional, and command a professional's stature and compensation, be it through entrepreneurship on their own or working for someone else.
On the other hand, any employer who would refuse to hire someone based off of humorous content in a blog or on a personal webpage (or even due to radical political/religious views) is probably ignoring a large pool of good employees. A smart employer will realize that even clever, hardworking people look stoned sometimes.
Nor would I want to be employed by such a person. I realize that getting a job is difficult, but I might consider a no-hire as a result of this sort of obtrusive personal meddling to be something of an "employer self-filtering system".
I think what you're getting there is just the issue that Google is the current pack-leader, so everyone with more time to put into "SEO" than into actually making a page is optimizing it to Google.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never really contemplated using an online backup service. I suppose I'm far too casual a user to be the "target" for such things, but I've found optical media to be sufficient, taking into account that I often end up regenerating the discs every so often. Although it's more convenient, I still think it's a gamble on whether their backups on their servers are going to be as long-term reliable as my discs in hand, or stored somewhere local and reliable. Add to that the relatively slow thoroughput of any online connection versus physical media, and I'm just content to go with the "multiple CDs, squirreled about" method.
As for security, if you have a subset of information on your computer that has to be secure, you could use some manner of file encryption on it before you send it up. I'm no expert, but I've been quite happy with the simplicity and security of TrueCrypt (on Windows) of late.
Proprietary formats are always a gamble. For that matter, any format is a gamble. Who's to say the open standard of the month won't get laughed out by the "de facto" standard by the time you want to restore those years-old backups. I suppose the best bet is to save in the simplest format that still preserves the usability information, and keep the software as backed-up and on-hand as the data.
It being tax time in the US, I've had experience with an online-tax-prep service. I've also dealt with some online business-scheduling software (Fusionary IMS, similar to Basecamp). Being on Slashdot, I've taken a look at some of the Online Word Processors from a few days ago, as well. My prediction: things like online tax-prep, relationship management, or project management will prosper, while things like the online "Office App Replacements" will continue to endlessly struggle for relevance.
The office-app replacements are the proverbial "cure for which there is no disease". There is little reason that a composition program needs the network to function better, and certainly not enough reason to justify the hurdles involved in presenting these programs online. For something like tax-prep, it makes perfect sense to offer a "use" payment plan. The software is, by its nature, only ever used once a year, and the functionality needed (basic fill-in) is no real stretch for the Web. Something like customer-management is a task that is there to benefit the outside world, so having it tied into the network is an obvious choice. Something like internal project-management software depends more upon internal communication, but with the widespread connectedness of the Web, it makes sense to use the already-existing network to present the function, and get the peripheral benefit of being to check in on the road.
That said, the article read like a press release.
They don't really have to "track it down" if the strangle rule is based on the total incoming bandwidth.
It's their space. If you don't like it, get your own damn space. It's censorship, yes, but the right to censor on your own property is simply another facet of the right to free speech.
Or you could look at it like they're just better at playing the money game than you are because it is just a game, afterall.
As would be the crackdown on unreported income.
Keep on, y'know, truckin'. Start another one.
The photos you took of your children growing up won't be viewable on modern equipment.
.DOC format, an anomoly, and formats for new and growing technologies, like digital video, things are only getting better in regard to open standardization. I predict that once Internet video has been around for a few years, it will also develop "Lowest-common-denominator" standards just like its predecessors.
JPEG? (Okay, I'll admit that I ought to convert the NEFs for storage one of these days.)
None of the recordings of the band you played in when you were younger will be listenable.
CDDA? MP3?
Business letters written just a few years ago won't be readable.
Okay, I'll give you DOC.
Open standards (or at least easily-licensed enough standards to be on a par with open) are nearly ubiquitous, and widely supported for both reading and writing. With the fact that these formats are open and digital (allowing lossless medium-to-medium copy), anyone who puts forth even a minimal effort to, say, drop all the CD-ROM backups onto whatever nails shut CD-ROM's coffin, there's no reason why most of today's content can't live on far into the future.
Aside from the
Nice angle.
Hint: They don't care.
Actually, I have a funny situation on my line-- the other way around. My answering machine message is a short, succinct "WE'RE NOT HERE! -- (beep)". So, I come home to a number of messages consisting of
"Hello? Hello? Is (my name) available?"
You mention verbal retaliation... perhaps an example?
I just ask because my my idea has always been that the verbal aspects of bullying (and of ostracization in general, be it bullying, types of "...ism") were more of a us-vs-them solidification or a demonstration of power than any actual war of the wits. A childish, dumb, or inane taunt works even better than an insightful, shredding critique, because everyone involved knows that the laughs an abysimally stupid taunt gets are not out of respect to the joke (since it was such an obviously undeserving joke), but more an act of solidarity and support for the person (and against the victim). The fact that the bully can make a dumb remark and get respect for it flaunts the position of power. (Well, there's that, and the fact that the rock-dumb variety of smashy-smashy meatheads tend to congregate together, so that might actually be high-class comedy in some circles.)
I might agree that confronting a bully with the fleeting nature of their "power", and reminding them that their days on top are few and numbered until they reach the "real" civilized world might be a way to fight back verbally, but with that particular futureless-wreck variety of bully... will the message get through with enough effect?
and the jocks are either in sales, or got MBA's and are now middle managers ...and they can have it.
So s/whiner/two-faced bastard/g and find out it doesn't really make much difference.
It would work reasonably as well in reverse: Allow the person's posts, but forward them to a moderator. If the moderator determines them to be spam, that poster gets the boot (along with all their posts). Add in some intelligent "Find Similar" logic, and you'd have y'erself a good start at a forum anti-spam system.
I think "well" is assumed. That's like saying "everyone knows how to play football" because they can stand on a field and get tackled.
Basis is not the same thing, but it's definitely not moot. Take a person who can't draw a good "basis", and compare it to someone who can, all other skills aside. I think you would find that the person without the drawing skills would suffer many of the detriments mentioned in the article.
Yes, but they know how to draw, and use a drawing as the basis to their work.
Not really. Sharpening a quill pen is tangental to the actual act of creation. The ability to draw, however, gives a fuller and more tangible understanding of visual principles, as well as allowing a freer thought process, unbounded by the perfectionism and limitations (inherent, skill, and percieved) of the software. Drawing skill, even only to the level that you can accurately represent an idea on paper, will always be fundamentally important to anyone wishing to undertake serious design or artistic work.
Even in the age of CSS and Photoshop, every website I design starts on paper. The computer has a limited number of shape tools, and will consistantly reply "you can't do this" (or at least roadblock you with multiple steps or slow multiple-step processes to implementation). You end up stuck in the process, not the big-picture idea. When you're sketching a design, however, the ideas can flow freely, without getting stuck in how a certain shape is made with bezier curves, or how to code a certain columnar CSS layout. What's more, you can pump out a whole lot more ideas in the time that it would take to make a digital version. Then, once the idea's safely on paper, then you can worry about the implementation.
I've seen work by folks overenamored with the computer. It tends to look, like the article says, uninspired, self-stylistic, and influenced more by twiddling with the software in-process than by any process of design.
I would be willing to give some ground regarding digital "painters" who work (often using tablets) with the digital "brush" tools. That process is not as far removed from actual painting... it's just a different medium with the advantage of "Undo".
Arial and Helvetica are quite different in form. The only real similarity was that Arial was designed to be interchangable with Helvetica in that it had the same character widths and flowed similarily when placed into a document. (At least, this is what I read on some history or another.)
Imagine how much of a pain in the A$$ it would be having to re-purchase windows every 1 or 2 years just to stay on the cutting edge.
Yes, yes, I've used a Mac.
Then, on the other end, there's the computer-literate folk who do have a firewall installed, then complain becuase they have to click "Allow" on everything, without looking, leaving their computer just as vulnerable as before, with the exception that the hax0rs have to wait a couple seconds for that first "Allow" to come through.
Or the person could have the dignity and drive to be a professional, and command a professional's stature and compensation, be it through entrepreneurship on their own or working for someone else.
On the other hand, any employer who would refuse to hire someone based off of humorous content in a blog or on a personal webpage (or even due to radical political/religious views) is probably ignoring a large pool of good employees. A smart employer will realize that even clever, hardworking people look stoned sometimes.
Nor would I want to be employed by such a person. I realize that getting a job is difficult, but I might consider a no-hire as a result of this sort of obtrusive personal meddling to be something of an "employer self-filtering system".
Call it "team-building" and put it on the company tab.
It's Slashcode. Freely available. Get your own, you'll love it.
I think what you're getting there is just the issue that Google is the current pack-leader, so everyone with more time to put into "SEO" than into actually making a page is optimizing it to Google.