After a lot of pressure from athletes and others, the US Congress got involved with the restrictions the AAU was placing. I can't find the details right away -- it's mentioned at the close of _Without Limits_ -- but I do know that it was due in large part to the efforts of Steve Prefontaine and his fights with the AAU.
There was a great explanation about the "common languages" of history posted on Slashdot a few months back (maybe longer -- I tried searching for it, but I can't even remember which story it was commenting on). If anyone can find it, please post it, I think it is a very relevant bit of information. As it is, I'll try to summarize:
I can't remember what the poster said about earliest history, but by the time of the Roman Empire, the lingua franca was Greek. Sure, the "official" language was Latin, but it wasn't really spoken in the far-flung corners of the Roman Empire -- but Greek tended to be, so everyone spoke Greek and whatever their regional language happened to be.
Then came French, and its dominance lasted for centuries, up to very recently. Every foreign dignitary spoke his or her native language, of course, but how does a government official from Prussia discuss politics with the ambassador from England? Through French, of course.
Only recently (last hundred years or so) has English become the lingua franca of the age. It's not the most-spoken language -- it is the most wide-spread (spoken in the most places). (As the poster above mentioned, it is the most common second language.) The pervasiveness of the Internet and its foundation within an English-speaking culture only serves to further the spread of the langauge. And I'm not even going to address how much like the Borg the English language is, assimilating pieces of damn-near every language it comes in contact with.
Not to unduly state harsh stereotypes, but most of the scenes of rural China I have seen (like on travel documentaries, the Discovery Channel, etc.) depict areas and a culture barely emerged from the Middle Ages: these people barely have electricity and running water. Again, I'm not passing judgement; history is filled with the wonderful exploits of the Chinese, from writing to gunpowder to architecture and military conquest. But I think the total number of Mandarin-speaking people in the world is a misleading statistic, because I doubt even half have access to a computer, and fewer still have access to the Internet.
Ah, in the race to get my post off, I failed to expand on my meaning.
What I meant by "gamble" is, as you mentioned, the price-to-power ratio, and how long that will be meaningful. Will the $200 I just plunked down for my new video card pay off for me? Or should I have waited another week longer and picked up the same hardware for $150? It's a gamble, to me, because you're betting that the price you're paying will remain reasonable for a certain amount of time, and/or that the next best thing won't come out for the same price you just paid for (what is now) the second-best. (True story: I bought a 17.2 Gb HDD for $180; a month later, a 30 Gb drive (same manufacturer) cost $180, and the 17.2 was down to like $120.)
So that is why I never buy the top-of-the-line. Usually for about half as much, I can get the next-best (or close to next-best). And as many posters have mentioned, it is all I really need.
The history of computers in my life looks something like this:
Commodore Plus 4 (as in 4k RAM IIRC)
Leading 286/4Mhz, 640k RAM
Cumulus 486SX/20MHz, 2Mb (later 4Mb) RAM
Built-my-own 486DX2/80MHz, 16Mb RAM
CTX laptop Pentium/200 w/MMX, 40Mb RAM
Paradigm PII/400, 64Mb (later 128Mb) RAM
... and that's where I am today. I still have the last three. Why haven't I upgraded to a PIII (or AMD equivalent)? First, because all the programs I run regularly run fast enough for me. I would probably upgrade to 256Mb RAM before I upgraded the PII to a PIII.
Second, the PIII is old news. In the next year or so, Intel will release something even better. (When I bought my PII, the PIIIs had already been out for half a year.)
Purchasing computer equipment is a gamble. It's kinda like buying a new car, except obsolescence is measured in weeks rather than years. Remember the old Tandy computers sold at Radio Shacks? I think they became obsolete the moment you walked out the store...
More on topic, a third reason I don't upgrade is because I don't have a need for "new connectivity abilities" that may or may not be around in a few years. I had to hack USB support on my PII, yet within the next year or so USB 2.0 devices will be out. And then there's FireWire (or whatever IEEE it is); sounds nice, but there are already competing standards (like USB 2.0).
This could turn out to be an IDE vs. SCSI debate -- one is common in lower-end models, one is more common in higher-end models -- but I think consumers are becoming a bit more savvy (or is it a bit more weary?) regarding multiple standards for the same devices. How many types of Zip drives can you get? A quick look reveals ATAPI, SCSI, parallel, USB, and FireWire. Good God. This kind of multiple-connection production cannot be good for a company's bottom line.
IMHO the only real problem is that Google, also, continues to point to non-existent web pages.
I find their almost-always-there cached copy works like a dream when the original source has been moved, deleted, modified, etc. I often go directly to the cached source anyway just to quickly locate where my search terms appear. This is especially useful in really long, not-well-formated pages.
As a recent graduate of architecture school, and a future architect, I'd like to drop in my two cents.
There are thousands of architects in the United States; hundreds here in Los Angeles alone. But most people -- even in the profession itself -- can only name a few big names, like Frank Gehry or Eric Owen Moss. Most big-name architects are arrogant to no end (the classic example being Frank Lloyd Wright), and they tend to give the profession a bad reputation. Most architects I have known and worked for actually do care what their clients have to say and go out of their way to make sure the resulting design fulfils the client's (and not the architect's) desires. That's not to say that the architect doesn't try to influence the client's decisions, but if the client wants a brick building, then the architect is either going to design a brick building or pass on the project.
Several posters have mentioned that architects have a "we know best" attitude about just about everything. In our defense, I can only point to history in which architects did know best about just about everything. Many, if not most, of the greatest thinkers in history were at least part-time architects (from Leonardo da Vinci to Thomas Jefferson, there are more). Over time, however, the position has been diluted to building designer, rather than cultural philosopher; some people are unwilling to let go, despite the fact that they really have no qualifications.
The primary task of the Architect is to produce usable shelter for the client. If the client finds the result unusable, for just about any reason, then the Architect has failed.
At the same time, not all problems with buildings and spaces are the fault of an architect. Clients love to insist on mediocre ideas and marginal plans, and then have the gall to complain to the architect when they get what they asked for. Lots of buildings these days aren't even designed by architects at all. It's not uncommon for an owner to bypass the design professions (architecture, interior design, etc.) altogether and just hire a contractor to make changes to their space.
But in the end, architects do have a responsibility to listen to their clients needs, even if those needs seem counter-intuitive. Just as a chef would be way out of his or her element telling a radio astronomer how to search for extraterrestrial life, so are architects when they try to tell clients how to use their space. Architects can really only offer advice from experience with past projects.
What should happen? They should beef up telecom's protections to be equal to the cable industry.
What will happen? They will 'dumb down' these protections to be equivalent to telecom.
Hasn't anyone been paying attention? In a few months, privacy won't be the Topic of the Moment and the government will continue its conquest of your personal space.
...but not likely to happen. Let's see what I mean:
Being that most popular applications have been ported to other OS's... Maybe the most popular software in your line of business, but most the programs I use began on other OSes and were ported to Windows later.
...a free 100% compatible OS could allow computer manufactures to lower prices by not having to include the price of an OS. I had to re-read your post to make sure this wasn't supposed to be a humorous post. (I might still be mistaken.) Anyone who believes that computer manufacturers would lower their prices by not having to include the price of an OS is touchingly naive.
Equating familiarity with the Win9x environment to smooth integration with the so-called mainstream doesn't seem to hold up. Aren't there numerous window managers that imitate the look and feel of Win9x? It obviously isn't the environment alone...
...how could they compete with free? I'm sure that's exactly what the folks at Netscape were thinking four years ago. And don't think Microsoft wouldn't pull the same $hit with their OS. The reason they haven't yet is because the need has not arisen.
Ugh. For the record, I hate being this negative. But if a Windows clone is such a popular idea, why hasn't a major corporation stepped in to support one? I'm thinking that Sun or Oracle or another along those lines could throw a few billion in resources at it and have a fairly good Winclone in a year. I can only guess that the reason no one big has stepped up to the plate is because the OS is a dead-end market. Look at the "upgrade" from Windows 98 vs. 98 SE. SE?! Even Microsoft couldn't give it a new number in good conscience! There is only so much so-called functionality that can be thrown at an OS before users are no longer inclined to upgrade to the latest version. (For related proof, look at Netscape 4.sux, with its wonderful Shop button... oooh, just what I needed.)
The Operating System will go the way of the basic text editor and become an interchangable module, albeit a necessary one that allows your file/web browser to access information and data.
While everyone is getting indignant and pointing fingers, rallying for/against Apple as it gets its own come-uppance of sorts, they seem to have lost sight of the issue at hand: the shape shouldn't matter (lame-o iMac lawsuits aside) becuase, last I checked (and IANAL), look and feel were not protectable. (That's why, not considering karmic forces, M$ isn't suing every window manager that looks like Win9x.)
The issue at hand is the name. Is the consumer likely to be confused? The better or more appropriate product for the consumer is an irrelevant issue with trademarks: the first product of that name gets all the protection. That doesn't prevent products in substantially different product areas from having the same trademark; indeed, one need only look for the story about how Apple had to settle with some music company regarding the use of the already-trademarked Macintosh name (or something along those lines).
A decent example: could I create a car company called "Dell Automobiles." Almost certainly, as one is not likely to mistake a car for a computer. Could I create a computer peripherals company, that only sold mice and keyboards, called "Dell Peripherals"? Heh. I'm likely to get sued just for suggesting it. 8^)
Point is, because both Cobalt and Apple sell computers, they both can't lay claim to the same trademark, even if those computers are marketed to mutually exclusive segments of the population; in the end, they're both selling computers. I believe the parent to this post clearly describes Cobalt's claim on the name, and thus the trademark. Variations on spelling of a trademark still dilute the trademark. Case closed.
I would like to say a special thanks to my sysadmin, Sam. He's a really great guy -- but don't get me wrong, he's a great guy in the BOFH sort of way.
The reason I'm singling him out for a tip of the hat is because he has taken the last few days remarkably well. Last Friday, we got hit by the Fwd:Joke variant of ILoveYou. After wiping out half a gig of images on our server, he dutifully restored them from backups and went around to each individual workstation (some seventy in our office) to personally chastise each user to NEVER OPEN FWD:JOKE EMAILS EVER EVER AGAIN. So what happened this morning? Yup. Several someones opened up fwd:joke emails. So he gets on the office PA and announces "Don't open any emails that say Fwd:Joke." So what happens? Yup again, half the office launches Lookout and opens the message to see what the problem is.
So now it's the end of the day and we're almost restored back to normal. It took him a couple of hours, but he finally got the mailserver back up and running. And he didn't even kill anyone. Although several people seem to be missing...
Anyone who is even remotely connected to UI development should read this article (especially the folks over at Mozilla). That being said, I have a couple of issues with some of their examples and ideas:
Direct Manipulation. Couldn't agree more with their premise, but I think they used a poor example with the program installation problems -- that the user has to copy files all over his or her system to install a program. (I realize that this is still an issue with many linux programs, but the last time I had to copy a file to a specific location in Windows to install a program was back when I was using Windows 3.1 and the install instructions were "copy game.exe to c:\". To me, a complicated install procedure is more a reflection of the program's designers rather than the UI.
See-and-Point. While I agree with the fact that pointing and clicking is only a few steps from pointing and grunting, I find that this is more a limitation of I/O devices (mice, monitors) than the UI itself. I'd like to know how users familiar with alternative I/O devices feel about their functionality.
WYSIWYG. A tangential question only: isn't there supposed to be a GLOSSARY tag in HTML (maybe not called that) that allows you to embed information in a particular word/phrase? Or was I smoking crack?
Feedback and Dialog. This can be taken too far, for example, if I have to go out of my way to find out what is happening on my computer. (I find the Task Manager in Windows is about as removed as I can handle.)
Perceived Stability. The problem with letting my computer do things for me is that my computer is stupid. And that's not just because it runs Windows. 8^) No, as the old saying goes, a computer is only as smart as the person who uses (or programs) it. I imagine that in a few years, when AI is much more advanced than it is now, computers may actually be "smart," but until then, I'd prefer my computer to not mess with anything unless I tell it to. (Does anyone else find Windows 2000's so-called "optimizing" menus to be incredibly annoying? Especially when it reorders them...)
Aesthetic Integrity. This is a great point that cannot be overemphasized, but I fear most people will just glaze over it: it is okay to be flexible in the placement/arrangement of most features in a UI, but there are certain critical features (most importantly: HELP) that should always be easily accessible and similarly located. Come to think of it, HELP may be the only critical feature of this kind.
Modelessness. I (think) I understand what they are saying here, but didn't they argue against this earlier in the paper when talking about adding layers of unnecessary complexity? (The earlier mention was in regards to metaphors; how does having to get out of "typewriter mode" and into "game mode" differ from having to leave the "office building" and enter the "game arcade"?)
The Central Role of Language. For the most part, right on. However, their example of the reference library makes me think of the infamous Office Assistant.
Richer Rep. of Objects. OMG yes. I feel that the dot-three extension inherited from the world of DOS is one of the most horrific pieces of legacy technology in use today. Don't get me wrong -- it's nice to know that a.txt is a text file and a.tif is a TIFF file. But what happens when you get handed a disk that has a file labeled "BFD-008jai" and your OS has no idea what created it? Wouldn't it be nice if there was some meta data appended to the file that said "created in the gimp"?
Shared Control. From the paper: [Computer-based agents's] capabilities have not yet progressed beyond the most simple-minded tasks. That's for damn sure. Two words for you: Office Assistant. The only reason I allow it to exist on my system is because I have a soft spot for cats. 8^)
In conclusion, I offer my own disclaimer: I loved the paper. Anything above that may seem to be critical is only so in a constructive way. And finally: I can't wait for the Anti-Mac UI to arrive!
As frightening a possibility as it is, I take a certain level of comfort in knowing that if such a situation did arise (Napster becoming some kind of pay-per-play RIAA partner), damn near everyone would drop the service.
I don't use Napster (or any other distributed trading network), but almost everyone I know has already made the switch to gnutella. Call it rats leaving a sinking ship, but I think the only thing Napster has in its future is setting a legal precedent. It doesn't matter whether that precedent is in its favor or not. Either way it goes, I don't forsee Napster existing say, five years from now.
I love people like this. The world is either black, or it is white. Gray does not exist.
Following Ed's logic, it is perfectly fine if I break into your house, rape your wife, kill your kids, and cut your legs off, so long as I justify it by giving you a stern warning (after the fact, no less) that your home security system is woefully inadequate. "No need to thank me, sir, just performing a public service."
Bah.
You could argue (and I would join you) that breaching computer security is different than endangering a human life -- unless, of course, that breaching computer security results in the endangerment of human lives. There are gray areas to almost everything, but the sanctity of human life should be an overarching consideration in anything you do.
The concern is not (necessarily) for the people directly named in the report. From the article:
"The editing was done after consultations with historians who believed there might be serious risk that the families of some of those named as foreign agents would face retribution in Iran," the paper wrote of it's decision to redact the document.
If it could be proven that an American citizen was harmed due to Mr. Young's posting of the unedited document, he could and should be held liable for it. One may argue that this is a First Amendment issue, but the SC has ruled on many occasions that First Amendment protections do not provide any rights to cause harm to others. (Examples: you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater; you can't claim religious freedom to kill people; the list goes on.)
As to what level the NY Times would/could/should be held accountable for their obvious gaffe -- well, I imagine that would be for the courts to decide.
Rent out a theater for one night. Bring your computer and an LCD projector. Screen the movie, a single showing. Give away free tickets (if you want a crowd) or just invite your friends. Then go back home and start broadcasting it over the internet.
This pretty much circumvents the restrictions. There is a theatrical screening; it is not an internet transmission. Done.
Of course, I'd be interested in knowing if any of this matters if your film doesn't get the blessing of the MPAA -- you know, that nice little box down at the bottom of the ads (if you ever make any) that says that the MPAA has rated your movie G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17. Are unrated films eligible for Academy Awards anyway?
Why do people pirate software? From my own experience, it is a combination of two things:
Price
Availability
with #1 usually being the deciding factor. By making it increasingly difficult to pay for Windows, and then dicking around with what you can do with your copy once you buy it, Microsoft is all but ensuring that it will be pirated.
If MS really wanted to end (or almost end) piracy of its software, it would make its software available for so little cost (and in so may locations) that it would not be economical to pirate it.
Think about it: what if you could run down to your local 7-11 store and pick up a copy of Windows 2000 at the check-out line for $14.99? Or maybe just $4.99?
2.) The second option is to become like the only sites to actually turn a profit on the Net on information, pr0n. Charge for premium membership and giveaway just a enough to entice members. The Wall Street Journal already does this with no ill-effects.
Hmmm. After careful consideration, I can't help but agree: The Wall Street Journal is a pr0n site.
Could just be the/. effect in action, but I still find it rather amusing. 8^)
As far as the sites themselves go... wow. I figure my site weighs in at over 100k; most of the sites I like are in the same vicinity; but the sites that won are really spectacular. Good inspiration for my next version...
An interesting idea to say the least. The basic run-down: each visitor is presented with a website, seemingly at random. They are then asked to select another website that they feel is related to the one displayed. As the site states, visitors are free to be as obvious or obscure as they like. The next visitor to the website is presented with the website the first visitor chose, and so on. (Not sure how it keeps track of the thread; what if two people access the site before the first is done making his or her selection? Does the path fork? Then which path is presented to the next visitor?)
I'm really fascinated by what the end product will be. I imagine it will be something like the stories we used to write in English class: each student would type out a sentence on their computer, then get up and move to the computer to their right and type another sentence, and so forth around the room. When we were done, we would read "our" story to the class. Most of the time they ended up being one step above gibberish, but every now and then a really fascinating plot would develop.
I wish the site didn't limit visitors to a single site selection. I would be interested in the a long path of related sites a user would follow. But this will be cool anyway. Everyone should add to this project!
Normally, I would not support such a call for illegal activity. (And yes, regardless of moral/ethical justifications, it would be illegal to hack into a company's computers to disable their software [unless of course you're the software author and you have your UCITA license BS on your side].) However, given the long and impressive list of groups opposed to UCITA, and the fact that states are passing this biased legislation anyway, it is so incredibly obvious that our elected officials have passed the point of even caring about public accountability that something must be done!
You can bet that after a few high profile lawsuits by big guns like GM most software companies would think twice about backdoor timebombs and the like. And if a part of the US Government suddenly ground to halt because their software was "accidentally" disabled? Holy cow, I can't imagine that company being allowed to do business in the United States after that. (I can imagine the ATF/FBI/NSA/etc raiding the executives' homes looking for pr0n and the like -- nothing like embarassing the execs in public to make a point.)
USC finally blinked. It took them a while, but they finally caved in. Now we have some kind of lame-ass policy about Napster being available "only on select University computers". Probably the administrators' computers. 8^p
Napster does allow for piracy. But so does my stereo, my computer, my VCR, etc. The way I view Napster is like an internet stereo. Not a radio station, mind you -- just the device that allows me to find/listen to songs. Just like a stereo, I can move around to different stations (computers) to find the song I want to listen to, and just like a stereo I can then record the song to a local, unpurchased, and I suppose "pirated" copy.
The article above mentions the following:
...the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits... is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material.
If I am reading this correctly, that would mean banning any program that can transmit via http, ftp, gopher, etc. Meaning, essentially, that the internet must be banned to be protected from litigation. Am I the only one who thinks this is getting a wee bit out of line?
If you look at the article from the standpoint of spreading inaccuracies, then no, it is not responsible reporting. However, if you look at it as trying to squash a rumor before it can get started, then yes, it is responsible reporting.
I called Be Europe this morning to confirm this, and it's just not true.
I think that pretty much summarizes my argument: a published report came in, the editor researched the evidence, and made a report. How much more responsible is he supposed to get?
(And if you're really interested in blasting someone for irresponsible reporting, try the folks over at BeNews who ran the story in the first place -- despite their own admission that they were unable to get a complete English translation of the interview in question or make contact with Be(Europe)!)
Slashdot Mirror
After a lot of pressure from athletes and others, the US Congress got involved with the restrictions the AAU was placing. I can't find the details right away -- it's mentioned at the close of _Without Limits_ -- but I do know that it was due in large part to the efforts of Steve Prefontaine and his fights with the AAU.
There was a great explanation about the "common languages" of history posted on Slashdot a few months back (maybe longer -- I tried searching for it, but I can't even remember which story it was commenting on). If anyone can find it, please post it, I think it is a very relevant bit of information. As it is, I'll try to summarize:
I can't remember what the poster said about earliest history, but by the time of the Roman Empire, the lingua franca was Greek. Sure, the "official" language was Latin, but it wasn't really spoken in the far-flung corners of the Roman Empire -- but Greek tended to be, so everyone spoke Greek and whatever their regional language happened to be.
Then came French, and its dominance lasted for centuries, up to very recently. Every foreign dignitary spoke his or her native language, of course, but how does a government official from Prussia discuss politics with the ambassador from England? Through French, of course.
Only recently (last hundred years or so) has English become the lingua franca of the age. It's not the most-spoken language -- it is the most wide-spread (spoken in the most places). (As the poster above mentioned, it is the most common second language.) The pervasiveness of the Internet and its foundation within an English-speaking culture only serves to further the spread of the langauge. And I'm not even going to address how much like the Borg the English language is, assimilating pieces of damn-near every language it comes in contact with.
Not to unduly state harsh stereotypes, but most of the scenes of rural China I have seen (like on travel documentaries, the Discovery Channel, etc.) depict areas and a culture barely emerged from the Middle Ages: these people barely have electricity and running water. Again, I'm not passing judgement; history is filled with the wonderful exploits of the Chinese, from writing to gunpowder to architecture and military conquest. But I think the total number of Mandarin-speaking people in the world is a misleading statistic, because I doubt even half have access to a computer, and fewer still have access to the Internet.
Ah, in the race to get my post off, I failed to expand on my meaning.
What I meant by "gamble" is, as you mentioned, the price-to-power ratio, and how long that will be meaningful. Will the $200 I just plunked down for my new video card pay off for me? Or should I have waited another week longer and picked up the same hardware for $150? It's a gamble, to me, because you're betting that the price you're paying will remain reasonable for a certain amount of time, and/or that the next best thing won't come out for the same price you just paid for (what is now) the second-best. (True story: I bought a 17.2 Gb HDD for $180; a month later, a 30 Gb drive (same manufacturer) cost $180, and the 17.2 was down to like $120.)
So that is why I never buy the top-of-the-line. Usually for about half as much, I can get the next-best (or close to next-best). And as many posters have mentioned, it is all I really need.
Oh hell yes.
The history of computers in my life looks something like this:
... and that's where I am today. I still have the last three. Why haven't I upgraded to a PIII (or AMD equivalent)? First, because all the programs I run regularly run fast enough for me. I would probably upgrade to 256Mb RAM before I upgraded the PII to a PIII.
Second, the PIII is old news. In the next year or so, Intel will release something even better. (When I bought my PII, the PIIIs had already been out for half a year.)
Purchasing computer equipment is a gamble. It's kinda like buying a new car, except obsolescence is measured in weeks rather than years. Remember the old Tandy computers sold at Radio Shacks? I think they became obsolete the moment you walked out the store...
More on topic, a third reason I don't upgrade is because I don't have a need for "new connectivity abilities" that may or may not be around in a few years. I had to hack USB support on my PII, yet within the next year or so USB 2.0 devices will be out. And then there's FireWire (or whatever IEEE it is); sounds nice, but there are already competing standards (like USB 2.0).
This could turn out to be an IDE vs. SCSI debate -- one is common in lower-end models, one is more common in higher-end models -- but I think consumers are becoming a bit more savvy (or is it a bit more weary?) regarding multiple standards for the same devices. How many types of Zip drives can you get? A quick look reveals ATAPI, SCSI, parallel, USB, and FireWire. Good God. This kind of multiple-connection production cannot be good for a company's bottom line.
I find their almost-always-there cached copy works like a dream when the original source has been moved, deleted, modified, etc. I often go directly to the cached source anyway just to quickly locate where my search terms appear. This is especially useful in really long, not-well-formated pages.
As a recent graduate of architecture school, and a future architect, I'd like to drop in my two cents.
There are thousands of architects in the United States; hundreds here in Los Angeles alone. But most people -- even in the profession itself -- can only name a few big names, like Frank Gehry or Eric Owen Moss. Most big-name architects are arrogant to no end (the classic example being Frank Lloyd Wright), and they tend to give the profession a bad reputation. Most architects I have known and worked for actually do care what their clients have to say and go out of their way to make sure the resulting design fulfils the client's (and not the architect's) desires. That's not to say that the architect doesn't try to influence the client's decisions, but if the client wants a brick building, then the architect is either going to design a brick building or pass on the project.
Several posters have mentioned that architects have a "we know best" attitude about just about everything. In our defense, I can only point to history in which architects did know best about just about everything. Many, if not most, of the greatest thinkers in history were at least part-time architects (from Leonardo da Vinci to Thomas Jefferson, there are more). Over time, however, the position has been diluted to building designer, rather than cultural philosopher; some people are unwilling to let go, despite the fact that they really have no qualifications.
The primary task of the Architect is to produce usable shelter for the client. If the client finds the result unusable, for just about any reason, then the Architect has failed.
At the same time, not all problems with buildings and spaces are the fault of an architect. Clients love to insist on mediocre ideas and marginal plans, and then have the gall to complain to the architect when they get what they asked for. Lots of buildings these days aren't even designed by architects at all. It's not uncommon for an owner to bypass the design professions (architecture, interior design, etc.) altogether and just hire a contractor to make changes to their space.
But in the end, architects do have a responsibility to listen to their clients needs, even if those needs seem counter-intuitive. Just as a chef would be way out of his or her element telling a radio astronomer how to search for extraterrestrial life, so are architects when they try to tell clients how to use their space. Architects can really only offer advice from experience with past projects.
What should happen? They should beef up telecom's protections to be equal to the cable industry.
What will happen? They will 'dumb down' these protections to be equivalent to telecom.
Hasn't anyone been paying attention? In a few months, privacy won't be the Topic of the Moment and the government will continue its conquest of your personal space.
...but not likely to happen. Let's see what I mean:
Ugh. For the record, I hate being this negative. But if a Windows clone is such a popular idea, why hasn't a major corporation stepped in to support one? I'm thinking that Sun or Oracle or another along those lines could throw a few billion in resources at it and have a fairly good Winclone in a year. I can only guess that the reason no one big has stepped up to the plate is because the OS is a dead-end market. Look at the "upgrade" from Windows 98 vs. 98 SE. SE?! Even Microsoft couldn't give it a new number in good conscience! There is only so much so-called functionality that can be thrown at an OS before users are no longer inclined to upgrade to the latest version. (For related proof, look at Netscape 4.sux, with its wonderful Shop button... oooh, just what I needed.)
The Operating System will go the way of the basic text editor and become an interchangable module, albeit a necessary one that allows your file/web browser to access information and data.
But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
While everyone is getting indignant and pointing fingers, rallying for/against Apple as it gets its own come-uppance of sorts, they seem to have lost sight of the issue at hand: the shape shouldn't matter (lame-o iMac lawsuits aside) becuase, last I checked (and IANAL), look and feel were not protectable. (That's why, not considering karmic forces, M$ isn't suing every window manager that looks like Win9x.)
The issue at hand is the name. Is the consumer likely to be confused? The better or more appropriate product for the consumer is an irrelevant issue with trademarks: the first product of that name gets all the protection. That doesn't prevent products in substantially different product areas from having the same trademark; indeed, one need only look for the story about how Apple had to settle with some music company regarding the use of the already-trademarked Macintosh name (or something along those lines).
A decent example: could I create a car company called "Dell Automobiles." Almost certainly, as one is not likely to mistake a car for a computer. Could I create a computer peripherals company, that only sold mice and keyboards, called "Dell Peripherals"? Heh. I'm likely to get sued just for suggesting it. 8^)
Point is, because both Cobalt and Apple sell computers, they both can't lay claim to the same trademark, even if those computers are marketed to mutually exclusive segments of the population; in the end, they're both selling computers. I believe the parent to this post clearly describes Cobalt's claim on the name, and thus the trademark. Variations on spelling of a trademark still dilute the trademark. Case closed.
I would like to say a special thanks to my sysadmin, Sam. He's a really great guy -- but don't get me wrong, he's a great guy in the BOFH sort of way.
The reason I'm singling him out for a tip of the hat is because he has taken the last few days remarkably well. Last Friday, we got hit by the Fwd:Joke variant of ILoveYou. After wiping out half a gig of images on our server, he dutifully restored them from backups and went around to each individual workstation (some seventy in our office) to personally chastise each user to NEVER OPEN FWD:JOKE EMAILS EVER EVER AGAIN. So what happened this morning? Yup. Several someones opened up fwd:joke emails. So he gets on the office PA and announces "Don't open any emails that say Fwd:Joke." So what happens? Yup again, half the office launches Lookout and opens the message to see what the problem is.
So now it's the end of the day and we're almost restored back to normal. It took him a couple of hours, but he finally got the mailserver back up and running. And he didn't even kill anyone. Although several people seem to be missing...
Anyone who is even remotely connected to UI development should read this article (especially the folks over at Mozilla). That being said, I have a couple of issues with some of their examples and ideas:
In conclusion, I offer my own disclaimer: I loved the paper. Anything above that may seem to be critical is only so in a constructive way. And finally: I can't wait for the Anti-Mac UI to arrive!
Hey, I thought that new Harry Potter book just came out last week?
(You laugh, but remember how many people said some sappy movie about a sinking ship would never top Star Wars.)
Have you been paying attention? Silly person, you don't get a fighting chance. But any chance you do happen to get will likely lead to fighting...
As frightening a possibility as it is, I take a certain level of comfort in knowing that if such a situation did arise (Napster becoming some kind of pay-per-play RIAA partner), damn near everyone would drop the service.
I don't use Napster (or any other distributed trading network), but almost everyone I know has already made the switch to gnutella. Call it rats leaving a sinking ship, but I think the only thing Napster has in its future is setting a legal precedent. It doesn't matter whether that precedent is in its favor or not. Either way it goes, I don't forsee Napster existing say, five years from now.
I love people like this. The world is either black, or it is white. Gray does not exist.
Following Ed's logic, it is perfectly fine if I break into your house, rape your wife, kill your kids, and cut your legs off, so long as I justify it by giving you a stern warning (after the fact, no less) that your home security system is woefully inadequate. "No need to thank me, sir, just performing a public service."
Bah.
You could argue (and I would join you) that breaching computer security is different than endangering a human life -- unless, of course, that breaching computer security results in the endangerment of human lives. There are gray areas to almost everything, but the sanctity of human life should be an overarching consideration in anything you do.
The concern is not (necessarily) for the people directly named in the report. From the article:
If it could be proven that an American citizen was harmed due to Mr. Young's posting of the unedited document, he could and should be held liable for it. One may argue that this is a First Amendment issue, but the SC has ruled on many occasions that First Amendment protections do not provide any rights to cause harm to others. (Examples: you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater; you can't claim religious freedom to kill people; the list goes on.)
As to what level the NY Times would/could/should be held accountable for their obvious gaffe -- well, I imagine that would be for the courts to decide.
Rent out a theater for one night. Bring your computer and an LCD projector. Screen the movie, a single showing. Give away free tickets (if you want a crowd) or just invite your friends. Then go back home and start broadcasting it over the internet.
This pretty much circumvents the restrictions. There is a theatrical screening; it is not an internet transmission. Done.
Of course, I'd be interested in knowing if any of this matters if your film doesn't get the blessing of the MPAA -- you know, that nice little box down at the bottom of the ads (if you ever make any) that says that the MPAA has rated your movie G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17. Are unrated films eligible for Academy Awards anyway?
Why do people pirate software? From my own experience, it is a combination of two things:
- Price
- Availability
with #1 usually being the deciding factor. By making it increasingly difficult to pay for Windows, and then dicking around with what you can do with your copy once you buy it, Microsoft is all but ensuring that it will be pirated.If MS really wanted to end (or almost end) piracy of its software, it would make its software available for so little cost (and in so may locations) that it would not be economical to pirate it.
Think about it: what if you could run down to your local 7-11 store and pick up a copy of Windows 2000 at the check-out line for $14.99? Or maybe just $4.99?
Hmmm. After careful consideration, I can't help but agree: The Wall Street Journal is a pr0n site.
I think this part of the Washington Post article says it all:
WTF? Yeah, whenever I think of Slashdot, I think of its robust yeastiness. Heh.
The 5k website is taking forever to load...
Could just be the /. effect in action, but I still find it rather amusing. 8^)
As far as the sites themselves go... wow. I figure my site weighs in at over 100k; most of the sites I like are in the same vicinity; but the sites that won are really spectacular. Good inspiration for my next version...
An interesting idea to say the least. The basic run-down: each visitor is presented with a website, seemingly at random. They are then asked to select another website that they feel is related to the one displayed. As the site states, visitors are free to be as obvious or obscure as they like. The next visitor to the website is presented with the website the first visitor chose, and so on. (Not sure how it keeps track of the thread; what if two people access the site before the first is done making his or her selection? Does the path fork? Then which path is presented to the next visitor?)
I'm really fascinated by what the end product will be. I imagine it will be something like the stories we used to write in English class: each student would type out a sentence on their computer, then get up and move to the computer to their right and type another sentence, and so forth around the room. When we were done, we would read "our" story to the class. Most of the time they ended up being one step above gibberish, but every now and then a really fascinating plot would develop.
I wish the site didn't limit visitors to a single site selection. I would be interested in the a long path of related sites a user would follow. But this will be cool anyway. Everyone should add to this project!
Normally, I would not support such a call for illegal activity. (And yes, regardless of moral/ethical justifications, it would be illegal to hack into a company's computers to disable their software [unless of course you're the software author and you have your UCITA license BS on your side].) However, given the long and impressive list of groups opposed to UCITA, and the fact that states are passing this biased legislation anyway, it is so incredibly obvious that our elected officials have passed the point of even caring about public accountability that something must be done!
You can bet that after a few high profile lawsuits by big guns like GM most software companies would think twice about backdoor timebombs and the like. And if a part of the US Government suddenly ground to halt because their software was "accidentally" disabled? Holy cow, I can't imagine that company being allowed to do business in the United States after that. (I can imagine the ATF/FBI/NSA/etc raiding the executives' homes looking for pr0n and the like -- nothing like embarassing the execs in public to make a point.)
A few comments here:
Was that responsible reporting?
If you look at the article from the standpoint of spreading inaccuracies, then no, it is not responsible reporting. However, if you look at it as trying to squash a rumor before it can get started, then yes, it is responsible reporting.
I think that pretty much summarizes my argument: a published report came in, the editor researched the evidence, and made a report. How much more responsible is he supposed to get?
(And if you're really interested in blasting someone for irresponsible reporting, try the folks over at BeNews who ran the story in the first place -- despite their own admission that they were unable to get a complete English translation of the interview in question or make contact with Be(Europe)!)